Gardens of Notre-Dame: an analysis of Emmanuel Grégoire’s interview in the JDD

All the versions of this article: English , français

Please consider signing the petition, if you have not already done so.

1. Emmanuel Grégoire
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page

The Journal du Dimanche, which reveals itself week after week more and more as the official organ of Paris City Hall, published today on its website an interview with an interview with Emmanuel Grégoire (ill. 1), the first deputy of Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris, about the petition (ill. 2) launched to save the Notre-Dame gardens. Before looking at the interview itself, let’s note a first mistake made by the journalist who collected the words of the elected representative and who states that the project is "strongly opposed by #SaccageParis which has launched an online petition". If this journalist had checked, he would have seen that if the people tweeting under the #SaccageParis are indeed contesting the project, they did not launch the petition. The petition was started by one person, and one person only: his name is Baptiste Gianeselli and he is known on Twitter as @Baptiste75004. He is a young Parisian who is not at his first fight for the city’s heritage (he had already successfully launched a petition for the Place de la Concorde, and is still fighting for the rotunda of La Villette). We know this all the better because we gave him a hand by re-reading his text and publishing a news item on 24 April simultaneously with the petition. He was also interviewed by BFMTV (you can see it here).


2. Petition page (over 28,400 at the time of publication) - 20 h 31, 29/4/23)
See the image in its page

But back to Emmanuel Grégoire. The first deputy obviously likes the "mise en abyme". For in denouncing the supposed fake news that this petition would contain, he commits a big one. Can we believe the liar who calls out the liar? Obviously not. Moreover, around the time this interview appeared on the Journal du Dimanche website, the petition was accelerating dramatically. We would like Emmanuel Gregoire to express himself more often.

But saying that Emmanuel Gregoire is talking nonsense is not enough. You have to prove it. And that is very easy. Let’s look at his arguments.

"It’s a pile of fake news from a sphere we know well: Saccage Paris. These people lie shamelessly" Lying about the origin of the petition - let’s repeat that Saccage Paris supports it, but did not launch it - he therefore insults from the outset all those who identify with this informal collective (the author of this article is one of them).

"They are political opponents who are trying to manipulate public opinion by attacking us on all subjects, in all circumstances". That the movement is essentially composed of apolitical citizens, who do not militate in any party and do not support any party, has already been widely proven. Not long ago, the town hall accused the Saccage Paris movement of being far right. The most amusing thing is that Baptiste Gianeselli voted twice for Anne Hidalgo, in 2014 and 2020, even if he is now dying of it.

"This pure instrumentalization is sometimes akin to slanderous denunciation". If this is the case, it is a criminal offence. We are therefore surprised that Emmanuel Grégoire and the Paris City Council, who do not hesitate to file complaints (the city pays their lawyers), do not bring these cases to court...

"It also has a political objective: to join forces with the Parisian right." Already far-right and Macronist, the opponents of this project are now simply right-wing (the republican right since the far right is almost totally absent from Paris). They are decidedly Machiavellian.


3. John XXIII Square, current state with the base camp
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page

"Already, the surroundings of Notre-Dame are no longer "as it was before". The site no longer exists" The construction site and the installation of the base camp have certainly caused considerable damage to the square Jean XXIII, but the latter - which was never affected by the fire - obviously still exists (ill. 3). The lawns, flowers and yew trees have disappeared, the benches have been removed, the gates have not moved, the fountain in the centre of the old lawn still stands, and all the trees are there. Restoring "as it was before" (Emmanuel Grégoire likes to play with words, it seems) simply means restoring the lawns, flowerbeds and shrubs that existed and putting the benches back. Nothing too complex. To suggest otherwise is wrong.
As for the Square de l’île-de-France (ill. 4), where the Deportation Memorial is located, not only does it still exist, but it has remained intact.


4. The square of Ile-de-France which, according to Emmanuel Grégoire, no longer exists...
Photo : Didier Rykner (25/4/23)
See the image in its page

"The only two new features are, on the one hand, to increase the vegetation and, on the other hand, to transform the two squares - named Jean-XXIII and Île-de-France - into a single large open garden". No, these are not the only new features. We have shown that a new building was to be constructed to the south of the chevet of Notre-Dame (ill. 5). As for the vegetation, apart from the fact that the project does not foresee the return of flowers or shrubs, if it is true that the number of trees will be increased, one realises on closer inspection that some mature trees will disappear (why, we do not know) and will therefore be replaced by small trees.) For this we refer to this Twitter thread from @JCQDSE.


5. The gardeners’ room to be built to the south of the chevet (model of the project)
See the image in its page

"The winning project [...] strictly respects the design of the historic square, as well as the specifications which called for sobriety. The only two new features are, on the one hand, the increased vegetation and, on the other hand, the transformation of the two squares - named Jean-XXIII and Île-de-France - into a single large open garden".
The petition never mentions the "drawing of the historic square" because the denaturation goes far beyond the drawing: it is a complete destructuring of the site. And we would like to understand how one can "strictly respect the design of the historic square" and "transform the two squares into one large open garden". This is obviously incompatible. Not only does it not respect the "exterior" design of the historic Archbishop’s garden since it merges it with the Île-de-France garden, but it does not respect its "interior" design either since it enlarges the lawn and changes its shape.
Here again, Emmanuel Grégoire is talking nonsense.

"Despite the fake news, I guarantee that the layout of the Square Jean-XXIII will be preserved and that the historic street furniture will be restored and re-installed in its original form".
We have seen that the layout of John XXIII Square will not be preserved, since these layouts are both its boundaries - the gates - and its design - notably that of its lawn. And when Emmanuel Grégoire explains that his historic street furniture will be restored and re-installed identically, how can we believe him when the official documents from the town hall show the opposite? Let’s also remember that some of the benches were broken by sledgehammers (see this article).
Moreover, he himself, once again, contradicts himself a little further on: "The historical furniture will not be removed. Perhaps there will be some modern elements: on the visuals of the winning project, we can see granite seats, for example - an interesting proposal, which has not been decided at this stage - but there is absolutely no question of removing the Davioud benches".
So he reveals that we cannot even believe the visuals of the winning project circulated by the town hall. And if we believe them, we are spreading fake news. It’s all very confusing: either he realises it, and that’s bad, or he doesn’t... and that’s no less bad.

"The people of Saccage Paris are raving about a project that has not even been fully arbitrated". What should we do then? Not to believe what the Paris City Council itself shows, and what it wants to have validated by the Commission Nationale du Patrimoine et de l’Architecture [1]? It is all surreal.

Regarding the disappearing grilles of the Square Jean XXIII on the project model, on the project video, on the project plans, on the project file presented to the CNPA, this is what Emmanuel Grégoire replied: "We hesitated about whether or not to keep these grilles, and I understand that this question is being debated. However, the project does not affect the Viollet-le-Duc grilles that surround Notre-Dame in the immediate vicinity, which will be kept. On the other hand, we have chosen to remove the grilles that separate the two squares, in order to create a large garden from the cathedral to the Memorial of the Martyrs of the Deportation, which will obviously be protected by other grilles".

First of all, at no point does the petition mention the "Viollet-le-Duc grilles", which are in fact affected by the project because they want to open them on the chevet side. When he says that they are not touching them, strictly speaking this is false.
Then, when he talks about the grilles that "separate the two squares", it is a very big approximation because in reality he removes all the grilles and not only those that "separate the two squares". To be completely fair, the two squares are currently separated by a street, so there is no fence between the two squares. Here again, Emmanuel Grégoire is talking nonsense. This is neither the first nor the last time. On 9 July 2022 he told the Parisien [2]: "It is clearly assumed that there will be no more grilles in Square Jean XXIII". On 27 April 2023 (the day before yesterday), he denounced in the same Parisien "the patacaisse on a project that is not definitively arbitrated, including the removal of the gates". And so today, on this point, he would have definitively arbitrated... And if it was Emmanuel Grégoire who was "raving"?


6. Merchandise from a street vendor near the Eiffel Tower
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page
7. A "bonneteau" player near the Eiffel Tower
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page

Secondly, Emmanuel Grégoire tries to be a philosopher. Why does he want a free access garden?
"This is an interesting political, even philosophical, topic. Do we consider that citizens are potential delinquents or that the vast majority are reasonable people? I personally think that we should not punish everyone because of the erring ways of a few. As a matter of principle, I want to trust them. We have a municipal police force for protection, and the green space services for maintenance. We could also close down everything, ban everything, while we’re at it. I believe that public space belongs to everyone. And I don’t think there are too many gardens in Paris to be deprived of them in the evening".
The problem is not to trust people, but to trust the Paris City Council. We know very well, and this is not a philosophical consideration, that even if "in the vast majority" people are "reasonable", a fraction of the population will degrade the places. We see this everywhere in Paris. And this degradation is all the more certain as the places will not be guarded, since no Parisian garden is. The municipal police? For the moment, we don’t really know what it’s for. You only have to walk around the Eiffel Tower to see dozens of street vendors (ill. 6), and "bonneteau" players (ill. 7), not to mention the pickpockets we haven’t had to deal with (we’re very careful), but we know that they are very active in these places. Who are we going to punish here? Certainly not those who want a quiet, beautiful, safe and well maintained garden.


8. A "lawn" with free access at the Champ-de-Mars
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page
9. A "lawn" with free access at the Champ-de-Mars
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page

As for the open-access lawns: "I fully accept our decision to let families picnic on the lawns at the foot of Notre Dame. This is not an attack on the heritage or history". What is certain is that it is an attack on the lawns, and therefore on the garden. This is what the lawns around the Eiffel Tower look like when left open to the public (ill. 8 and 9). The central lawns have just been redone, and are currently off-limits to the public (with fences of a rare ugliness - ill. 10). As there is no surveillance, one of them is already invaded because an opening has been made in the fence (ill. 11), and two others are left open again. We do not give them long to degrade again,
Note that even reasonable people, who come by the hundreds to trample the lawns for picnics or ball games, are inexorably degrading them.


10. Newly resurfaced lawn at Champ-de-Mars protected by ugly fences
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page
11. Newly resurfaced lawn at Champ-de-Mars and theoretically protected by ugly fences that have been partly removed
Photo : Didier Rykner
Photo : Didier Rykner
See the image in its page

When asked about "the damage to biodiversity caused by trampling of the lawns and night lighting", Emmanuel Grégoire replies: "We are the first to defend the black spaces for biodiversity. But here we are talking about Jean-XXIII Square, which is already lit at night, even when closed, not to mention the lighting of the cathedral".
He does not answer the question of the lawns (it’s a bit difficult), and he dares to explain that John XXIII Square would be "already lit at night". Does he mean today, with the construction site? Or five years ago when the garden was closed at night? We confess that we do not remember whether or not it was lit at night (which would be surprising). If it was, it is obvious that it should no longer be, if only for reasons of energy efficiency. As for talking about "the lighting of the cathedral" at night...

The interview then addresses the question of the negative opinions expressed by more than 80%. And what does Emmanuel Grégoire say? "Once again, it’s not true! These figures come out of nowhere". No, these figures don’t come out of "nowhere", they come out of the idees.paris.fr website where the opinions were collected for the consultation. So you can find the elements here, and our analysis at the time there. There was no ambiguity. 80% of voters did not want the gardens of Notre-Dame to be touched.

"The consultation is not a referendum, but a collection of opinions. We have taken into account many observations". It could not be better said that the results of a consultation have no value for the Paris City Council.

"I would add that the grand jury of the international competition brought together representatives of the diocese, the ABF
(Architectes des bâtiments de France
 [3]), the Drac (Direction régionale des affaires culturelles [4]), the Établissement public de conservation et de restauration de la cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris and the City Hall; the winning project was designated unanimously, minus one vote against and one abstention."
Precisely, what we are contesting is the organisation of a competition to redo the gardens of Notre-Dame when what Parisians (and many others) want is to see them restored to their pre-fire state (and for the Square de l’Île-de-France to be left alone).
The fact that the project was voted on by the diocese, the DRAC, the ABF, the public establishment and the City does not change anything: if it is a bad project and it would not be the first, especially in Paris, to receive authorisation from the Ministry of Culture. It should also be noted that this project was presented in such an imprecise and sometimes misleading manner that even we were able to be deceived and give it a large part of the approval (see article). Finally, this project is global: even if it remains questionable in many respects, the "parvis" and "rue du Cloître-Notre-Dame" parts are less bad. The petition only concerns the gardens.

Regarding the meeting of the CNPA, this is what Emmanuel Grégoire replied. "It is not insignificant that this petition is coming out now".
We can testify that Baptiste Gianeselli, when he contacted us before launching the petition, did not know that it was scheduled for 11 May. And neither did we. It was only after the launch and the publication of our first article that we were informed of this date and that we were able to examine the document that would be presented by the City of Paris! But it is true that Emmanuel Grégoire and the Paris City Council see plots everywhere.

"I will present this project in detail to the CNPA, I will re-establish the truth, I will show that Notre-Dame and this UNESCO World Heritage site can only benefit from this development. Fortunately, the CNPA does not play politics". Emmanuel Grégoire, as we have seen, thinks he can re-establish the truth with lies. This is quite daring, and the CNPA might not really appreciate it. The CNPA does not play politics, he is right, any more than we do, but it knows this file, probably even better than we do. We wish Emmanuel Grégoire good luck, or rather good luck to the members of the CNPA. If our articles can help them, we will be happy.

Your comments

In order to be able to discuss articles and read the contributions of other subscribers, you must subscribe to The Art Tribune. The advantages and conditions of this subscription, which will also allow you to support The Art Tribune, are described on the subscription page.

If you are already a subscriber, sign in.