# Reconstruct or enhance ruins? Where to draw the line to avoid fake 'restorations'?



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Assume a building of historical significance that has been damaged beyond repair by whatever reason (natural disaster, war, disrepair and negligence on maintenance, terrorism, materials worn out).
*
Where do you think a line should be drawn between instances where buildings should be heavily reconstructed to look like they were in their original state, and instances where it is better to develop the site as ruins or remains (enhancing them, excavating them etc.)?
*
Let me give examples:

Colosseum: there are some good descriptions about how it looked like at its apex, and it wouldn't be so difficult to rebuild a "fake" Colosseum that looked like it were in 200 d.C.

Dresden Frauenkirche: after staying as ruing for decades, they decide to build a "fake" church recycling some materials from the rubble pile, but in different positions, a completely fake new dome and an structure than encapsulated the ruins that were left after the fire and bombing and had razed it in 1945.

These are, of course, extreme examples. One could argue time since destruction could be used to explain the differences. But if so, when an old building or area becomes too old to be reconstructed as a fake version of itself? Should someone try to rebuild Paris to its pre-Haussman state? Should someone bulldoze the area around the Vatican and rebuild the slums cleared by Mussolini? Should someone rebuild Madrid's fortified walls - and which of them? Should someone - religious issues aside - demolish all of Jerusalem that lies outside the ancient quarters and rebuild them to Roman standards, Hellenic standards, Ottoman standards?

I'm personally very critical of these fake-ism of rebuilding buildings that were obliterated, and prefer to have something new rebuild there (like they are doing with the WTC site in New York). So, for me, Dresden is on its way to become a Dineslaynd-of-sorts, full of imitations of things that no longer exist there, despite the location, which is silly IMO. But some people will fervently argue in favor or such "reconstruct as fake" projects claiming the embedded history and symbolism of certain buildings is more relevant than the actual physical structure. 

What do you think about the "enhance the site as ruins" vs "rebuild a fake copy" dilemma?


----------



## zaphod (Dec 8, 2005)

I guess it depends on the role of the thing left behind. A city center, sure, or anything with tourist potential. But of course some ancient ruin wouldn't be restored just because.

If it was necessary to rebuild a place, I think the new buildings should mostly have the same footprint and setbacks and number of entrances, to keep the functionality the old one had. That way when the neighborhood is rebuilt it will still sort of feel familiar even if the architecture of the structures themselves has to be changed to meet modern safety and economic needs. Never mind some things can never be built exactly the same because the availability of certain materials and craftsmanship is an issue


----------



## Inferious (May 30, 2009)

i say rebuild to its original state ONLY IF you know how it originally looked. if you don't know how it originally looked, leave it alone or if its destroyed dont rebuild a fake copy.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Assume a building of historical significance that has been damaged beyond repair by whatever reason (natural disaster, war, disrepair and negligence on maintenance, terrorism, materials worn out).
> *
> Where do you think a line should be drawn between instances where buildings should be heavily reconstructed to look like they were in their original state, and instances where it is better to develop the site as ruins or remains (enhancing them, excavating them etc.)?
> *
> ...


You are using the term "fake" in an incorrect way IMHO. If a formerly destroyed building or if ruins are rebuilt with authentic materials and largely in the same design as the original (not just the facade but also the building concept), than it is not a "fake" it is a "reconstruction". That means it is a copy but its not fake. The Frauenkirche is therefore a reconstruction, not a fake. Nor are the Stephansdom or the State Opera house in Vienna fake but instead partial reconstructions (of ruins), like the Frauenkirche which also includes a wing that is largely original. 

I would go so far as to call a rebuilt Coloseum a reconstruction and not a fake if it is reconstructed in to the same condition it was in at some point of the Roman Empire. 

In Carnuntum they built a Thermal bath according to how the original in the same location looked like. It is only an educated guess as no complete plans survived the times of course, but it was built by experimental archeologists not only in the same design as used by the Romans but also with the same methods. That's why it is a reconstruction not fake. 

To stay in Dresden however, the borderline to "fake" is the quarter around the Frauenkirche. While that quarter contains some true reconstructions most buildings merely have reconstructed facades while containing a modern interior. That is fake, but I don't consider it anything bad if it is done in a decent way. That means the fake facades have to respect the aesthetic rules of design of the age they are copying. 

Well made "Fake" facades or even whole buildings have a long tradition and I appreciate a lot of them. Actually the whole city centre of Vienna is full of them, and you could count most of the sights here as such. 

There is another category however. It is the category of Disney Landish "they got it all wrong" kitsch with totally derailed proportions. You don't find that at the Neumarkt in Dresden nor will you have an easy time of finding it in Vienna.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Europe did a lot of successful "fake" rebuildings after WWII. The places that work are often the ones rebuilt in similar outward style. The places that don't work are often based on the styles of the 50s, which of course generally sucked.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I think this idea of building façades that resemble some construction of 18th Century and is completely a modern building inside tasteless and hypocrite. It is, in my opinion, the byproduct of people being too much attached to an over-glorified (architectural) past - as few people would actually want to live in a building of 18th Century that remained divided as so (= houses with no private bathrooms for instance).

Also, I see as something extremely tacky to have a façade looking 1970 and and interior that is totally unrelated to the façade - otherwise there would be no interest on using the building for anything than a museum.

So when people keep building like "old" in Dresden to recreate the atmosphere of a plaza, while using the buildings as modern housing, I think it is going on the cheap, burying the head in the sand and refusing to accept modernity. In that sense, I even prefer the kitsch of Las Vegas to Dresden, because the imitations at Vegas are blunt, openly done and with no intention other than amuse and thrill visitors to casinos.

I find ruins a more cool place to be than reconstructions, unless they are some recreations made as museums or replicas. But I can't get a grasp of what the point is to rebuild a neighborhood with faux-antique buildings that are built 2006-2011, for instance and then brag about the 'character' or 'history' of the place.

Again, I have nothing against the kistch or reinterpretations. These are other fields. I get stunned is by the pretentious way architects talk about fake construction like it were to bring back bygone times.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> I think this idea of building façades that resemble some construction of 18th Century and is completely a modern building inside tasteless and hypocrite. It is, in my opinion, the byproduct of people being too much attached to an over-glorified (architectural) past - as few people would actually want to live in a building of 18th Century that remained divided as so (= houses with no private bathrooms for instance).


Yes, few would want to live in an completely unchanged building of the 18th century. But unless you are an architecture fundamentalist, you would not see any need to do so because you can update the interior sufficiently to fully serve modern needs without destroying the general style or mood of the building. 

Historicist facades are nothing new and they are an art form in their own right. For a long time a little respected one. Some modernists like you probably still look down on it longing for destroying them and replacing them with bland functionalism many others have changed their mind in the meanwhile. Historicism often conveys a message with the choice of facade style. The Ringstraße in Vienna is a marvelous example for that. The same way a more traditional facade on an otherwise rather modern building can have a purpose and a meaning by itself. A facade does not have to be dictated by functionalism only nor does it have to be held in the exactly same style as the interior. 


> So when people keep building like "old" in Dresden to recreate the atmosphere of a plaza, while using the buildings as modern housing, I think it is going on the cheap, burying the head in the sand and refusing to accept modernity.


You haven't elaborated why it must be forbidden to build in any other style than hardcore modernism. In Dresden you can see very well, that buildings not only have a function in their interior but also their exterior has one and that is to create a pedestrian plaza. Modern architecture usually has a much harder time at creating a welcoming nice looking plaza than more traditional designs. Of course you would not mind, as you would want to have no pedestrian plazas in first place, only monumental dead car dominated vast spaces or indoor malls.

Your opinion is funny to read. You seem to think styles other than modernism are only acceptable for museums. That is either ignorant or incredibly radical.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Most people don't worry about architectural purity. They want something that looks nice, functions well, maybe even inspires, etc. Throwing out thousands of years of lessons on aesthetics and function for the same of being new isn't the answer. Good stuff usually mixes the best of both.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

I would like to add that I do not understand the obsession of some for change for its own sake. Change is great, but it has to have a reason. A facade is not only about functionalism but also about aesthetics. Some things change in these regards but many stay the same. If something is working today as well as centuries ago, why should I be forced to change it? Because it is not fitting into a modernist dogma and therefore is bad?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

I didn't say building anything than modern stuff should be forbidden, just that it is lesser architecture like a McRib will always be lesser food compared to some rib-eye made with some new sauce.

My point is that the 'old' is over-glorified, and thus in many cities (at least here in Europe) chances of large scale changes like those done by urban reformers of the interwar period or the modernist reformers of the 1960s are nil. We are kinda cursed to have to stick with old architectural forms because, God forbids, somebody wants to build a glassy, color-changeable, multi-cylindrical building in the middle of "medieval" Vienna, Basel or Madrid. At the same time, people who oppose demolition of buildings that are not museums or monuments on themselves also oppose the development of new districts where those modern buildings could be built. It is a two-way opposition to anything that is modern in Europe, and it is killing modernity, as everything now has to "fit the character of the surroundings" and greenfield development of large areas is hard to get approved as well.

What are the chances of we getting a true game-changer like Tour Montparnasse built today? I even dare to guess that if Berlin were reunified 5 years later, the plans to redeveloped Postdamplatz and even the reconstruction of the Reichstag as it was done would have gone astray in name of rebuilding a disneyland evoking Birsmarck times instead of modern buildings that shine a beacon to the future, not to the past.

I personally think any building that is not a museum, a monument or something alike should be allowed to be demolished and substituted for a new building with a similar function (music hall, opera house, university, residence etc). I'm horrified by the tendency of now forbidding even the total demolition of industrial buildings that have no possible use as factories in any circumstances (it would be outright hazardous or unacceptable by modern needs of manufacturing) and obliging its "conversion' to other lesser-than-optimal use. But that is for another topic.

While façades don't have to be only functional, it should be drawn considering always its harmony with what is inside the building much more relevant than what are the other nearby façades, which is the reason I see no point in building a state-of-the-art "wired" building with fiber optics underneath each floor having a art-noveaux-esque façade that has NOTHING to do with the interior. When I'm entering a building, I don't car about what is on the sides of the building, each of them is an individual unit and there must be harmony, or at least functionality links, between what I see from the outside and what I see inside - this is the reason why brutalism and minimalism are my all-tive favored architectural styles.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> I would like to add that I do not understand the obsession of some for change for its own sake. Change is great, but it has to have a reason. A facade is not only about functionalism but also about aesthetics. Some things change in these regards but many stay the same. If something is working today as well as centuries ago, why should I be forced to change it? Because it is not fitting into a modernist dogma and therefore is bad?


I think architecture suffers from aesthetic obsolescence. Old styles should be ditched because they are old and many times out of fashion. At least on a less radical version of this thought, there shall be no restrictions on tearing down an old building that (again) is not a museum or a monument on itself to build something more modern in place.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> I think architecture suffers from aesthetic obsolescence. Old styles should be ditched because they are old and many times out of fashion. At least on a less radical version of this thought, there shall be no restrictions on tearing down an old building that (again) is not a museum or a monument on itself to build something more modern in place.


Why should we willingly wipe out our history. Why this hatred of culture? Cities are not machines.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> Why should we willingly wipe out our history. Why this hatred of culture? *Cities are not machines*.


Is not hatred of culture. Is hatred of excessive architectural preservation as if it were ever possible to 'encapsulate' bygone times by keeping fake façades as shallow covers of modern buildings! History is also something you overcome to bring new stuff around. Would you keep dressing the same fashion style you were 10 years ago in 2020, for instance?


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Conversion of old industrial buildings to residential or retail use here in the UK has been popular and generally perceived as a success, I'm not sure what would have been achieved by just demolishing them to build a modern building.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Is not hatred of culture. Is hatred of excessive architectural preservation as if it were ever possible to 'encapsulate' bygone times by keeping fake façades as shallow covers of modern buildings!


Why demolish something when you can renovate it? Thats just waste.



Suburbanist said:


> History is also something you overcome to bring new stuff around. Would you keep dressing the same fashion style you were 10 years ago in 2020, for instance?


No I dont, but fashion comes and goes as do architectural styles. A good bulding does not wear out in 10 years it needs a renovasion after about 50 years and can stand forever if cared for properly. Bad buldings however dont last that long and are torn down before that.


----------



## Tiaren (Jan 29, 2006)

@ Suburbanist:
What's with up the weird use of "fake"? 
Frauenkirche is not a fake church, because it IS a church and it's dome is not fake either. It IS a dome! Or is it something else just pretending to be a dome? ;D
You actually mean "copy", right?

And to your question:
I think people can build/reconstruct in whatever style they wish too.
There's nothing bad or wrong about it.
You do know that modernism goes back nearly 100 years as well? It's actually already old...

And concerning your problem(?) with old style facades and new interiors:
What do you think lies now behind the beautiful mid 19th century facades in the city centre of Paris? There are now even modern lifts and water running toilets, if you haven't guessed! When they were modernizing those buildings, should they've just demolished them to build new ones?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> Why demolish something when you can renovate it?


Because new, exciting things are better than irrelevant old ones. And not every old stuff is historically relevant in a national or international scale. Demolition is cool because it rips out the old to make room for the new :cheers:




Tiaren said:


> And concerning your problem(?) with old style facades and new interiors:
> What do you think lies now behind the beautiful mid 19th century facades in the city centre of Paris? There are now even modern lifts and water running toilets, if you haven't guessed! When they were modernizing those buildings, should they've just demolished them to build new ones?


Not saying they should have demolished, but there ought to have not been restrictions if someone wanted to tear down an old, irrelevant building to build something made of much glass and/or much exposed concrete respecting the volumes, setbacks, heights etc.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> Because new, exciting things are better than irrelevant old ones. And not every old stuff is historically relevant in a national or international scale. Demolition is cool because it rips out the old to make room for the new :cheers:


Luckily most people today disagree with you at least when it comes to architecture. Modernist buildings are not exciting or even modern anymore and most of the time they are not better built either.


----------



## mhays (Sep 12, 2002)

Suburbanist also doesn't care about waste or sustainability. It's extremely wasteful to get rid of old buildings, even though operational efficiency can usually be improved with a new building.


----------



## Jonesy55 (Jul 30, 2004)

Suburbanist said:


> Because new, exciting things are better than irrelevant old ones. And not every old stuff is historically relevant in a national or international scale. Demolition is cool because it rips out the old to make room for the new :cheers:.


That's just your opinion though, and it isn't widely shared


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

I oppose reconstructions. It's a falsification of history. We just need to accept what happened. 

With the advancing technology we will be able to go back in time virtually in the future taken the above Carthago video a step further.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

There are new structures going up all the time, it is not as if everywhere was so chockablock with ancient buildings or reconstructions in period styles that there was absolutely no room to build anything new and modern.

I support the reconstruction of previously demolished buildings of historical, architectural and esthetic interest precisely because it is the exception rather than the norm. There are hundreds of thousands of exceptional buildings that have been lost forever, I find it surprising that anyone could begrudge at least a few being rebuilt where possible.

Suburbanist, instead of being disappointed that Dresden did not rebuild in a post WWII style, why not look at Le Havre or Rotterdam which were? There is more than enough post WWII architecture in Europe to enjoy for those who like that sort of thing. And look on the bright side: much of that was built in the 1950s and 1960s was of low quality and has already reached its useful life, so you are able to enjoy the next step of seeing them replaced by something else already as you mentioned earlier.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Rotterdam is the most awesome medium-sized city in Europe by the way. And by far and large the best in this country.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

I didn't say it wasn't (although "most awesome" and "best" are subjective). What I was saying is that it's not as if rebuilding old styles is being done everywhere, stifling new styles. Rebuilding Dresden's baroque town centre does not mean that Rotterdam can't have a 1950s town centre.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Ribarca said:


> I oppose reconstructions. It's a falsification of history. We just need to accept what happened.
> 
> With the advancing technology we will be able to go back in time virtually in the future taken the above Carthago video a step further.


I don't want to have a virtual cozy lively attractive city centre but a real one and most other people would probably agree with me. Go figure.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Rotterdam is the most awesome medium-sized city in Europe by the way. And by far and large the best in this country.


When I was on a big Netherlands tour, I found Rotterdam to be the most drab city of all. This was some time ago, maybe the new high rises made a difference from the distance in the meanwhile but from close up I doubt a lot has changed, or does Rotterdam have (aesthetically and otherwise) attractive and bustling pedestrian streets?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> When I was on a big Netherlands tour, I found Rotterdam to be the most drab city of all. This was some time ago, maybe the new high rises made a difference from the distance in the meanwhile but from close up I doubt a lot has changed, or does Rotterdam have (aesthetically and otherwise) attractive and bustling pedestrian streets?


Rotterdam has some busy pedestrian plazas and promenades (Willemshaven and Lijnbaan for instance). The only thing is that they are not at the core of Downtown, which is dominated by a CBD.

Also, they have some exciting architecture stuff going on with new high-rises and districts built over reclaimed port area.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> Rotterdam has some busy pedestrian plazas and promenades (Willemshaven and Lijnbaan for instance). The only thing is that they are not at the core of Downtown, which is dominated by a CBD.
> 
> Also, they have some exciting architecture stuff going on with new high-rises and districts built over reclaimed port area.


In other words the centre is dead except during rush hour and full of monofunctional office blocks. How attractive. Those more peripheral centres could be nice though, depending on how they look like.


----------



## El_Greco (Apr 1, 2005)

Ribarca said:


> I oppose reconstructions. It's a falsification of history.


Its not about history its about aesthetics.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> In other words the centre is dead except during rush hour and full of monofunctional office blocks. How attractive. Those more peripheral centres could be nice though, depending on how they look like.


It's not dead. There are clusters of different activities, for the creepy urban planner who stares at people there is even decent pedestrian traffic because the main train station is at the opposite side of downtown, and many people walk there for trains, subway and light rail.

There are nearby "central" (but not "downtown") quarters with much buzz and fuss after work hours, like the 2 small islands, the old piers etc. There, you can also found awesome buildings that are very eye-catching (the area was just a port facility, so they didn't demolish palaces or houses, just useless depots to make room from shinny new buildings). All these areas have extremely easy access by subway or trams. 

There is also the Blaak area, a former wide railway ROW that was transformed into an attractive, giant pedestrian mall surrounded by yet more cool buildings. It's right next downtown (the railway has been put underground in a tunnel as part of a project to eliminate the use of a drawbridge across the Maas river).

So Rotterdam is a nice example. It has a lot of interesting areas. But the extremist-radicals of urban planning just don't accept it because:

(1) afterhours activity is concentrated in some (5-6) defined smaller clusters instead of concentrated in one big area (though it is possible to walk through the "larger central Rotterdam" within 70 minutes. 

(2) the area between the old plaza, the main church and the train station is mostly a retail and office only area, without much activity at night, and not a destination people would go for the sake of going and "see what is happening".


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> It's not dead. There are clusters of different activities, for the creepy urban planner who stares at people there is even decent pedestrian traffic because the main train station is at the opposite side of downtown, and many people walk there for trains, subway and light rail.
> 
> There are nearby "central" (but not "downtown") quarters with much buzz and fuss after work hours, like the 2 small islands, the old piers etc. There, you can also found awesome buildings that are very eye-catching (the area was just a port facility, so they didn't demolish palaces or houses, just useless depots to make room from shinny new buildings). All these areas have extremely easy access by subway or trams.
> 
> There is also the Blaak area, a former wide railway ROW that was transformed into an attractive, giant pedestrian mall surrounded by yet more cool buildings. It's right next downtown (the railway has been put underground in a tunnel as part of a project to eliminate the use of a drawbridge across the Maas river).


I don't know Rotterdam that well, when I was there quite some years ago, I basically just saw the part and the very centre next to the pier which just looked like a place to drive through but hardly a place you'd like to stay any longer than you need to. 

Basically the question is if the city centre is as you like it, a place to move through as fast as possible or an attractive place, like every liveable city centre is, where people also like to stay or be. Modern districts if well made and planned, can offer that, but the ones you'd like to see are not. Historical neighbourhoods are more successful at it however. They function better as places to be and like it or not, I am talking about a modern day function, not some medieval one. 



> (1) afterhours activity is concentrated in some (5-6) defined smaller clusters instead of concentrated in one big area (though it is possible to walk through the "larger central Rotterdam" within 70 minutes.
> 
> (2) the area between the old plaza, the main church and the train station is mostly a retail and office only area, without much activity at night, and not a destination people would go for the sake of going and "see what is happening".


So you say that except for 5-6 corners, even the centre is dead at after hours?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Slartibartfas said:


> I don't know Rotterdam that well, when I was there quite some years ago, I basically just saw the part and the very centre next to the pier which just looked like a place to drive through but hardly a place you'd like to stay any longer than you need to.


There has been a lot of redevelopment along the Maas piers, but on the opposite side of downtown, across the river, on the inlets and 2 islands that exist there. Many new buildings, waterfront low-rises etc.



> So you say that except for 5-6 corners, even the centre is dead at after hours?


No. They are not corners, they are some clusters disposed in an arch form, to say so. And the "downtown" itself is not dead, it has many venues, nightclubs, restaurants. It is just that, fortunately, there is not a continuum of activity all over the place, but it is scattered around.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Seems like Rotterdam improved a lot in the last 10 years. But compared to pretty any other comparably large city in the region it still has a hard time I guess. 

But I wonder how you could like that development. After all you say you want the cities to be places to move through not to be, ie hostile to people who'd like to stay and relax.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

I run into this a lot when it comes to the idea of restoring old former US Canals in the US. Such as I think it would be cool and a good idea to restore some of the old canal beds running though several US cities. But in terms of things as to what they should look like restored I think it is ok for them to have a modern or updated look to them such though the building of modern canal walks along them with fancy bridges and fancy high rise office buildings in that if we looked at the same canal in the 1900's it would be a very flithy place. 

Mainly it's about if the old canal can stay in the same place that it used to run but if there is a cheaper route that can be built and restored than it should as long as at leasta gets to stay on the table of being around.


----------



## DanielFigFoz (Mar 10, 2007)

I think that, unfortunately, the reconstructions in Dresden look a bit fake, although I guess it'll look better after a few years of weather and use


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Dresden reconstruction is the Neuwschwanstein of 21st Century


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

Neuschwanstein is much appreciated so what's your point?


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ Dresden reconstruction is the Neuwschwanstein of 21st Century


And you consider that a bad thing? I mean Neuschwanstein is world famous and loved by most people.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Dahlis said:


> And you consider that a bad thing? I mean Neuschwanstein is world famous and loved by most people.





Piltup Man said:


> Neuschwanstein is much appreciated so what's your point?


There is no problem in building some fake, kitsch and/or pastiche. People love Disneyland and Disney World after all!

The problem, in my opinion, is to assume such fake (re)constructions have any historical value or significance. They don't. Dresden is going as irrelevant as the park area of Orlando, FL with its fake building. It will attract lots of tourists? Yes. Will it look like some random old stuff? Yes. Will it be worth calling historical or preserved? Never.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Suburbanist said:


> There is no problem in building some fake, kitsch and/or pastiche. People love Disneyland and Disney World after all!
> 
> The problem, in my opinion, is to assume such fake (re)constructions have any historical value or significance. They don't. Dresden is going as irrelevant as the park area of Orlando, FL with its fake building. It will attract lots of tourists? Yes. Will it look like some random old stuff? Yes. Will it be worth calling historical or preserved? Never.


Its not fake, these are real houses not holograms. The difference is that ordinary people like the design. whats wrong with that?


----------



## billiam (Nov 18, 2010)

I actually do agree with some of what Suburbanist is trying to get across. The cities I love are all living, and constantly changing, though I don't share suburbanists love of wholesale demolition, part of that is that buildings are replaced. To prevent change, to fossilise a city at an arbitary point in time is in my view, which may not be shared by all, to kill it. 

Take the city of Liverpool for example; its waterfront was given World Heritage status by the UN as they said that it exemplified a British port city at the peak of Britain’s empire in the 19th century. All of which was very nice as are the three graces and Albert Dock if you get the opportunity to visit. Although world heritage status’s is an honor and did boost tourism Liverpool is still a working city and needed to redevelop some its empty and derelict docks to being much needed jobs and prosperity to the area the problem is that this redevelopment according to the UN will change the character of the water front.

So now Liverpool city council has a choice of changing the scale of the redevelopment until the UN is satisfied, stopping the development all together and losing the investment and long term employment or losing its world heritage status. 

I also share suburbanists dislike of façading this has been done to a number of protected buildings in Manchester where effectively everything but the outer shell has been demolished and a new building put in its place. I would have sooner renovated and restored the original building then have its façade preserved. Façading to me is bad architecture and bad planning hiding behind the mask of someone who did it better.

We also have our share of Neuschwanstein style “fakes” in my home city Manchester Town hall and John Ryland’s library for example are both Victorian built but in a medieval neo-gothic style. But these beautiful buildings and are very much loved by the people here and both are given the highest protection in planning law. If a developer chose to build something of high-quality in the style they would probably have a fair amount of support.

The points I‘m labouring to make is that while it is important to preserve and reuse buildings where possible; good contemporary architecture (not modernism or brutalism as they are quite dated now) which reflects and enhances its environment should always be an option even in historical towns and cities.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> There is no problem in building some fake, kitsch and/or pastiche. People love Disneyland and Disney World after all!
> 
> The problem, in my opinion, is to assume such fake (re)constructions have any historical value or significance. They don't. Dresden is going as irrelevant as the park area of Orlando, FL with its fake building. It will attract lots of tourists? Yes. Will it look like some random old stuff? Yes. Will it be worth calling historical or preserved? Never.


You are suffering from delusions if you think the Frauenkirche will be considered anything other than a protected cultural heritage of the city. There is no way it would be torn down because people think its some Disneyland.


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

El_Greco said:


> Its not about history its about aesthetics.


You offer no arguments to why... To me it's about history. Most people don't visit ruins for the aesthetics. Most people want to feel a connection to our forefathers.

On top of that we are not able to rebuild in the manner it originally was. If people want a fake colosseum they should visit a theme park.


----------



## Ribarca (Jan 28, 2005)

Tiaren said:


> @ Suburbanist:
> What's with up the weird use of "fake"?
> Frauenkirche is not a fake church, because it IS a church and it's dome is not fake either. It IS a dome! Or is it something else just pretending to be a dome? ;D
> You actually mean "copy", right?


It's fake in that is pretending to be old and have gone through many events in history. On reality it was built yesterday.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Ribarca said:


> On top of that we are not able to rebuild in the manner it originally was. If people want a fake colosseum they should visit a theme park.


That is not perfectly true. In Carnuntum they rebuilt a public bath again by using experimental archeology. True, it might not be 100% accurate as we don't know 100% of the techniques back then but it goes fairly deep in mimicking the ancient building techniques. 

Would you call it fake?


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Ribarca said:


> It's fake in that is pretending to be old and have gone through many events in history. On reality it was built yesterday.


That is not true either. The Frauenkirche incoprorates the parts that survived as ruins and you can see it very clearly which parts stood weathered times and which were reconstructed. Over the decades these clear differentiation will increasingly blur as the newer parts get dirtier as well. I think this is a really great concept and idea.


----------



## Piltup Man (May 21, 2010)

> It's fake in that is pretending to be old and have gone through many events in history. On reality it was built yesterday.


Being destroyed and rebuilt _is_ part of its history, like it or not.


----------



## Jim856796 (Jun 1, 2006)

Does "kitsch" have to be used in order to avoid potential deviations in a historical district?


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

Jim856796 said:


> Does "kitsch" have to be used in order to avoid potential deviations in a historical district?


The problem is a branch (and a large one) of architecture can't find any value on any modern creation that is not kitschly inspired on old styles or fake constructions in a Disney-style.


----------



## Rev Stickleback (Jun 23, 2009)

Suburbanist said:


> The problem is a branch (and a large one) of architecture can't find any value on any modern creation that is not kitschly inspired on old styles or fake constructions in a Disney-style.


One thing being overlooked is that "Disney-Style" doesn't just mean "pretending to be old". It also refers to the lack of authenticity in the construction. There's a huge difference between touristed areas that get sneeringly described as "being like a theme park", and buildings designed purely to attract tourists.

Some just find areas frequented by tourists distasteful.


One reason restoration is popular - apart from just the look of the styles themselves - is that older styles have a continuity that doesn't exist with modern designs. You can have whole blocks of buildings that are different, but will still all have common themes, and the buildings will look like they belong together. You just don't get that with modern architecture.


As for keeping facades and rebuilding completely behind, many old buildings were actually built quite cheaply, and weren't meant to last. The London buildings from the 1700s have often been gutted many times in their lifetime as requirements changed, yet for some reason we seem convinced this is a modern idea.


----------



## henrique42 (Dec 5, 2011)

'' Most people don't visit ruins for the aesthetics. Most people want to feel a connection to our forefathers.''


right
and most people don't visit baroque, neoclassical, art nouveau or whatevever style buildings for a connection to our forefathers.
they visit it because they think it is beautiful. 
or do you feel more connection to the forefathers in a frauenkirche in ruins, or a frauenkirche reconstructed?
(speaking of the 18 th century forefathers, not the bombings of WW2)


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> The problem is a branch (and a large one) of architecture can't find any value on any modern creation that is not kitschly inspired on old styles or fake constructions in a Disney-style.


There are many modern buildings that are neither "kitschly inspired" nor "fake constructions in Disney-style" and are seen as a great success and aesthetically very pleasing. Of course, if you belong to those modernist extremists that condemn any form of ornament as kitschy trash, you will probably disagree. 

And even if its for example a neo-art deco style building. Few would be so radical to call that kitsch or anachronistic. Actually Kolhoff style buildings for example are part of the contemporary architecture scene at least in Germany. Die hard-modernists should face that and live with it.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ I find ornaments falling between the lame and the kitsch. But I'm a minimalist person who like sleek lines, be them angled or not, and sheer size. For a building to get my attention in a positive way, it must overwhelm me, physically. Ornaments distract me and pollute my sight, avoiding that "wow"-eness I expect when facing any contemporary building, be it a house or a supertall. I don't want a building whose façade is of a scale that matches mine. But that is just me.


----------



## kaligraffi (Aug 20, 2011)

Piltup Man said:


> Being destroyed and rebuilt is part of its history, like it or not.


Exactly. Lots of people are eager to reject history but can't bring themselves to understand it.

Reconstructed buildings are vital not only to reclaiming the identity of a city and indeed of a people, but to beautifying the city. The great buildings of the past are rich with meaning, and further they're almost without exception aesthetically better than what architects offer us today.

The arguments against this boil down to abstract ideology, they have little to do with architecture. No one pretends that rebuilt structures are the originals, the whole point is that they're rebuilt. And as for the empty and vacuous objections to ornament, I prefer to agree with Louis Sullivan who said that a building's identity resides in its ornament.



Suburbanist said:


> The problem is a branch (and a large one) of architecture can't find any value on any modern creation that is not kitschly inspired on old styles or fake constructions in a Disney-style.


"Kitschly inspired on old styles"...you mean like every would-be mid-century modernist building built in the last 30 years?

And if there were a "Disney-style" it would be deconstructivism, seeing as it is the style of the *Walt Disney* Concert Hall.


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

Suburbanist said:


> ^^ I find ornaments falling between the lame and the kitsch. But I'm a minimalist person who like sleek lines, be them angled or not, and sheer size. For a building to get my attention in a positive way, it must overwhelm me, physically. Ornaments distract me and pollute my sight, avoiding that "wow"-eness I expect when facing any contemporary building, be it a house or a supertall. I don't want a building whose façade is of a scale that matches mine. But that is just me.


You should love commie blocks. They are big sleek boxes and often come with monumentally broad roads. 

What you would like to live in, is a terrible place to actually live in. Depressing, void and vast. If it were only you who lived there, I would not care, but its the others I do care because they certainly don't have that kind of fetish normally.


----------



## Mruczek (Dec 13, 2008)

Ribarca said:


> It's fake in that is pretending to be old and have gone through many events in history. On reality it was built yesterday.


It has - I mean model reconstruction - some old bricks/ornaments/details, old layout, old look-a-like; sometimes the additional building materials are made according to old technologies. Also, if we consider reconstructions made soon after 'the event' (war/flood/fire/whatever), usually some remnants of the building stay intact. So - yes, I have to admit there is some amount of lie in reconstruction - the reconstruction cannot be called 100% fake.

And, on the other hand, when we consider real, original historic buildings, they often underwent modernising, repair, renovation and so on. They are usually not 100% historically 'sincere'. 

That's why it's very hard to draw a line.



Suburbanist said:


> The problem is a branch (and a large one) of architecture can't find any value on any modern creation that is not kitschly inspired on old styles or fake constructions in a Disney-style.


Apparently the people doesn't like the 'modern creation'.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

^^ Well, people like to the extent they buy or rent such properties. The problem is nazi-style urban planner who dare to interfere with market aesthetic options.


----------



## kaligraffi (Aug 20, 2011)

That's very cute considering that 20th-century urban planners were the ones who stood most firmly against the reconstruction of old buildings. Indeed, we can readily observe that this is not a matter of mean urban planners thwarting the market (or whatever image you have concocted) when people visit cities like Dresden to see reconstructed historical buildings.


----------



## Ocean Railroader (Jun 18, 2011)

There are some old buildings that need to be repaired such as I would love to see them rebuilt. A example would be some of those Roman Aqueducts that have knocked down sections missing out of them. Or the old canal systems in the US had had been filled in and paved over with city streets.


----------

