The problem of how to relate new infill buildings to existing urban settings has in recent years become an important point of debate, both in architectural-design practice and in public policy.

Consider, for example, the proposed entry pavilion for the Louvre in Paris (Hoelterhoff, 1985). Designed by the world-renowned architect I. M. Pei, this glass pyramid structure is to be located at the center of the grand Cour Napoleon, which is embraced by the two major wings of the palace. Although the plans were announced some time ago, now excavation of the site has served to embroil the proposal in a debate that is “shaking up the hearts and minds of all France” (Hoelterhoff, 1985, p. 28).

On the one hand, opponents of the proposal argue that the translucent glass structure constitutes an aesthetic obtrusion in the forecourt of this hallowed and historic institution. On the other hand, proponents of Pei's design argue that the design is not only pleasingly “insubstantial,” but also appropriate symbolically. More specifically, the pyramid, it is argued, is an appropriate reference to the Egyptian exploits of Népoleon I, who was responsible for opening part of the Louvre as a museum.

This controversy over the proposed pavilion at the Louvre is significant in at least three respects. First, the opposing arguments exemplify, in many ways, the range of concerns that are frequently expressed in public debate over the appropriateness of new infill schemes. Second, the incident demonstrates the potential impact of this design issue in the public realm.