It was interesting to see this recent article in The Times showing an idea for a glass roof over the ruins of Notre Dame. Refer to the 'Innovation in Historic Buildings' section of this website portfolio to compare.
However, for our 2018 projects, we did not think it wise or sympathetic to rely on a precious and fragile ancient structure to support a modern and lively covering.
It seemed aesthetically and structurally more sympathetic to make the new work independent and clearly demountable and reversible, so that at any point in the future, the ancient buildings can be returned to their peaceful and ruined status. These buildings were originally built as supreme acts of faith, in a period where religion was at the centre of society. It seems that in what has now become a more secular and impermanent age, there is reason to tread very carefully when 'eye-catching' designs are proposed to be appended to these ancient masterpieces.
Imposing a permanent and 'novel' intervention onto the supremely beautiful and profound ruins of Notre Dame seems like putting fancy dress on your dog. For a moment, everyone is very amused.. but the dog.. less so!
I think that when a modern intervention is proposed for an historic building it has to be temporary or reversible. Otherwise it may be better to replicate the historic structure. In the examples shown here, the new-build is obvious and can be removed in future and respects the old structure.
i quite agree - let's hope that Notre Dame doesn't suffer from 'novel' intervention. Love your cathedral designs, very sympathetic.