International Architect Competition to rebuild Notre Dame Spire

Yes. Sounds like a reality show. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/france-announces-competition-to-rebuild-notre-dames-spire/ar-BBW1S2M?ocid=ientp

Are you surprised? This is exactly what I would have expected.
All the current posts and comments about 'how they should rebuild it' are going to hate this competition.

I doubt very much it will be 'restored' to any past period in time. I'm not saying I wouldn't also wish the same, but even this sentimental fool knows that ain't gonna happen.
Consider the Louvre extension - enough said.

Yeah, you're right, Maria. I guess this shouldn't come as a surprise.

I'd add that I would like to see the French people be able to vote yes or no on the selected design before it's implemented. I would hate to see a committee choose some design that causes as much dismay as the glass pyramid at the Louvre did when it was first unveiled. But then, the majority have become quite attached to that pyramid, so who's to say. After all the last incarnation of the spire was a 'new' design at the time and not a reproduction of the old.

The title of this post is misleading. The competition is for a design for the spire, not the whole cathedral.

The spire destroyed in the blaze was added to the cathedral during a 19th Century restoration project led by French architect Eugene Viollet-le-Duc.

Compared with the rest of the cathedral, the spire was a modern addition. A different spire would not be changing any of the historical features.

I fixed it, Chris.

Well, lots of people hated the tower when Mr. Eiffel built it -- most today couldn't imagine Paris without it.

I hope they put something different up as a steeple; maybe something to let in more light. Things change. The Cathedral has changed over hundreds of years including the addition of that steeple that burned about 150 years ago. I'd like to see something that marks out this fire and the change in the Cathedral and its continued evolution.

But then I love the Bastille Opera house, particularly technically and its inside finishing, but also am okay with it externally and find the Pyramid at the Louvre a nice modern enhancement of the space.

I'd expect them to use modern materials to restore the roof as well instead of finding thousands of enormous oaks and waiting a decade for beams cut from them to cure before usable.

I agree with janettravels44 (except about the Bastille Opera house :)

I admit the outside of the opera house is not to everyone's taste but the inside is beautifully finished and a wonderful technical stage. I have been to operas in a dozen houses around the world and it is my favorite for actually seeing and listening to an opera. The Fenice which we visited before it burned to the ground (by a contractor) was the most beautiful but the old fashioned houses are very limited technically.

Said on a past "This Old House" program on renovating an old (for the US) house: "They don't build them like they used to...Thank God! "

Good points above about the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre Pyramid (which I like too). Am I right that Notre Dame had no central tower or spire at all before the 1860s one? Maybe they should just replace the roof (with less fire-prone material) and call it good.

Or maybe they'll go for a "bold" gesture that everyone will hate until a few decades have passed and everyone is used to it and wonders what the fuss was about (like ET and pyramid).

I'm agnostic about the Bastille Opera but admit I've never been inside. I like Garnier better.

As long as it's not like the Ontario College of Art & Design. I have to drive past this eyesore once in a while:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_-_ON_-_Ontario_College_of_Art_&_Design2.jpg

As long as it's not like the Ontario College of Art & Design

Gundersen, I think we're safe in assuming it won't be. :) I'm not sure how I feel about that building but I will admit that, based on what the the building's use is, it's a good advertisement.

I am not sure I understand why replacing a 19th century spire is important when a 12 century church has been so damaged. Probably just me, but I really think there are other priorities in restoring this icon.

I am not sure I understand why replacing a 19th century spire is
important when a 12 century church has been so damaged. Probably just
me, but I really think there are other priorities in restoring this
icon.

Of course they will restore the portions of the cathedral that were damaged. The announcement is only for how to rebuild the destroyed spire. That will be about the last thing they do and will be years away.