Almost two years ago, the then French Minister of Culture, Rima Abdul-Malak, commissioned a report from Charles Personnaz, director of the INP, to consider the creation of a museum dedicated to Notre-Dame de Paris. Although the President of the Republic spoke once on this subject in December 2023 during a visit to Notre-Dame, to our knowledge, this was the only and last time. Since then, he has remained completely silent on this subject, which seems to interest him only moderately, preferring to focus on his harmful project for the Louvre (see articles).
Neither the provisional report nor the final report submitted by Charles Personnaz to the Ministry of Culture have been made public, and everyone is acting as if this project does not exist, except when it comes to asserting (against all logic and evidence) that the stained-glass windows removed from the cathedral’s south chapels (see articles) will be reinstalled in this museum, which is neither desirable nor even possible. This would be even less possible if the AP-HP’s proposal for the creation of this museum, which has reappeared in the public arena in recent days, were to materialise.
We have already had occasion to write here on numerous occasions that the AP-HP (Assistance publique - hôpitaux de Paris), the institution that manages Parisian hospitals, is an enemy of heritage. This is perhaps even more true since its president is Nicolas Revel, the son of one of the leading French intellectual figures of the second half of the 20th century, Jean-François Revel.
Not content with undermining the hospital system, the AP-HP seems determined to damage Paris’ heritage, as we regularly report on this website. Its latest victim is the Musée de l’Œuvre Notre-Dame.
Admittedly, the public inquiry, which began on 2 June and will end on 4 July, does provide for a “heritage and cultural component” consisting of “the installation of a museum dedicated to the cathédrale Notre-Dame [...] on 6,000 m² to the north-west, on the rue de la Cité side”. We also learn that this project would be led by the Centre des Monuments Nationaux.
However, the plan that has been released, the planned surface area and the location to the north-west of the Hôtel-Dieu, i.e. as far away as possible from the cathedral, obviously raises many questions and, above all, does not meet the needs expressed in the final report.
-
- 1. The space reserved by the APHP for the museum is too small, on the
the flower market and directly opposite the cathedral.
One can see that at the junction of the two yellow wings, the diagram remains white
because the two buildings will be separated, with the corner remaining part of the hospital.
(see also ill. 3).
Illustration taken from the public inquiry. - See the image in its page
We were able to obtain this final report, which was never published. Reading it is enlightening as to how the AP-HP is trying to force through, with the complicity of the Prefect of Île-de-France (and therefore the State), a project that would condemn the museum before it even opens.
Four options are discussed in this document, the first of which, the one that the AP-HP wishes to implement, is the only one that it clearly rejects (ill. 1). Here are the major drawbacks of this solution [1]:
-
- 2. On the left and in the background are the two buildings where the APHP wants to house the museum. The recent construction in the courtyard will be demolished and replaced by another building, which will be the only passageway between the two wings.
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
– The two buildings that would house the museum (ill. 2) are not connected, as the staircase between them will be used by the AP-HP and therefore not available to the museum.
The museum would therefore be located in two buildings connected only by a corner (ill. 3)! It would therefore be necessary to create additional vertical circulation routes taking up exhibition space and connecting them by constructing a building in the courtyard they surround [2]
-
- 3. We can see that the museum (circled in red) would be completely opposite the cathedral.
A low building would need to be added in the courtyard to connect the two wings.
Illustration taken from the public inquiry
(we have added the museum boundaries in red) - See the image in its page
– The portion of the Hôtel-Dieu allocated to the museum would therefore only provide 3,700 m² of exhibition space, whereas the requirements are between 7,000 and 9,000 m².
It should be noted that the public inquiry states that the museum would cover 6,000 m², which is incorrect, firstly because certain intermediate floors, which are necessary to obtain rooms of sufficient size, have been removed, and secondly because of the creation of the additional circulation areas already mentioned.
This falsehood is compounded by a second one, as it is written: “according to the latest hypotheses, this new cultural establishment would need to occupy an area of 6,000 m²”. It is unclear who, apart from the AP-HP, arrived at this figure, but the report clearly states that the required usable area is between 7,000 and 9,000 m².
And, as we have just seen, the actual surface area would in fact be 3,700 m². This is not the only lie in the public inquiry as it is written, as can be seen from the following point.
– A glance at the plan is enough to see that the option chosen by the AP-HP does not allow any view of the cathedral.
However, in the public inquiry, we read that the museum’s layout is “progressive, leading visitors to gain height, physically from the basement to the museum floors, but also by multiplying the angles and viewpoints of the cathedral and its history”.
The AP-HP and the prefecture are playing with words here, because any normal person would read that by gaining height “physically”, visitors would have several views of Notre-Dame. However, these are not real views, but intellectual views...
– The museum will in fact be completely disconnected from the cathedral, located directly opposite it in the Hôtel-Dieu. The fact that an entrance is planned on the façade of the Hôtel-Dieu does not change this. On the one hand, because it will be a shared entrance, and on the other hand, because visitors will then have to walk 80 metres through the building to actually enter the museum. The Notre Dame Museum will be more like a flower market museum, at least in terms of its layout.
– This will also lead, as stated in the report, to "conflicts of use with other users of the site, which would be detrimental to all".
– Finally, as the report also states, "public success [...] could be more limited, leading to a drop in ticket sales and reduced appeal for sponsors", which will result in higher costs for the State. The creation of a cut-price museum, with insufficient exhibition space and therefore far fewer works on display, will also contribute to this reduced appeal.
In short, this project is a bad idea, even though the report proposes three other options, between which it does not choose, and at least two of which seem acceptable to us, one more so than the other, which would also avoid penalising the project planned for Novaxia too much.
It is important to remember what is motivating the AP-HP: to make as much money as possible from the Hôtel-Dieu site through commercial development.
-
- 5. First scenario examined in the report
Illustration taken from the report - See the image in its page
The first scenario (option 2 in the report, the first being that of the AP-HP) allocates to the museum the right-hand side of the façade on the forecourt and the pavilion immediately to the right of the central entrance hall, which would serve as the entrance to the museum (ill. 4). In order to allow for the commercial spaces desired by the AP-HP, these would occupy both the left side of the façade and the first two levels of the right side. To give the museum sufficient space, it would extend (on the same upper levels) over the west wing of the courtyard to join one of the arms toward the Île de la Cité. Some of the reception and service functions would be located in the basement, beneath the central courtyard. It is important to note here that, contrary to what one might think, the Île de la Cité would not be affected by flooding of the Seine.
One of the main drawbacks of this project is the excessive size of the museum, which is impractical for both the museum and visitors. It also provides for the creation of a “new temporary structure” in this courtyard for temporary exhibitions, which is not acceptable.
-
- 5. Second scenario examined in the report
Illustration taken from the report - See the image in its page
-
- 6. View of the entrance to the Hôtel-Dieu on the forecourt, and the right-hand side, which would be entirely occupied by the museum in scenario 2 of the report.
Photo: Didier Rykner - See the image in its page
The second scenario (option 3) concentrates the museum spaces on the right-hand side of the façade on the forecourt, adding the two wings that surround the first courtyard on the right on Rue d’Arcole, keeping the main entrance through the reception pavilion and installing the temporary exhibition hall under the central courtyard garden (ill. 5 et 6).
Like the previous scenario, this one allows views (real this time) of the cathedral (thanks to a terrace belvedere). Its only drawback is that it is more difficult for Novaxia and the AP-HP to accept because it reduces the commercial space on the façade facing the forecourt, which would then only exist on the left side.
-
- 7. The third scenario examined in the report is, in our opinion, the best option, excluding the construction in the north-west courtyard, the necessity of which is not clear.
Illustration taken from the report - See the image in its page
The third and final scenario (option 4) distributes the museum space across the entire façade and the two wings perpendicular to it on either side of the central garden, covering a quarter of these wings (ill. 7). As in the first scenario, it leaves the spaces on the forecourt free for Novaxia’s commercial programme, but has the advantage over the previous scenario of being more balanced in the distribution of the museum spaces, which will all be located at height above the forecourt.
Strangely, this project also provides for an opening onto Rue de la Cité, as in the scenario chosen by the AP-HP, without any clear explanation of its purpose. This point should probably be reviewed without changing the programme too much. As in the previous option, temporary exhibitions would be installed under the central garden.
Like the first scenario, it is more compliant with the constraints imposed by Novaxia.
It therefore seems logical to eliminate the first scenario, which is too extensive and asymmetrical, as well as the second, which, although satisfactory in terms of location, offers less space for the museum and is likely to be more difficult for the AP-HP to accept, unless it is compensated for its loss of income.
The third scenario is logical and consistent in terms of location, the space allocated to the museum is comfortable and it preserves more of the commercial area, which seems essential to the AP-HP. As the latter has never responded to our questions, nor has Novaxia, which long ago referred us to the AP-HP, we do not know why it did not consider this option or why it is so determined to push through its own scenario [3].
The document presenting the public inquiry explains that a modification of the PLU is necessary to implement the AP-HP/Novaxia project, which is correct because it is expressly stated in the current PLU that, as it is located in a zone (UGSU), it is prohibited to build housing, offices or commercial premises there. However, it also states that in order to build the museum, it is also necessary to amend the PLU, which is much more debatable. This is because nowhere does it state that cultural facilities, and a fortiori museums, are prohibited.
To overcome this awkward point, the public inquiry explains that: "it should be noted that the major museums of the capital, such as the Louvre, the Centre Pompidou and the Musée d’Arts Modernes... are all classified as UG zones, which confirms that the authors of the PLU did not consider museums to fall within the category of ’major facilities and services necessary for the functioning of the urban area’". This is a particularly specious interpretation, since museums are never included in local urban planning documents because they are too specific in nature and, as there are no zones designated for them, they can just as easily be located in a UG zone as in a UGSU zone, especially since, as we have said, there is nothing to prevent this.
The museum is thus held hostage by the AP-HP, on the one hand because it is likely that the conversion of a small part of the Hôtel-Dieu into a museum, which would not change the main purpose of this hospital, would not require a modification of the PLU. It is indeed the Novaxia project that requires this.
Secondly, because there is no zoning that would allow the installation of a museum but prevent the installation of shops, offices and housing. Apart from Urban Green Areas (UV) and Natural and Forest Areas (N) - which obviously do not concern the Hôtel-Dieu - the only choice is between UG and UGSU, both of which can accommodate a museum.
Let us add that the Novaxia project in its current state[[The project includes no less than 5,000 m² of "restaurants and shops" and 700 m² of "auditoriums and exhibition spaces" (excluding the museum, of course)... To make it all go through, there will be around 3,000 m² of social housing, which will include, in addition to "around 40 homes for approximately 55 residents" (in a city that has been losing an average of around 1,250 residents per year since 2011) and, of course, the inevitable nursery, which is used to push through all controversial projects. Added to this is an "innovation, health research and office centre" covering approximately 10,000 m². This is not only a threat to the museum, but also to the monument, which was recently listed and should obviously be classified. There are plans to build in several courtyards overlooking Rue de la Cité and Rue d’Arcole, replacing some existing eyesores, when this opportunity should be taken to finally clear the building.
Nobody asks the public inquiry to decide whether there should be a museum or the Novaxia project. Approval would de facto authorise both. It is therefore preferable to reject this change to the local urban development plan, which would facilitate the AP-HP’s plan to undermine the museum. For once, the majority of the Paris Council, which opposes the commercialisation of the site, should be able to decide on this matter. Above all, the State, without which this dirty trick would not be possible, must pull itself together and put Nicolas Revel back in his place. That of a senior civil servant who is not free to do as he pleases. This is first and foremost a political decision.
The public inquiry began on 2 June and will continue until 4 July at 5 p.m., with an information and discussion meeting to be held on Tuesday 24 June 2025 from 8 p.m. at the Hôtel-Dieu (Amphithéâtre Dupuytren, Aile A1).
We encourage all our readers to participate in this inquiry by visiting the website set up for this consultation: the file can be found here, and you can contribute from this page. We invite you to read the file and use any of the arguments we have developed in this article that you find relevant.
To summarise what is planned for the museum, it will be:
– far too small for its needs,
– absurdly laid out in two buildings with no horizontal circulation between them,
– far from the cathedral and with no view of it,
– difficult to finance as patrons will be much less interested.
It is therefore difficult to imagine anything worse.
Attending the information meeting on 24 June to tell the investigating commissioners directly what you think is also a desirable step. We will be there. Just as we are fighting against the replacement of the stained glass windows of Notre-Dame, we will do everything we can to ensure that the museum can be housed in the best possible way in the Hôtel-Dieu. And we would like to conclude by reminding everyone that, rather than preventing the creation of this museum, the AP-HP would do better to focus on its own museum (called the Musée de l’Assistance Publique), which it shamefully closed thirteen years ago.