Part of me is "oh no, it must look like it used to!" and part of me is "that looks pretty nice"

This is a magnificent restoration, blending the old and new into something that will retain the best of the old with a brighter topping. Just rebuilding what was is creating a fake.

Whatever one thinks about the aesthetics, it's a very silly idea to have any sort of garden above the vaulting, plants and trees have to be watered! Bad idea!

It is an ingenious and beautiful design, and I have no qualms about its modernity, as cathedrals have often incorporated the stylistic elements of different eras during their centuries-long construction process. Now that architects are proposing solutions for the new roof of Notre Dame, I think it would great if spires for the western towers were also added. Medieval cathedral builders intended the facades to have spires, not truncated pylons. The usual reason for cathedrals to lack spires was not due to design considerations but simply that the builders exhausted their resources before they were able to complete the structure.

France, don't you freakin' DARE do that. Put it back the way it was, exactly, please. It is art. It is architecture. And it is history. Don't mess with those.

I think the nineteenth century wooden tower come crashing down, it suddenly struck me what an ugly & inappropriate brute it was. What I like about the new concept design is that paradoxically it allows the old building to more clearly state its architectural case by getting modern leverages that give it a mediaeval iconography that just wasn't technically possible in the 12th century.....

IMO; it is a historical building and should be restored to what it was and not something to update.

Having lived in Paris for a time some years go, I was surprisingly very affected by this disaster. I've been watching all these proposals popping up since the fire in various architecture and design sites and newsletters. Some interesting, some just a waste of energy. Most seem to want to change the church into something that it isn't. Because it is after all, a place of worship for many and a place for National communal gatherings. It is not an amusement park. It is not an art gallery. It is not bling. I am not a believer myself but this landmark must retain a certain humility. This last "concept" - a happy few wandering across a garden above the rooftops of Paris ? The roof and spire have totally taken over the building. Have the "conceptors" even thought about the number of people who will want to walk across these gardens ? The most visited monument in France. No. They have been consumed by their own ego. Notre Dame doesn't have to be rebuilt exactly as it was. We have moved on. But this is not the path however ingenious and beautiful it seems.

Only three weeks have passed and architects are already lining up with their proposals to restore the cathedral? This is not a restoration it's a renovation, or more so, a modification, and it's an over-the-top one as well. DavidV has already mirrored my similar views. I seriously doubt (and hope) that the French will accept this proposal. It's gaudy and clashes with all the surroundings of beautiful Paris.
I have no doubt that if this concept gets any traction, it will be a focus of contention for many Parisians and the French in general.

Of the handful or so proposals I've seen so far, this Vincent Callebaut is probably my favourite. Second being the design by Miysis Studio.