The French Ministry of Culture announced the five winners of the international competition for a new entrance to the Louvre Museum on October 10, 2025, sparking fierce criticism from French architectural circles. The competition, budgeted at €135 million for new access points and ramps, has been denounced as a costly farce that excludes French talent while favoring foreign firms.
The selection reveals a striking absence of French architects among the winners. Two American agencies, one British firm, and two Japanese companies – including SANAA, which previously designed the Louvre-Lens and the nearby Samaritaine department store – were chosen as laureates. SANAA's involvement has raised eyebrows, particularly since the Samaritaine belongs to LVMH, a luxury conglomerate known for its cultural investments and potential interest in increased tourist traffic to the area.
Meanwhile, prominent French architects like Rudy Ricciotti and Jean-Michel Wilmotte, both of whom have previously worked on Louvre projects, were passed over. Ricciotti designed the Islamic Arts wing, while Wilmotte worked on the Carrousel. Critics argue that if previous Louvre experience disqualified French architects, the same logic should have applied to SANAA, which designed the Louvre-Lens facility.
The competition's financial structure has drawn particular scorn. With the French state facing budget constraints and having gone through three prime ministers, funding will likely depend on private donors, similar to the Notre-Dame reconstruction effort. Critics sarcastically suggest that perhaps the Louvre should be partially burned – perhaps Claude Perrault's famous colonnade – to generate the same international sympathy and donations that Notre-Dame received after its 2019 fire.
A significant controversy surrounds the jury composition, particularly the presence of François Chatillon, the chief architect of historic monuments (ACMH) responsible for the Louvre. Chatillon not only prepared the competition specifications but also sits on the jury that will select the winner – a clear conflict of interest that puts him in the position of being both judge and participant in the process.
The five winning teams represent a notable gender shift in architecture competitions. Four of the five laureates are led by women: American Annabelle Selldorf (born 1960), British Amanda Jane Levete (born 1955), Japanese Kazuyo Sejima (born 1956), and American Elizabeth Diller (born 1954). The only male winner is Japanese architect Sou Fujimoto (born 1971), who submitted his proposal independently. This development is particularly significant given that France's National Architecture Grand Prize, established in 1975, has never been awarded to a woman.
French architectural critics describe the competition as fundamentally unfair, comparing it to sending "my little sister against Mike Tyson." The international competitors include architectural heavyweights and Pritzker Prize winners, representing a "who's who" of global architecture. Major French architects like Dominique Perrault (associated with the Mitterrand era), Jean Nouvel (considered to have too many controversies), and Christian de Portzamparc were not positioned to represent renewal in French architecture.
The disparity in resources between French and international firms compounds the problem. French architectural agencies typically employ 30 to 50 people, while their foreign competitors often have staffs of 2,000 or more. This isn't just about quantity – these large international firms employ highly skilled professionals who can produce sophisticated, comprehensive proposals that tend to impress French project commissioners more than the quality work of smaller domestic firms.
The competition structure itself has been criticized for forcing arranged marriages between foreign and French firms. International agencies must partner with French firms, as only French companies can file for building permits in France. This pairing system includes partnerships with established French firms like Architecturestudio and Dubuisson Architecture, but critics argue that such forced collaborations often lead to costly conflicts and compromises.
The selection also highlights a broader philosophical divide in French architecture education and practice. Many French architects and architecture school instructors have become focused on sustainability discourse, recycled materials, frugality, and even aromatherapy – approaches that critics argue are inadequate when dealing with the grandeur and prestige required for a palace that has housed countless sovereigns and their courts.
This trend represents a significant departure from the era of François Mitterrand's grands travaux (great works), which allowed a generation of French architects to emerge and establish themselves on the international scene. For the past 30 years, as prestigious projects have increasingly gone to fashionable foreign agencies, French architectural firms have been unable to build the international stature necessary to compete at this level.
The situation has become so pronounced that French agencies are often not even invited to compete for major projects. Just three days after the Louvre announcement, on October 13, 2025, the Danish firm BIG (Bjarke Ingels Group) won the competition for a new congress center in Rouen, defeating proposals from Zaha Hadid Architects and Renzo Piano. This preference for foreign architects among French officials has reached what critics call absurd levels, reducing the potential of French agencies to practically nothing.
When President Emmanuel Macron announced the international competition on January 28, 2025, he referenced the Louvre as "the place of all encounters, all illusions" and noted that "40 years ago, the Louvre took a historic step forward in the momentum of the Grand Louvre, carried by President Mitterrand." Critics question what illusions Macron is referencing and whether his project can match the vision and execution of Mitterrand's transformative Louvre renovation.
The competition budget of €135,685,000 (excluding tax), broken down into €132 million for the Louvre perimeter and €3.685 million for Paris city areas, represents a significant investment. However, given France's tradition of cost overruns on major projects, critics expect the final cost to be at least double the initial estimate. The reliance on private funding through patronage, rather than state investment, marks a significant shift in how France approaches major cultural projects.
As the architectural community awaits the final selection and detailed proposals from the five teams, questions remain about whether the winning design will truly serve the Louvre's needs or simply represent another missed opportunity for French architectural talent. The competition has become a symbol of broader concerns about France's cultural sovereignty and its ability to maintain leadership in fields where it once excelled.
