Notre Dame’s rebuilding has entered its final phase. After 346 days, Paris’s monumental cathedral will reopen its doors, marking a new chapter in its long history. The reopening follows the devastating fire of April 15, 2019, which destroyed the spire designed by Viollet-le-Duc and damaged parts of the 19th century roof. Despite a tight five-year target set by President Emmanuel Macron, the restoration progressed steadily. Work is planned to continue through the decade, but indicators suggest Notre Dame will welcome visitors again in the near term, with a recent timeline pointing to late 2020s as the completion window.
But this last stretch of reconstruction has been shadowed by a recurring debate in French public life. A year before the planned reopening, Macron visited the site on December 8 and announced a public competition to select an artist for six new stained glass windows in Notre Dame. The president stressed that the decision would come from a consensus between the French Church and the Elysée, promising that the result would carry a mark of the 21st century. The new windows would be installed in the southern nave, replacing six panels by Viollet-le-Duc that were not affected by the fire.
Although the new windows do not imply a radical departure, the way the competition was organized sparked controversy across the country. Nearly 125,000 people signed a petition opposing the removal of Le Duc’s original designs in favor of a contemporary reinterpretation. Critics, such as Didier Rykner, editor of Tribune de l art, warned that contemporary stained glass has no place in such an ancient structure and cannot replace the existing masterpieces. The petition and ensuing public discussion underscored the sensitivity of preserving historic craft while embracing reinterpretation.
Are we going to continue to harm Viollet-le-Duc’s legacy? That question has lingered since the disaster and has become a litmus test for how France wishes to balance tradition with modernity in its cultural icons. The reconstruction has been one of the signature cultural endeavors of Macron’s presidency, and it sparked a wide range of opinions about architectural identity and national heritage. After the massive fire, an international architectural competition was proposed to design a new spire that would reflect contemporary techniques and challenges. Public pressure, changes in political leadership, and evolving viewpoints ultimately influenced the path forward, with decisions shifting along the way about how closely to imitate the original design or to pursue a fresh interpretation.
The Notre Dame restoration is framed as a chance to renew national unity and pride, yet the project has repeatedly encountered debates that challenge easy conclusions. As noted by critics such as Rykner in conservative press commentary, the question remains whether the goal is to honor past craftsmanship or to embrace new forms that speak to today’s audience. The discussion about stained glass also touched on an important metric used by church officials: the majority of Notre Dame’s windows date from the 20th century and later restorations rather than the medieval period, shaping arguments on how best to preserve and present the cathedral’s luminous heritage. These debates illustrate a broader conversation about how a living monument should evolve while staying true to its origins.
There are numerous examples across France where restoration work has refreshed rather than erased the past. From Metz Cathedral’s celebrated stained glass by the renowned artist Marc Chagall to new murals in iconic venues, contemporary interventions can complement original art and elevate the overall experience. Yet the Notre Dame discussion highlights the tension between conservation and revitalization, a delicate balance that faces every major heritage project. In recent commentary, figures in the art and architecture press have emphasized that restoring a national treasure requires both respect for history and openness to new interpretations, even when that stance invites disagreement among scholars, clergy, and the public. The ongoing discourse reflects a vibrant cultural ecosystem where heritage, memory, and identity are continuously negotiated.