Top French art historian is publishing a report on the 2019 Notre Dame fire and says not only could the blaze have been avoided, but no real lessons have been learned since, meaning other historic buildings remain vulnerable.
Didier Rykner, French historian and journalist who is editor of La Tribune de l’art and whose report on the near total loss of the cathedral of Notre Dame in 2019 was published this month has spoken out on the continuing danger to such world-class heritage buildings. Leveling his criticism at the French government this week, he warns governments are more dedicated to imposing new ecological standards on ancient structures than protecting them from being consumed by fire during renovation work.
Speaking to Le Journal du Dimanche about his concerns and what he discovered in the course of writing his report, Rykner said the devastating Notre Dame fire could have been avoided, and the government had already been warned about insufficient fire protection at the site shortly before the blaze. These warnings, he claims, were ignored.
He told Le Journal that France’s former culture minister Audrey Azoulay — who is now the Director-General of U.N. heritage protection body UNESCO — “closed down” a study warning how vulnerable Notre Dame was to fire in 2016. No further action was taken at the time despite the fire warning, he said.
Rykner said of the lack of preparedness that even now nobody knows how or where the fire started because observation of the great cathedral during a time of heightened danger — while reconstruction work was underway — was so lacking. He told the paper: “we do not know where the fire started, because there are not enough personnel to monitor the cathedral. I actually think that we have not given ourselves the means to avoid it”.
The lack of proper government inquiry, he claims, is down to the key parties responsible not wishing to have a light cast on their own role in the tragedy. “No one wants to be responsible for these failures”, said the historian, including the state which owns Notre Dame, the Ministry of culture which he says has refused to undertake an internal investigation, nor the construction contractor who were undertaking the work at the time of the fire.
On the contractor’s vested interest in not looking too closely into what happened and why, Rykner said: “The companies which were carrying out the work at the time of the fire are the same ones which were taken on for the restoration project. No one therefore has any interest in regaining responsibility.”
The criticisms follow the accusations Rykner makes in his report, in which he claims to find evidence of ” insufficient maintenance of the monument, savings made at the expense of safety, a fire-fighting system poorly performing and a restoration project which constituted an additional risk factor.”
Despite the magnitude of the loss, the writer says concerningly little has been learned from the burning of Notre Dame. Even now, “Parisian churches… are falling into disrepair away from the spotlight” and ignored by Paris city hall despite the clear lessons of Notre Dame, he warns, and “From a regulatory perspective, the safety obligations on construction sites for the restoration of historic monuments are exactly the same as when you restore a building with no heritage interest.”
No new laws are in place to protect ancient buildings during renovation work, a time of particular fire risk, yet the government loads on new ecological rules that cause real damage to heritage, he says. Rykner continued: “Many ecological postures are unfortunately real dangers for heritage, from the anarchic development of wind turbines which ruin the landscapes to the uniform rules of insulation”, the retrofitting of which can damage important historical fabric.
These concerns are not by far the first controversy to take hold over Notre Dame since it was burnt, and while Rykner now praises the “remarkable” quality of the rebuild effort now, even that was in question after the fire as the Macron government wanted to give the restoration a modernist flavour.
Within days of the blaze, modernist architects — “the concrete lobby and iron lovers” — began circling the still-warm remains, creating ideas for a non-faithful rebuild. Various schemes, some of which were seriously considered, included a glass roof, steel spire, an “erect phallus” surrounded by “golden balls”, and even a swimming pool.
The question of whether to go traditional or modern went back and forth in parliament for months, with the traditionalists eventually winning, but only narrowly.