For nearly two years, this case with its many twists and turns has set several players against each other and drawn them in: the National Assembly and its president Yaël Braun-Pivet, Paris city hall and the association Sites & Monuments.
ADVEReadNOWISEMENT
ADVEReadNOWISEMENT
The plans for the new reception pavilion of the National Assembly are far from universally accepted. Championed by the head of the institution, Yaël Braun-Pivet, they provide for the replacement of the historic stone pavilion, built in 1888, with a contemporary glass structure. The future building is to house a shop, a cafeteria and educational spaces, functions that the association Sites & Monuments considers secondary for a parliament.
“The problem is that this building would break that symmetry and introduce large quantities of new materials, namely glass”, Julien Lacaze, president of Sites & Monuments, tells Euronews. He points out that the project is to be built within a Remarkable Heritage Site (SPR) in the 7th arrondissement, in an area listed as a UNESCO World Heritage site.
In his view, the architectural project disrupts the historic harmony of the Seine riverbanks on several levels: it breaks the symmetry between La Madeleine and the colonnade of the Palais-Bourbon, introduces glass on a large scale into an ensemble dominated by stone, and undermines both the horizontality and the architectural unity of the site.
“The most serious thing is demolishing a historic building. When you have destroyed something and built something that is not in harmony with the site, it is definitive. It cannot be reversed”, laments the president of this association, founded in 1901, granted public-interest status in 1936 and approved for environmental protection. Sites & Monuments specialises in defending heritage.
For the association’s president, other solutions that are more respectful of the building’s original architecture do exist and would deserve to be explored.
He cites in particular the proposal put forward by Japanese agency SANAA, a Pritzker Prize laureate, which suggested preserving the existing 1888 pavilion while adding a contemporary stone extension, rather than a glass one as in the selected project. In his view, this option would have met the Assembly’s functional needs without profoundly altering the architectural landscape.
A construction cost seen as excessive
Beyond the aesthetic and historical issues that Julien Lacaze believes are under threat, the project has also drawn criticism over its cost. The announced budget of 52.8 million euros seems too high to him in a context of tight public finances, all the more so as the overall bill could still increase during the construction phase. Although the project is to be self-financed by the National Assembly, he argues that: “This is French taxpayers’ money. At a time when people are being asked to tighten their belts, spending 53 million euros on a building that includes a shop and a cafeteria raises questions.”
Since the project was announced, the association’s president says he has identified several aspects in the handling of the case that he considers problematic. In his view, no information on the progress of the project was released for nearly a year after the architectural competition. A first planning application was reportedly submitted in breach of the Safeguarding and Enhancement Plan (PSMV) for the 7th arrondissement, notably because of the building’s excessive height, its footprint on protected areas and the impact on heritage gardens and courtyards.
Faced with the risk of legal challenges, that permit is said to have been withdrawn. According to him, the authorities then launched a targeted amendment to the PSMV in order to make the project compatible with planning rules.
“It’s an ego problem”
This architectural project has been pushed by the president of the National Assembly, Yaël Braun-Pivet, since 2025.
Julien Lacaze accuses her of wanting to leave a mark on her term in office through a piece of architecture intended to symbolise the institution’s transparency.
“What you can criticise [Yaël Braun-Pivet] for is not a lack of architectural culture. It is a lack of listening.”
Speaking to Franceinfo, the president of the National Assembly said she was “overwhelmed by criticism of a project people do not know”.
In its campaign, the association Sites & Monuments enjoys backing from several political figures, notably from the Republicans (LR) and France Unbowed (LFI), as well as from former presidential candidate Ségolène Royal.
The petition launched a little over a year ago has seen renewed interest in recent weeks. It is approaching 100,000 signatures at the time of publication of this article.
Contacted by Euronews, the National Assembly did not respond to our requests.
For its part, Paris city hall told us by email that “this project, which aims to modernise and strengthen the conditions for welcoming the public inside the Palais-Bourbon by increasing the areas dedicated to it” must now “be the subject of a planning application, which will be examined by the state and during which the City will be consulted”.
“False”, counters the association’s president, who claims, evidence in hand, that the City has already taken a position in favour of the project, since the Paris Council has approved the amendment to the Safeguarding and Enhancement Plan (PSMV) needed to bring the project into line with planning rules.
“There was a resolution by the City of Paris approving the proposed amendment (…) on 16 July”, he says. In his view, the municipal majority has therefore clearly given its backing to the project.
“Emmanuel Grégoire has come out wholeheartedly in favour of the project. Despite strong opposition, the City of Paris’s approval has been granted.”
Among those opposed are two councillors: Émile Meunier (LFI) and Anne Biraben (LR).
According to Julien Lacaze, the project is also supported by part of the government, as he explains that the request to amend the PSMV comes from the regional prefect and the Paris police prefect, which would mean, in his view, that the Ministry of Culture also backs the project.
“We will do everything that is lawful. We have the right to organise petitions and we will challenge the permit in court”, he says.
“If this building is constructed, it will be a sign of the lack of sensitivity, the obstinacy and the outsized ego of some of our leaders in Paris.”
The association plans to continue gathering signatures for the petition, to take part in the public inquiry on the amendment to the PSMV and, finally, to lodge a legal appeal against the future planning permit.