Beyond simply meeting a project brief, what do you expect from an architectural rehabilitation project?
The Architecte des Bâtiments de France (ABF) and the Regional Curator of Historical Monuments (CRMH) intervene exclusively within protected heritage zones¹—for the former—and on historic monuments—for both, and particularly the latter—which together cover 6% of France’s national territory.²
Thus, what an ABF or CRMH expects from a rehabilitation project is that it accounts for everything that constitutes heritage within these sectors and properties—whether built or unbuilt—at the architectural, urban, and landscape scales.
The ABF and the CRMH do not participate in drafting the project brief (cahier des charges), as the brief is a ‘contract’ solely between the client (maître d’ouvrage) and the design team (maître d’œuvre).
Only a few exceptions for highly specific projects prove the rule. For example, in my role as an Architecte des Bâtiments de France and at the request of the client, I had the opportunity to contribute to the briefs for the redesign of the surroundings of the Eiffel Tower and Notre-Dame Cathedral in Paris, as well as the rehabilitation of the former AP-HP headquarters. This kind of advisory role requires significant involvement, but it proves immensely valuable and constructive for the project.
Based on these experiences, I believe that when a project involves a protected building or site, it is highly advisable for the client to contact state services early on—the UDAP (Departmental Unit for Architecture and Heritage) for the ABF, and the CRMH for historic monuments—in order to identify the site’s heritage stakes and confirm its overall feasibility. The client can then inform the design team of these issues through the brief and encourage them to consult state services prior to submitting the permit application.
How do you approach the balance between preserving and transforming an existing historic building?
“First of all, I believe it is essential to introduce two guiding principles that should direct any intervention on an existing property, whether built or unbuilt³:
Preservation and transformation should not be set in opposition, as they are not conflicting types of intervention.
In existing structures, the starting point is precisely what already exists—and therefore its preservation.
According to the French Heritage Code (code du patrimoine), the ‘preservation’ of a building with heritage value involves its maintenance, repair, and restoration. In my view, this type of work requires a design team trained and qualified in this field⁴—one capable of assessing what is essential to the property (built or unbuilt), what defines its identity and substance, and what must be preserved.
Regarding the transformation of an existing building with heritage value, when the lead architect/design team does not specialize in heritage, this expertise should be integrated into the design team. It proves essential for the very reasons mentioned above: a heritage architect will know how to safeguard the building’s identity and substance while identifying what can be transformed. Being an architect by training, they will also be able to guide the lead designer in finding the right balance between the existing structure and the new additions.
Furthermore, for projects located within protected areas—and even more so for historic monuments—engaging in dialogue with state heritage services seems paramount.
Advising applicants is one of our primary missions. Its goal is to support the realization of both preservation and new construction projects, ensuring their harmonious integration into the existing fabric and the transmission of our shared heritage to future generations, in the public interest.
We are in the era of post-carbon architecture—do you think this could become the new architectural ‘style’ of tomorrow?
In an era where sustainable development has become an imperative, it seems obvious that preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation are preferable to demolition and reconstruction.
Thus, in line with traditional construction practices, we naturally lean toward layouts attuned to the site and climate, alongside the use of local, sustainable materials and building techniques—simply returning to the constructive common sense handed down by our ancestors.
This call to return to fundamentals is by no means nostalgic. On the contrary, it can guide an adapted and sustainable evolution of existing structures: encouraging natural ventilation, short supply chains, as well as bio-based and geo-sourced materials.
In turn, rehabilitation can also inspire new construction, ensuring that contemporary design reflects its era through thoughtful, context-aware innovation.