Hola! Thanks for chiming in! You must be ignorant of the history of me not caring. I want new spire to look like the old one. End of story. That's my opinion and I don't see myself changing it. Now, Huzzah! for your love of all things gothic. I dig it too! I just reject the notion that once an old thing gets damaged, you replace the damaged part with something new. I also loathe art that affects existing art! Like the "Fearless Girl" statue on wall st. blocking the "Bull". Horrible. one more thing: Sincere thanks for voicing you opinion! I dig it! I love people with strong opinions!

Your anger about this only further accentuates your apparent ignorance about how architecture works.

a) The redesign won't necessarily be modern. Eugène Viollet-le-Duc was actually responsible for the original spire in the 19th century, hundreds of years after the original building was completed. He even considered adding more spires to the towers, which would've entirely changed its characteristic appearance (https://i0.wp.com/foresightarch.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Notre-Dame-Drawing.jpeg). And guess what? He was criticized too for "reinterpreting" Gothic and not being unquestionably faithful to historic designs (

b) I will tentatively assume you're not fond of I. M. Pei's pyramid design for the Louvre given your vehemence for any modern design being brought within several meters of an old building. What you're probably unaware of is the immense design and structural innovations that were introduced that common uneducated critics don't even understand (https://www.architecturerevived.com/symbolic-meaning-louvre-paris-france/). To the uninformed observer the design decisions are invisible and likewise are treated with insult.

c) Gothic architecture is my highest passion. It's literally everything I want to do with my life. I want to revive it and reintroduce it to the world so that people will be more fond of its aesthetic beauty and structural elegance. In fact, my first reaction to the redesign contest was "but the old one was perfect"! But that doesn't mean I can't understand that architecture is a living art and science, that evolves as people evolve. Events that are part of our history leave their marks on the world around us. The events that lead to what you understood as the "old", "perfect" cathedral were the results of centuries of innovative, nontraditional, and controversial ideas. Yes, I don't want a completely modern design on the cathedral, because it would indeed be too great a departure from the traditional form and function of world's archetype Gothic cathedral. But thinking that something was perfect the way it was before leaves us with buildings that don't progress alongside world societies, representing new, sometimes genius ideas.

Sadly, there will always be people like you who so outrageously disparage art that doesn't meet your standard. In 19th century Austria, when 'modern' art ideas began to steer away from the perceived 'tradition', those artists were censored and rejected by the state, to the point that they would have an artistic 'secession' from the status quo. This is the secession building in Vienna: (Secessionsgeb%C3%A4ude.JPG/1200px-Wien-_Secessionsgeb%C3%A4ude.JPG). It was built in 1897 but it reflects the thoughts and ideas that those people had, which were decades, even centuries ahead of their time. The Nazis were also very particular about whether art was 'Aryan' or not, to the point where historically famous musicians like Paul Hindemith had to flee the country because of persecution. The most criticism these days still seems to come from white nationalists who think that their 'heritage' is being threatened by new ideas.

I'm not here to attack you, and I'm not here to try and make you feel bad. I'm here solely because I wanted to help you understand some of the context that offhanded polemics like this are lacking. Because sometimes the consequence is that people with brilliant ideas are shot down for no good reason. For all you know, the redesign could look even better than the original.