To restore or to innovate? Ever since that terrible blaze laid waste to Notre Dame in April, the French nation has been divided between people who want to see the cathedral restored deliberately and precisely to its former glory, and those who prefer the view of the president, Emmanuel Macron, who vowed to “rebuild the Notre Dame so it is even more beautiful than it was”.

Macron, in his typically forceful, overambitious style, has also insisted that the cathedral will be back to its best “within five years”. “We are a people of builders,” Macron said the day after the fire. “We have so much to rebuild.”

'Even more beautiful': should Notre Dame get a modern spire? Read more

But instead of being a unifying project, the vexed question of the restoration of the Notre Dame has become a metaphor for the battle between Macron’s modernising “startup nation” vision of France, and the large number of French citizens who don’t want anything to do with it. Some 1,169 architects, curators and professors signed an open letter to Macron, advising him to wait and to think this reconstruction through. “Let us take the time for a proper diagnosis,” stated the letter. “Listen to the experts, let’s recognise their knowledge, and then, yes, let’s fix an ambitious deadline for an exemplary restoration.”

And polls indicate that more than half the population want the cathedral back just how it was. Last month the French senate passed a bill saying that it should be restored to its appearance immediately before the fire. Yet Macron has approved an international contest for innovative architectural designs.

At the centre of the modernising row is the cathedral’s fallen spire. Designed and built by Eugène Viollet-le-Duc in 1859 and 93 metres high, it was a neogothic masterpiece. As it caught fire and crashed through the roof, a cherished part of Notre Dame disappeared for ever.

When Macron declared that “a contemporary architectural gesture” would be an appropriate replacement following the announcement by the French prime minister, Édouard Philippe, of the competition to design it, a hashtag soon appeared on social media #TouchePasANotreDame (don’t touch Notre Dame). Raphaël Glucksmann, a centre-left writer and campaigner, said that anything other than a complete restoration would “destroy the soul of Notre Dame”. In a rare moment of political unity across the spectrum, far-right leader Marine Le Pen and the conservative luminary François-Xavier Bellamy agreed.

But the various proposals for something completely different are up and running. The architect Alexandre Chassang has proposed a Shard-like glass spire, which he shared on Twitter, adding: “We should not copy the past by mimicry.” Whatever is decided, the works at Notre Dame will be a restoration of a Unesco world heritage-listed monument, an operation that must therefore conform with a 1913 law on monuments that limits new additions to such structures.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest A proposal by Brazilian architect Alexandre Fantozzi. Photograph: Alexandre Fantozzi

The grandson of the original architect, Viollet-le Duc, did not pick a side, but observed that it was “a fascinating debate between the old and the new. It’s a shame that Viollet-le-duc is no longer here to participate, he would have been greatly interested!”

But it’s also a debate that shows how Macron’s gung-ho approach rubs so many French people up the wrong way. In architecture as in politics, Macron is obsessed with innovation: the youngest ever president of France doesn’t want to simply rebuild the cathedral – he has to improve it. In politics, Macron has a deserved reputation for setting bold targets (such as liberalising swaths of the French economy) and not worrying too much about the details, which can end up sparking months-long protests, such as those by the gilets jaunes. He would like the new cathedral to embody his modernised France.

Notre Dame: time to call in the French builders with medieval skills Read more

Rebuilding the cathedral with time and caution could be the opportunity for a once-in-a-generation project, reconstructing both interior and exterior using traditional woodworking and architectural expertise. Many monuments of the country’s heritage are in dire need of restoration work, too, and Notre Dame could have opened a wider debate in protecting French historical sites. Macron’s vision of grand contests and impossible deadlines for the completion of the scheme simply shines a light on the poor management abilities behind his showmanship.

But I suppose we should be thankful for small mercies. At least the Notre Dame escaped a rebranding exercise based on the families and businesses who donated the most money: there will be no cathedral Notre Dame de L’Oréal. At least not for now.

• Pauline Bock is a French journalist based in Brussels