Devastating though it is, Vulcan failed in his mission to reduce Notre Dame de Paris to a pile of ash and rubble. I enjoy watching disasters like this, and plane crashes, not from a a sense of morbid curiosity but from a forensic and analytical perspective; I’m curious about the how, why, what was the cause, and what next.

While one hates to see any medieval, historic, and important building – let alone a church – reduced as it has been, it is equally irritating to see Vulcan not finish the job! The Brigade des sapeurs-pompiers de Paris did an heroic job, against all the odds, and won. But let’s be honest, this fire is a grand calamity for the cathedral, for France, and for the French. And it is a truly sorry sight.

It could easily have been so much worse. As one Parisian official has said there was a critical 15-30 minutes, which I presume is referring to the time when the flames reached the NW and SW towers but was contained before it took hold there. If either tower had gone up in flames all bets were off as those towers contain the bells which would almost certainly have fallen, destroying masonry and probably bringing down a large amount of the stone structure if only through a domino effect.

The French government has committed to rebuild the cathedral and somewhere around €1bn of private money has already been pledged to help finance this. Such is the understandable, predictable, knee-jerk reaction. But should Notre Dame be rebuilt? I suggest that maybe it shouldn’t – and not just because of the horrendous cost.

Clearly the remaining structure has to be made safe. After that why not conserve what remains to preserve the medieval splendour. Then do something modern (but, of course this being France, tasteful) which will commemorate the fire as a remarkable event in the cathedral’s history and the heroic efforts of les pompiers. Why not install a transparent (glass, probably) roof so that light (the light of God?) continues to shine through the holes in the stone vaulting emphasising what very nearly didn’t survive. After all the photographic record, and existing skills, are so good that there is little to be gained from remaking the lost parts. Well at least that’s what I would be tempted to do.

I’ve been to Notre Dame twice, and I didn’t like it. It didn’t just leave me cold, I had a feeling of the sinister, even evil, there – and that’s unusual for me in a church (despite my lack of belief). So from an totally personal perspective I would not have been too distraught had the whole building been destroyed. But that’s not to be (at least yet) and a major rebuild of some form will happen. Which is probably as it should be.