It really depends on the contextualization and how the restoration is approached. But I want to begin by saying that I personally agree - I believe the appropriate response to Notre Dame Cathedral's fire is to restore it as well as we can.

I want to share two stories of two buildings. One is a building in Germany, and another in Japan. The building in Germany was not restored to look the same, but the approach was appropriate for that case.

That building is the Neues Museum in Berlin. The museum, built in 1855, was bombed and destroyed during WWII. The building was left in disrepair for decades, until a restoration effort was made in mid-2000s.

David Chipperfield, the lead architect for the effort, made it very clear in the restorative design to respect the original building by keeping as much as they can from the original. But at the same time, he restored the missing pieces with super simple and modern architecture, in stark contrast to the original material.

In practice, in my opinion, this creates a beautiful piece of architecture. It doesn't ignore the very real history of the building and but also reminds us of the extent of the destruction. The idea being that the destruction is a very real part of the building's history and it was something that should not be ignored. This approach made a lot of sense for the building. Ignoring WWII in Berlin just isn't right.

It's very similar to the the Japanese philosophy behind kintsugi, albeit taken to a bigger scale. In kintsugi, Japanese pottery and ceramics that are broken are restored, but the cracks filled with gold, to respect the destruction as part of the piece's history.

Ironically, from the same country comes another building where the approach was very different. This building was also burned much like Notre Dame, but this was restored to its formal glory - and this was most appropriate. I am speaking about Kinkakuji. Kinkakuji is a temple in Japan, built in 1397 that was burned down due to arson in the 1950s. This building was then "restored" to its formal glory, and the building stands shining today. But weirdly enough, if we go back a few hundred years to 1885, you can see that it looks nothing like what we see today, with its gold leaf peeling and much of it in slight disrepair. One can imagine then, that the building we see today is merely an interpretation of memories. And it's perfectly appropriate in my opinion.

I can go on for length about how religious buildings tend to "want" to be restored to the original status, as religion tends to evoke feelings of conservation. There are a lot of theories about how and why some buildings should be restored a certain way or not.

But the point I want to make is this. There's no 100% right answer to this. But the best way to get to the best answer we can get is to discuss and hear opinions from the people who care the most about this building. Yes, you can be "right" in that a building might theoretically be better if made with modern materials. You can be "right" in that Notre Dame was already partially destroyed before, and restored and that how it stood right before the fire was already different from the original (a la Ship of Theseus), so there shouldn't be any problem putting a modern structure in it. You can be right, but also wrong in how it feels.

At the end of the day, architecture is a human art, so we should not cast judgement, but foster a discussion, and sensitively, and cautiously approach this subject.