New flag for the National Assembly: an association denounces the decision of the Paris Council to facilitate the project

A heritage protection group has condemned a recent decision by Paris’s city council that facilitates plans for a new entrance building for the National Assembly. The project, designed by the firm Moatti and Rivière, would replace the current 19th-century pavilion that serves as the Assembly’s main entrance. The association Sites & Monuments strongly opposes the plan, calling the proposed structure “ugly” and criticizing its cost, which exceeds €52.8 million. The funding will come from the Assembly’s reserves. The group’s president, Julien Lacaze, criticized the move during an interview with France Culture on Saturday, August 8, highlighting how the city council’s approval of a revised urban planning rule removes barriers to the construction. This change allows the project to proceed despite previous legal constraints. The controversy over the new pavilion dates back to June 2025, when the association launched a petition opposing the project. As of August 2026, more than 111,800 people have signed the petition. Many notable figures have joined the opposition, condemning the design as “hideous” and the price tag as excessive. The debate has turned into a political issue, drawing attention from both supporters and critics of the proposal. The original permit for the construction was submitted in June 2025 but had to be adjusted because it did not align with the existing Plan de Sauvegarde et de Mise en Valeur (PSMV), which protects the sensitive area around the Palais-Bourbon. In February 2026, President of the National Assembly Yaël Braun-Pivet suspended work on the project due to these regulatory hurdles. She had supported the initiative since early 2025, arguing that the new building would modernize the Assembly’s infrastructure. To resolve the conflict, the prefect of Île-de-France initiated a targeted revision process for the PSMV. Under this procedure, the City of Paris must provide its input, which it did, giving its approval. Emmanuel Grégoire, a local official, stated that the proposed structures would adhere to architectural standards and preserve the historical character of the site. Despite this progress, several steps remain before the construction can resume. The prefect still needs the endorsement of the Architecte des Bâtiments de France (ABF), a body responsible for ensuring compliance with architectural regulations. Additionally, the local commission overseeing the remarkable heritage site must approve the changes. Finally, a public inquiry will be conducted to gather opinions from residents and stakeholders. These procedures could delay the start of the project, though no specific timeframe has been set yet. The dispute reflects broader tensions between modernization efforts and the preservation of historic landmarks in central Paris. The current pavilion, dating back to the 19th century, is considered an integral part of the district’s architectural identity. Critics argue that replacing it with a new structure risks diminishing the area’s historical value. Supporters, however, emphasize the need for updated facilities to accommodate the Assembly’s growing demands and ensure accessibility for visitors and staff. Julien Lacaze has repeatedly stressed that the revised urban planning rules were necessary to enable the project, but he remains skeptical about the outcome. He believes the proposed design fails to respect the surrounding environment and does not reflect the quality of architecture associated with such a prominent location. His concerns echo those of many heritage advocates who fear that similar projects could set a precedent for altering protected areas in the capital. The National Assembly has not commented publicly on the ongoing discussions regarding the pavilion’s future. However, internal documents suggest that officials continue to push forward with the project, viewing it as essential for the institution’s long-term needs. Meanwhile, the legal and administrative processes required to finalize the approval remain active, with each step bringing the possibility of either proceeding with the construction or facing further delays. The final decision will depend on the outcomes of the pending reviews and the responses from key authorities involved in the process.