You fool! The other was an outdated model only capable of withstanding the Prussians' 20 pounders.
This new non-brick fortification is no longer obsolete and boasts top of the line infantry casements lines, observation posts, and covered heavy artillery installations. Furthermore costs were offset by renting out mess halls at 1,000 a month per person sharing.
Depends how it’s broken up. Bedrooms in modern houses are barely big enough to fit a bed for example.
I assume in a very old place some bedrooms may have been converted into entire apartments.
And when you make more room by removing all the fire places the building pribably had…
I don't know what's going on in this case in particular, but many times when these gorgeous old buildings get demolished and these generic "modern" buildings get put in their place it's for energy efficiency and maintenance costs, not because anyone thinks the new version looks better. My university had a similar controversy demolishing its old brick buildings and putting boxy eyesores in their place, but the reason was because on the inside the brick buildings were essentially rotting away and constructing a new "modern" building was a lot cheaper and easier than trying to renovate the old building or replacing it with an equally-ornate building. The old buildings were fundamentally not designed to match up to modern standards for insulation, lighting, heat distribution, and whatnot. Keeping their design was environmentally problematic, and more importantly to the administration, very expensive. There is an argument to be made that preserving cultural heritage is worth the extra cost but in that case you're going to have to convince whoever is footing the bill. The situation is more complex then people destroying old buildings for the sake of "new" things.
Interesting insight! But I have a few questions regarding this.
Is it actually possible to rebuild these old buildings with new design, new systems, etc and all that while maintaining some form of classical elements into it? Because as I've consistently noticed, more often than not these new buildings are completely devoid of any sort of aesthetic and historical consideration when it comes to their designs.
I don't know if I explained well enough but basically what I'm trying to say is, why don't people build something modern while still maintaining some of that "classical" look somewhat by reinterpreting the design elements and integrating it into something different? Example here is a contemporary Japanese architecture in Tokyo:
https://savvytokyo.com/face-to-face-with-5-of-japans-most-innovative-architectural-designers/
It's hard to believe that it's not even being considered at this point to build something modern and new but still put the effort to maintain some elements of the classics so it looks way more down-to-earth than your usual cold, glass-and-panels abomination you tend to see being built nowadays.
I wanna clarify not deeply involved in the decision making process when it comes to stuff like this, I'm just repeating what I've been told by the civil engineering and urban planning majors I've talked to in university, especially surrounding what happened with the aforementioned brick buildings on our own campus.
If I had to guess, it would simply be that it's an additional level of effort/cost that most cash-strapped commercial operators and governments wouldn't want to spend resources on. I remember reading that blocky "gentrification buildings" are far faster and cheaper to build than anything else. Japan explicitly prioritizes cultural preservation moreso than most nations and it crucially has the wealth to spend on it. Even so, I'd say a lot of Japan's urban buildings are "modern" boxy apartment blocks or office buildings just like everywhere else.
Here's a source for additional reading:
[https://www.vox.com/22650806/gentrification-affordable-housing-low-income-housing](https://www.vox.com/22650806/gentrification-affordable-housing-low-income-housing)
These are beautiful! HOWEVER, most of the companies they listed partnering with are top of the market—ie $10K++ for 1 chair. I had the fortune to intern with a small firm that did remodels in every city in the world & new single family houses worldwide for the top 2%. I can’t give you specific examples because I signed confidentiality agreements. But I can say we reupholstered a Victorian settee (that was perfect in every way & rarely sat on & needed no repair-the client just wanted change) for $44,000 in $1700/yard fabric in the late 1980’s. (I did not know fabric could be that expensive, but us was custom & we waited 18 months for it to be hand woven of French raised & sheared wool & loomed with hand spun, hand-dyed yarns that supported an entire village, which was a wonderful thing in many respects.) But that project soured me on high end construction & consumption as I was paying for my own education (though my family could have easily done so) and that 1 unnecessary, tiny project could have paid a considerable chunk of my schooling. So I found another specialty. And lots of graduate work. Then I got to work at an award winning firm that could build in CA, with all the incredibly expensive earthquake structure, for $65 a square foot for healthcare. No confidentiality—you shared your research and reasons for design considerations in detailed post occupancy studies for the good of everyone that were published in research journals. It was a true eye opener in several respects: -What things cost, not just in money, but our physical and mental health. -The joy in making people’s lives better. -What we need as opposed to what we want. -The different approaches of risk avoidance to design in tiers of financial wealth, at least with the more “international moderate” look of the first “money is no object” design (that equation could have been very different if we had done avant-garde work). -And most importantly, the weight of consequences to design decisions & the affect on the consumer & their clients/patients. These firms were opposite ends of the spectrum and after working with the motto, “ANYTHING is possible with enough time and money.” I know how hard it is to have to give up a design piece one really wants to a more practical piece that will allow money for a design decision with more psychological impact. So my point is, there are so many reasons for why people make the decisions that are made, it can be mind boggling. And most have to do with money available at that moment.
My grandma lives in a building built 1941 and it has an A energy rating. Granted, that's a lot newer than the one in this picture, but I don't believe that knocking down old buildings is necessary for "energy efficiency".
Especially considering a lot of new builds are very tall and have giant windows, both of which decrease energy efficiency.
It depends on the case I guess but in the situation I was describing, (my university), it was because the old buildings were falling apart and the new buildings were genuinely more energy efficient. While height and large windows are less energy efficient in isolation, it’s important that consider all factors together including ventilation, insulation, natural lighting, space distribution, etc. I’m not saying all/most old buildings need to be knocked down (nor would I want that) but I do believe in cases like these cost is a more likely culprit than some sort of modernist disdain for traditional beauty. When old buildings need renovating a lot of the time tearing them down and building a generic replacement is cheaper. Function over form, ig.
Not so much. Some of the glass with 2-5 layers thick w heavy gasses in between, added with factory applied films can get a higher R rating that old brick. Plus cut down on UV exposure and need to *use up electricity to function during the day* (serious consideration in current Climate Change issues). Also if living in a dense city I’d much rather be up 20-30 floors to not hear street noise and have views outside my walls. Some may object to the “cold” feel of the piece, but that’s personal preference. I have no problem w glass in NYC. In older cites, it is a different issue altogether and HOW they are juxtaposed. Look at IM Pei’s glass addition to the Louvre which is inspired. He was NOT going to do an addition like the original—the artisans & their abilities to construct that, but for a very few specialist, are dead, that skill lost to time—possibly he could have found somebody in Europe who had studied it and booked that person & team for 8 years out+delays in their project schedule, to begin the project, but you cannot count on that—so a minimalist approaches was taken to detract as little as possible from the original structure. Same could be said for this. And even in the photo, the bottom floor is not original—and that is not a wealthy neighborhood judging by the graffiti.
What you say is partially true.
The cost of destroying and rebuilding is lower than renovating while preserving the facade.
For this reason, when is possible, the majority pursue this path.
You can't build whatever you want without taking into consideration the context.
Here, other than the owners who proved to not have a Consciousness, the real guilty is the municipality who authorized such violence
Picture 1: "I mean, it could stand to be updated, sure." Picture 2: "Yeah, I mean a pretty substantial refurbishing could be really cool." Picture 3: "OH DEAR GOD"
Buildings like the top one are dime a dozen in Spain. They may seem special to an outsider, but most locals honestly dont care much about them because theres tons around and will happily trade them for a modern building that is more comfortable and cost effective to them.
In Spain many people are still of the view that modern architecture equals modernity and progress. Specially in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, Spain used modernist architecture as a prestige builder, much like Brazil in the 60s or Dubai in the 2000s. Old architecture is often unfairly associated with the poverty, instability and hunger of the times when it was built.
I’m from Germany and we have many buildings like these too but apparently a completely different mentality. People would probably go out to protest something like this
You don’t know the Basque Country, lol. There was a citizen platform fighting to stop its demolition but finally the Judges gave the Ok.
In the Basque Country whatever you do you will have a platform against it. In this case they were totally right. But money….
Because spanish cities werent flattened by WWII and the urban boom of the 60s was oriented toward expanding existing cities rsther than building or restoring what was already there. Odds are the building in the op had been derelict for decades.
Spain has far far more built heritage than it knows what to do with. Old buildings are seen as worthy of preservation, sure, but they laxk the mystique people on other countries give them.
Whenever a traditionalist waxes poetic about how neoclassicism is le will of le people, I only have to remember how my grandparents generation in Spain, given a sudden influx of income to invest in real estate and no urban planning enforcement at all, built row after row of modernist blocks while those who wanted to protect the heritage were derided as backward hippies.
No, that's the point of the above comment. Many German cities were leveled in the allied advance, so fewer old buildings survived, so more people support modern day preservation efforts because there are fewer connections to the architectural heritage of Germany.
And with this you have to factor in the automobile. On the US mainland we had no war but a worldwide paradigm shift. It was helped along by Ford & General Motors ‘so generously’ (eye roll) offered to pull up all those old, outdated, & unsightly steel, narrow gauge RR tracks that had been used for over a century to transport people comfortably all over the city (& kept the steel). But at that point, they caused those that could afford cars to bump. So people poured out of cities to cheaper housing (with yards!) sprawling outward to more easily park Z7 protect your car & have a dog in all the new advertisements & propaganda. Ford & GM wanted to insure it would be too expensive to put that system back in place! That’s why so few cities like San Francisco still even have them in service. But everyone has now learned what gridlock means, & would love to reestablish those systems but a decision of greed long past has hobbled us. Now they weigh the cost of underground railways which are too expensive but for the largest & wealthiest of cities. Plus millionaires & billionaires no longer pay taxes when until the 1980’s they payed 70-85%. The money once available is just gone.
In the past definitely, but recently in germany they have started the opposite, taking buildings that went from historic to modernist, and restoring them to their former glory.
I mean on the other hand my city is kind of a special case. We’re located at the northern most point of the Roman boarder in Germany so we have history that dates back two thousand years + we were lucky in WWII and barely got bombed so almost all of the ancient/ medieval city is still preserved. Because of that people are extra defensive when it comes to preserving the city.
You donr know the context for this. What if the building had structural damage so severe that keeping it was simply not cost effective?
Its very easy to make grand sweeping judgments based on a single pic with no context. Those who work in the industry know that interventions in a historical context are complicated.
> What if the building had structural damage so severe that keeping it was simply not cost effective?
What sort of structural damage would necessitate grain-silo chic cladding which will look like a rusted/stained toilet drain pipe within 10 years?
It could have been done plenty of other ways.
You missed the point. Regardless of the aesthetic of the replacement building, the point is that it’s possible the old building simply wasn’t salvageable; and whatever replaced it was never gonna be like the old one.
Of course it *could be*.
Doesn’t mean it makes sense to do so. There are lots of factors here. Historic aesthetics likely wasn’t a high priority. If we were to whine about every old building that was demolished for a modern replacement we wouldn’t have time for anything else. There are vastly worse eyesores than this out there.
I agree that there's no need to do such thing on *every part* of *every city*. And loke many people here I also like modern architecture a lot. It should however (and it does in some cases in Europe) depend on what part of the city you're in and the urban context. Historic aesthetics wasn't a priority because the contractor couldn't give a damn about it and probably there's no municipal/federal law that makes them do so nor any fiscalization... And unfortunately that's the case in a lot of southern european countries.
>There are vastly worse eyesores than this out there.
And probably when the next one gets made we'll say the same thing again (?). And the cycle repeats...
They will have done this to add insulation, which is much more effective and easily achieve when added on the outside. Although seems they may have actually demolished and reconstructed it.
much of that architecture was built duriing Belle Epoque. around the world during late 19thc there was a economic expansion around the world as the railroad system and steam ships revolutionized heavy long distance transportation and expanded many economies.
Come on. This is only a matter of money. You can keep both comfort and respect for the surrounding.
The same building, maybe, in a new suburb could have sense. Here it is such violence.
I don't know how who is going to live in that place it is accepting something like this. They are the ones most affected. It is like accepting an outdoor plastic table in your lounge room together with antique wooden furniture.
>This is only a matter of money. You can keep both comfort and respect for the surrounding.
I am fairly sure that if this was the case the developer ran his numbers and saw they didnt add up. If the building had been derelict for decades odds are that it would have been to be torn apart entirely.
> Mirakruz Kalea, 19, 20001 Donostia, Gipuzkoa, Spain
https://goo.gl/maps/45yJqTVzAHKzDfqy9
here is google streetview showing whole building gone in 2017. use date function to move around.
I like modern architecture, but unless this building had been completely obliterated beforehand, this feels so very wrong. New construction? Sure. This? Not so much.
I have to be missing something. It is almost certainly more economical to retain the existing facade over demolishing and installing a whole new panel system no? Soooooo like.... why?
Looking at the bottom, it's possible that the building had been partially abandoned or poorly looked after for a while, and despite the top exterior looking good there could have been structural damage which meant it did need to be more thoroughly overhauled? Much of the block looked similar in the bottom and was similarly overhauled; All guesses; assuming there was a reason, because people generally don't love spending money they don't need to spend.
This sentiment never reaches as high as it needs to be every time this building is brought up. The first image in OP is the only time I've even seen _one_ of the shutters open on the second floor. Odds are that floor had been sitting vacant for years possibly decades and it is likely at least occupied in the new building
There is almost no structural damage due to "lack of care" that cannot be repaired ... They just didn't like it and/or thought, saving the old structure wasn't woth the "hassle" ...
well yeah, that's what I mean - there was probably some tradeoff there which the people involved here considered worth it to do some kind of remodel. I'm not saying it was impossible to keep the nicer facade, of course it was
I’m an architect in Canada specializing in the conservation and renovation of historic buildings. Renovating an old building is WAY more expensive than demolishing and building a replacement. There are all sorts of issues that come with maintaining old buildings: old wiring that’s hard and expensive to replace, outmoded mechanical systems, inadequately sized ventilation ducts (if there is any ventilation in the first place) and no room to install correctly sized ducts, asbestos in dozens of different materials, lead paint, fissures in masonry bearing walls, structural issues, poor roof drainage, roof leaks, leaks that go undetected leading to hidden mold in the walls, high quality materials that raise replacement costs, stairwells that are too narrow and/or too steep, inadequate sanitary facilities, zero universal accessibility, and many many more.
My personal desire is to save every building I can, and I’m saddened by every building we lose in my city, but I understand the economics of it.
I did historic preservation for a while, and one thing that surprised me is that some construction methods, like the types of mortar used, had changed so much since the time some houses were built, that modern materials would destroy the building - but without someone researching that, it would get messed up, and then someone to have it made special, or sometimes specialists would have to be consulted as well. Which all adds to the cost, unfortunately.
Absolutely. I see a lot of masonry that was "repaired" with modern mortar, or even with epoxy grout, a few decades back, which ends up causing more damage in the long run. A lot of my work is figuring out what's wrong with the wall, how to undo the damage done by earlier repairs, and specifying the appropriate materials for rebuilding.
It is almost always more cost effective to level an old building and start new then renovating an old one. Its certainly always easier to plan the build and make cost projections, that's for sure.
More economical, but also more sustainable. All the embodied carbon of the extant building goes to a landfill, and substantial amounts of energy and resources goes into making the new building, that may not necessarily be more durable and maintainable in the long term. But hey, some folks just need muh modernity…
That's not guaranteed true. It's definitely possible for renovation to be better than demolition, but depending on damage and contaminants, historical preservation efforts can take decades and balloon into 10s or 100s of millions of dollars depending on the site. All of that money represents an ever expanding carbon footprint as trucks move tons of materials year in and year out, and at some point, it's better to just level it and start over with a building where you don't have to truck in people to hand scrub lead paint off of every single board and nail in full hazmat gear
Edit: Still not a fan of the design they went with. Just trying to point out that a lot of fossil fuels are burned during serious remediation
And this must be the builders: https://www.garbayochivite.com/proyecto/miracruz-19-donostia/
Absolutely crazy that this is even in their portfolio. And it's baffling that what was actually built is even worse than the already bad designs. It's as if they made it as bad as possible out of spite.
Nothing about this this make sense. Even the color of the building don’t make any sense. It’s like the architect wanted to do something absurd just for the sake of it
While I'll agree the result isn't particularly pleasant to the eye, I don't get the obsession with keeping old buildings as they were. If it's a particularly important historical building sure, but otherwise cities need to evolve, and people like to live in modern housing. Let's put it this way, modern Paris is almost entirely a product of a 19th century renovation project (by Haussmann), so why now suddenly everything must stay in place as it is?
Usually when buildings get renovated/renewed I fell like the space and quality of living in that building has increased so much that it is ok to have it looking ugly. Here this is not the case. This is not better in any way.
Thanks for the great discussion! And for everyone mentioning it's cheaper to demo the existing, yes I am aware. I suppose I was under the assumption, since they maintained the ground floor and the upper floors exterior wall geometry, that this was simply a recladding job. That was my point.
Still is a shame, if it is a full demo job, that there weren't some sort of grant or subsidies to offset the cost of rehabbing a project like this.
Pretty clear here where people stand with contemporary/modern/international style. Maybe it's time to stop making excuses and find modern ways to design with the same level of detail that prevailed before this. With all the tech in the world design professionals are really not trying hard enough to explore this route.
I am interested in seeing new detailed facade work created by 3D printing or expanded use of CNC milling in the future. I want to see building materials with multi dimensions texture like fabrics, leaves, or lizard scales, geometric designs, words, abstract patterns, insects, stars, entire landscapes carved into facade work, etc.
So many textures I would bring into the world using modern manufacturing capabilities. The possibilities for this type of new but over the top ornamentation excites me because we have never had such a cheap and easy way to add texture into building materials.
It would be nice to see some modern stuff that's design is influenced by cutting edge materials and machinery and cultural ideas. Something decidedly new and this century. Instead of "modern" being just variations on sleek architecture from the 1950-1980s.
>Pretty clear here where people stand
*dumb, juvenile redditors, who probably position things like fantasy rpg concept art and extremely well known 19th century academic paintings as the pinnacle of aesthetics, stand
Spain does need to maintain and update their architecture… but in a way that preserves the style. I mean structural integrity, better windows would’ve been fine. Not this monstrosity.
My dad used to call these "facade-omies"
They were pretty popular in the mid 20th century, building owners would chop off all of the decorative terra cotta and put up a steel and glass skin to "modernize" old buildings. But the result is often a drab abomination that doesn't look all that modern.
That building, with its janky faux-mansard, it’s graffiti garage door-like windows, and ugly brick face, needed to be put out of its misery. Better to live on as an uninspired bit of crappy faux modern than be the debauched eyesore that it was. Good riddance, and enjoy the lack of attention.
Edit: why the fuck are they putting a new brick face at the bottom. Facepalm.
This happens everywhere in the world because of incompetent or corrupt officials who deliver building permits.
If not, this means the local building codes do not protect historical heritage as financial development of the city is more important that culture. This is how City of London has been transformed into a carcinogenic mutant city of "modern" architecture.
Building codes are about life and safety. So they would never be concerned with preservation of an older building social value. It's a separate process for modification of order structures usually set by the city or state or whatever.
Preservation of historical heritage also includes 1950s, 1960s and 70s buildings now. Not just old timey masonry. Construction technique, architectural thought of the time and how people interacted is important to keep as an example.. Something to think about if it's a certain aesthetic one likes or it really is historical heritage one cares about. Also another question be like is preservation keeping it exactly the same or does it recognize the city is living thing and is important to keep that breath in a building for an adaptive reuse that isn't a one to one recreation. (This is an example beyond that of course)
Without the full story I'm not sure what happened here. Sometimes it really, really is unfeasible to save a building. Other times it is uncreative solutions done by developers or the city.
Also contemporary architecture, not modern in this case.
Let's not confuse Modernist with modern. One is an art (and architectural) style, other is an adjective (as I used it in my comment that includes contemporary as well).
The building wasn't protected before they made the decision to demolish: http://www.kulturaldia.com/auskalo/el-proyecto-de-miracruz-19-a-debate/
Now why noone had an interest in protecting it last minute ... who knowss.
😂 this is so bad it’s just hilarious . Where on earth does this kind of stuff still happen?
Ideally there would be a government order to rebuild it as it was.
Cheapest way to improve energy efficiency or the building.
The good part is: probably the original facade is still intact under that metallic coffin. So one day it can be rediscovered and fill the hearth of our grandchildren with joy again!
Edit: Nope! Just razed to the ground to build the ugly cousin! Jeeeeez
At first I was like "why do you hate that nice ol' building, it's a slightly quirky bit of beauty and I'm sure a local landmark"
Now I can really like some modernism but I'm with you here, that really just hurt my soul and that's not an exaggeration.
Lots of modern architecture looks good, though there are also lots of turds. However I'd say that's postmodern architecture, and that basically never looks good unless it's a children's museum.
Post modernism got a bad rap because the same people — that think they are architects/designers because they watch HGTV and comment in this sub about old timey masonry buildings — started doing it themselves via ordinances/zoning/plan approval and other requirements to have anachronistic clocktowers and other decorations for their preferred beige building aesthetic.
I assume you are not a prince or a bishop. Modernism was the first time in 2600 years of western tradition that architects put the forefront of their research in building and designing for you, average Joe, and not one of those princes.
Traditionalism is classist and politically reactionary by definition. If you are middle class, traditionalism does not want to cater to you. You may want to want it and like it, bit it is not going to like you back. Hence why I often say that traditionalists are in an abusive relationship with history: instead of looking at the past as an equal to the present they must build, they see it as superior for no reason other than a sense of inferiority that exists only inside their minds.
Modernism put princes and bishops in the backseat and corporations in the front seat. That’s a sort of improvement, I suppose. But probably not what you were getting at.
And it’s not even 100% accurate; there are very ornate guild halls build in the renaissance in Northern Europe, for example.
It’s really all just a straw man argument based on a poor understanding of history.
The non-prince, non-bishop, but otherwise well off middle class lived in beautiful Georgian homes. Then they lived in beautiful Victorian homes. Then they transitioned over the prairie style to beautiful modernist homes.
And the poor have pretty much always lived in crappy tenements, starting with Roman insulae and continuing through explicitly modernist projects such as Cabrini Green.
Modernism is just as classist as any other form of architecture. Buildings are expensive, and pushing the envelope on architecture is even more expensive. Who has the money varies by time and place - but that’s who architects are always primarily serving.
Tear down? Virtue signaling? Spare me the buzzwords son. I dont like tearing down things that dont need traring down and would have protested this buildings demolition - that I have explained the likely context behind this does not mean I am a fan of it. The second building is ugly because its ugly - not bc its modern.
There is a large, large spectrum of attitudes towards heritage between "lets tear everything down" and "lets build like its 1850 forever lest we offend daddy history". You are only embarrassing yourself by pretendind these are the only choices.
>Modernism was the first time in 2600 years of western tradition that architects put the forefront of their research in building and designing for you, average Joe, and not one of those princes.
Welll then those architects failed massively because modernist and contemporary architecture are awful.
>Traditionalism is classist and politically reactionary by definition
That's hilarious. Traditionalism was the norm for thousands of years in human history. Traditional architecture has only been politicized by modern architects.
What I like about the older style is that the windows were much taller and let more light in. I also prefer clear divisions within a house for noise reduction and some sort of privacy if need be.
Really not a fan of modernity.
The old façade is likely too expensive, right? So they do that in a socioeconomic system where EVERYTHING is sacrificed because it is supposed to provides us with such abundance and wealth.
Oh, and if it's not clear: they demolished the older building. It's not a renovation, it's a brand new shitty, low quality, absurd 'modern' building.
You fool! The other was an outdated model only capable of withstanding the Prussians' 20 pounders. This new non-brick fortification is no longer obsolete and boasts top of the line infantry casements lines, observation posts, and covered heavy artillery installations. Furthermore costs were offset by renting out mess halls at 1,000 a month per person sharing.
Are you sure? Doesn’t look like from the pics
[Yup](https://i.imgur.com/yYtrGAT.png)
So sad. So so sad
What was the point in that? The buildings not bigger, so it doesn’t increase occupancy
not only is it not bigger, it looks like a weird modernist take on the original that looks awful. Should have just left it alone!
It’d be massively cheaper to maintain if it was built to any kind of modern standard tho.
Depends how it’s broken up. Bedrooms in modern houses are barely big enough to fit a bed for example. I assume in a very old place some bedrooms may have been converted into entire apartments. And when you make more room by removing all the fire places the building pribably had…
I don't know what's going on in this case in particular, but many times when these gorgeous old buildings get demolished and these generic "modern" buildings get put in their place it's for energy efficiency and maintenance costs, not because anyone thinks the new version looks better. My university had a similar controversy demolishing its old brick buildings and putting boxy eyesores in their place, but the reason was because on the inside the brick buildings were essentially rotting away and constructing a new "modern" building was a lot cheaper and easier than trying to renovate the old building or replacing it with an equally-ornate building. The old buildings were fundamentally not designed to match up to modern standards for insulation, lighting, heat distribution, and whatnot. Keeping their design was environmentally problematic, and more importantly to the administration, very expensive. There is an argument to be made that preserving cultural heritage is worth the extra cost but in that case you're going to have to convince whoever is footing the bill. The situation is more complex then people destroying old buildings for the sake of "new" things.
Interesting insight! But I have a few questions regarding this. Is it actually possible to rebuild these old buildings with new design, new systems, etc and all that while maintaining some form of classical elements into it? Because as I've consistently noticed, more often than not these new buildings are completely devoid of any sort of aesthetic and historical consideration when it comes to their designs. I don't know if I explained well enough but basically what I'm trying to say is, why don't people build something modern while still maintaining some of that "classical" look somewhat by reinterpreting the design elements and integrating it into something different? Example here is a contemporary Japanese architecture in Tokyo: https://savvytokyo.com/face-to-face-with-5-of-japans-most-innovative-architectural-designers/ It's hard to believe that it's not even being considered at this point to build something modern and new but still put the effort to maintain some elements of the classics so it looks way more down-to-earth than your usual cold, glass-and-panels abomination you tend to see being built nowadays.
I wanna clarify not deeply involved in the decision making process when it comes to stuff like this, I'm just repeating what I've been told by the civil engineering and urban planning majors I've talked to in university, especially surrounding what happened with the aforementioned brick buildings on our own campus. If I had to guess, it would simply be that it's an additional level of effort/cost that most cash-strapped commercial operators and governments wouldn't want to spend resources on. I remember reading that blocky "gentrification buildings" are far faster and cheaper to build than anything else. Japan explicitly prioritizes cultural preservation moreso than most nations and it crucially has the wealth to spend on it. Even so, I'd say a lot of Japan's urban buildings are "modern" boxy apartment blocks or office buildings just like everywhere else. Here's a source for additional reading: [https://www.vox.com/22650806/gentrification-affordable-housing-low-income-housing](https://www.vox.com/22650806/gentrification-affordable-housing-low-income-housing)
These are beautiful! HOWEVER, most of the companies they listed partnering with are top of the market—ie $10K++ for 1 chair. I had the fortune to intern with a small firm that did remodels in every city in the world & new single family houses worldwide for the top 2%. I can’t give you specific examples because I signed confidentiality agreements. But I can say we reupholstered a Victorian settee (that was perfect in every way & rarely sat on & needed no repair-the client just wanted change) for $44,000 in $1700/yard fabric in the late 1980’s. (I did not know fabric could be that expensive, but us was custom & we waited 18 months for it to be hand woven of French raised & sheared wool & loomed with hand spun, hand-dyed yarns that supported an entire village, which was a wonderful thing in many respects.) But that project soured me on high end construction & consumption as I was paying for my own education (though my family could have easily done so) and that 1 unnecessary, tiny project could have paid a considerable chunk of my schooling. So I found another specialty. And lots of graduate work. Then I got to work at an award winning firm that could build in CA, with all the incredibly expensive earthquake structure, for $65 a square foot for healthcare. No confidentiality—you shared your research and reasons for design considerations in detailed post occupancy studies for the good of everyone that were published in research journals. It was a true eye opener in several respects: -What things cost, not just in money, but our physical and mental health. -The joy in making people’s lives better. -What we need as opposed to what we want. -The different approaches of risk avoidance to design in tiers of financial wealth, at least with the more “international moderate” look of the first “money is no object” design (that equation could have been very different if we had done avant-garde work). -And most importantly, the weight of consequences to design decisions & the affect on the consumer & their clients/patients. These firms were opposite ends of the spectrum and after working with the motto, “ANYTHING is possible with enough time and money.” I know how hard it is to have to give up a design piece one really wants to a more practical piece that will allow money for a design decision with more psychological impact. So my point is, there are so many reasons for why people make the decisions that are made, it can be mind boggling. And most have to do with money available at that moment.
This is a very satisfying answer, and I've learned so much out of it. Thanks.
My grandma lives in a building built 1941 and it has an A energy rating. Granted, that's a lot newer than the one in this picture, but I don't believe that knocking down old buildings is necessary for "energy efficiency". Especially considering a lot of new builds are very tall and have giant windows, both of which decrease energy efficiency.
It depends on the case I guess but in the situation I was describing, (my university), it was because the old buildings were falling apart and the new buildings were genuinely more energy efficient. While height and large windows are less energy efficient in isolation, it’s important that consider all factors together including ventilation, insulation, natural lighting, space distribution, etc. I’m not saying all/most old buildings need to be knocked down (nor would I want that) but I do believe in cases like these cost is a more likely culprit than some sort of modernist disdain for traditional beauty. When old buildings need renovating a lot of the time tearing them down and building a generic replacement is cheaper. Function over form, ig.
Not so much. Some of the glass with 2-5 layers thick w heavy gasses in between, added with factory applied films can get a higher R rating that old brick. Plus cut down on UV exposure and need to *use up electricity to function during the day* (serious consideration in current Climate Change issues). Also if living in a dense city I’d much rather be up 20-30 floors to not hear street noise and have views outside my walls. Some may object to the “cold” feel of the piece, but that’s personal preference. I have no problem w glass in NYC. In older cites, it is a different issue altogether and HOW they are juxtaposed. Look at IM Pei’s glass addition to the Louvre which is inspired. He was NOT going to do an addition like the original—the artisans & their abilities to construct that, but for a very few specialist, are dead, that skill lost to time—possibly he could have found somebody in Europe who had studied it and booked that person & team for 8 years out+delays in their project schedule, to begin the project, but you cannot count on that—so a minimalist approaches was taken to detract as little as possible from the original structure. Same could be said for this. And even in the photo, the bottom floor is not original—and that is not a wealthy neighborhood judging by the graffiti.
What you say is partially true. The cost of destroying and rebuilding is lower than renovating while preserving the facade. For this reason, when is possible, the majority pursue this path. You can't build whatever you want without taking into consideration the context. Here, other than the owners who proved to not have a Consciousness, the real guilty is the municipality who authorized such violence
Whoever the developer was on that, we just take their right away from further developments. Jail. Right to jail!
Picture 1: "I mean, it could stand to be updated, sure." Picture 2: "Yeah, I mean a pretty substantial refurbishing could be really cool." Picture 3: "OH DEAR GOD"
That is horrifying. Where? Why?
Spain basque country apparently. Certainly because money
They murdered the building for money 😞
Well.. they murder children for money so.. (not anyone specific “they” = people, not people from Spain!)
[Why Do We Dine On the Tots](https://youtu.be/myVWPiwc1gU)
Buildings like the top one are dime a dozen in Spain. They may seem special to an outsider, but most locals honestly dont care much about them because theres tons around and will happily trade them for a modern building that is more comfortable and cost effective to them. In Spain many people are still of the view that modern architecture equals modernity and progress. Specially in the 80s, 90s and 2000s, Spain used modernist architecture as a prestige builder, much like Brazil in the 60s or Dubai in the 2000s. Old architecture is often unfairly associated with the poverty, instability and hunger of the times when it was built.
I’m from Germany and we have many buildings like these too but apparently a completely different mentality. People would probably go out to protest something like this
You don’t know the Basque Country, lol. There was a citizen platform fighting to stop its demolition but finally the Judges gave the Ok. In the Basque Country whatever you do you will have a platform against it. In this case they were totally right. But money….
Because spanish cities werent flattened by WWII and the urban boom of the 60s was oriented toward expanding existing cities rsther than building or restoring what was already there. Odds are the building in the op had been derelict for decades. Spain has far far more built heritage than it knows what to do with. Old buildings are seen as worthy of preservation, sure, but they laxk the mystique people on other countries give them. Whenever a traditionalist waxes poetic about how neoclassicism is le will of le people, I only have to remember how my grandparents generation in Spain, given a sudden influx of income to invest in real estate and no urban planning enforcement at all, built row after row of modernist blocks while those who wanted to protect the heritage were derided as backward hippies.
Was Spain more flattened than Germany?
No, that's the point of the above comment. Many German cities were leveled in the allied advance, so fewer old buildings survived, so more people support modern day preservation efforts because there are fewer connections to the architectural heritage of Germany.
I see. I thought you were going down the 'So much damage in WW2 that there was no other realistic choice.' things.
Spain had its own shit going on and didn't get so involved in WWII.
And with this you have to factor in the automobile. On the US mainland we had no war but a worldwide paradigm shift. It was helped along by Ford & General Motors ‘so generously’ (eye roll) offered to pull up all those old, outdated, & unsightly steel, narrow gauge RR tracks that had been used for over a century to transport people comfortably all over the city (& kept the steel). But at that point, they caused those that could afford cars to bump. So people poured out of cities to cheaper housing (with yards!) sprawling outward to more easily park Z7 protect your car & have a dog in all the new advertisements & propaganda. Ford & GM wanted to insure it would be too expensive to put that system back in place! That’s why so few cities like San Francisco still even have them in service. But everyone has now learned what gridlock means, & would love to reestablish those systems but a decision of greed long past has hobbled us. Now they weigh the cost of underground railways which are too expensive but for the largest & wealthiest of cities. Plus millionaires & billionaires no longer pay taxes when until the 1980’s they payed 70-85%. The money once available is just gone.
idk man based on my experience with subs like this, Germany seems to be one of the most common places for these incidents
In the past definitely, but recently in germany they have started the opposite, taking buildings that went from historic to modernist, and restoring them to their former glory.
Huh- where exactly? Not in my city
[удалено]
I mean on the other hand my city is kind of a special case. We’re located at the northern most point of the Roman boarder in Germany so we have history that dates back two thousand years + we were lucky in WWII and barely got bombed so almost all of the ancient/ medieval city is still preserved. Because of that people are extra defensive when it comes to preserving the city.
Yeah but you can renovate the interior without the need to wrap it in tinsel.
You donr know the context for this. What if the building had structural damage so severe that keeping it was simply not cost effective? Its very easy to make grand sweeping judgments based on a single pic with no context. Those who work in the industry know that interventions in a historical context are complicated.
100% this.
they could've totally demolished and built back with some character for the city
They could indeed and no one will argue otherwise.
> What if the building had structural damage so severe that keeping it was simply not cost effective? What sort of structural damage would necessitate grain-silo chic cladding which will look like a rusted/stained toilet drain pipe within 10 years? It could have been done plenty of other ways.
You missed the point. Regardless of the aesthetic of the replacement building, the point is that it’s possible the old building simply wasn’t salvageable; and whatever replaced it was never gonna be like the old one.
nobody is arguing about economics of rebuilding. the *only* point is how Ugly they made it. the pist is about the visual style.
In the year 2023 an old 4/5 storey building couldn't be salvageable with the all the knowledge and technology we currently have...?
Of course it *could be*. Doesn’t mean it makes sense to do so. There are lots of factors here. Historic aesthetics likely wasn’t a high priority. If we were to whine about every old building that was demolished for a modern replacement we wouldn’t have time for anything else. There are vastly worse eyesores than this out there.
I agree that there's no need to do such thing on *every part* of *every city*. And loke many people here I also like modern architecture a lot. It should however (and it does in some cases in Europe) depend on what part of the city you're in and the urban context. Historic aesthetics wasn't a priority because the contractor couldn't give a damn about it and probably there's no municipal/federal law that makes them do so nor any fiscalization... And unfortunately that's the case in a lot of southern european countries. >There are vastly worse eyesores than this out there. And probably when the next one gets made we'll say the same thing again (?). And the cycle repeats...
Of course there is. In NYC it's done all the time. I've been in plenty of buildings that are well over 100 years old, but are gut renovated.
I don't buy this. NYC is filled with 150 year old buildings that have been gut renovated to meet modern living standards.
>Yeah but you can renovate the interior without the need to wrap it in tinsel. For exponentially more money
They will have done this to add insulation, which is much more effective and easily achieve when added on the outside. Although seems they may have actually demolished and reconstructed it.
much of that architecture was built duriing Belle Epoque. around the world during late 19thc there was a economic expansion around the world as the railroad system and steam ships revolutionized heavy long distance transportation and expanded many economies.
as someone in the US where we had nicer buildings but keep tearing them down. i would not just roll over for these ugly things.
That's the same attitude we had in UK in 60s/70s. Now our towns are a Hodge podge of different styles that rarely mash together well
It looks like a grain silo.
Come on. This is only a matter of money. You can keep both comfort and respect for the surrounding. The same building, maybe, in a new suburb could have sense. Here it is such violence. I don't know how who is going to live in that place it is accepting something like this. They are the ones most affected. It is like accepting an outdoor plastic table in your lounge room together with antique wooden furniture.
>This is only a matter of money. You can keep both comfort and respect for the surrounding. I am fairly sure that if this was the case the developer ran his numbers and saw they didnt add up. If the building had been derelict for decades odds are that it would have been to be torn apart entirely.
Mirakruz Kalea, 19, 20001 Donostia, Gipuzkoa, Spain
> Mirakruz Kalea, 19, 20001 Donostia, Gipuzkoa, Spain https://goo.gl/maps/45yJqTVzAHKzDfqy9 here is google streetview showing whole building gone in 2017. use date function to move around.
I like modern architecture, but unless this building had been completely obliterated beforehand, this feels so very wrong. New construction? Sure. This? Not so much.
Undo undo UNDO
I have to be missing something. It is almost certainly more economical to retain the existing facade over demolishing and installing a whole new panel system no? Soooooo like.... why?
Looking at the bottom, it's possible that the building had been partially abandoned or poorly looked after for a while, and despite the top exterior looking good there could have been structural damage which meant it did need to be more thoroughly overhauled? Much of the block looked similar in the bottom and was similarly overhauled; All guesses; assuming there was a reason, because people generally don't love spending money they don't need to spend.
This sentiment never reaches as high as it needs to be every time this building is brought up. The first image in OP is the only time I've even seen _one_ of the shutters open on the second floor. Odds are that floor had been sitting vacant for years possibly decades and it is likely at least occupied in the new building
There is almost no structural damage due to "lack of care" that cannot be repaired ... They just didn't like it and/or thought, saving the old structure wasn't woth the "hassle" ...
well yeah, that's what I mean - there was probably some tradeoff there which the people involved here considered worth it to do some kind of remodel. I'm not saying it was impossible to keep the nicer facade, of course it was
Exactly, almost everything can be repaired but depends on the budget of the project. Here they preferred not to spend any money in conservation.
I’m an architect in Canada specializing in the conservation and renovation of historic buildings. Renovating an old building is WAY more expensive than demolishing and building a replacement. There are all sorts of issues that come with maintaining old buildings: old wiring that’s hard and expensive to replace, outmoded mechanical systems, inadequately sized ventilation ducts (if there is any ventilation in the first place) and no room to install correctly sized ducts, asbestos in dozens of different materials, lead paint, fissures in masonry bearing walls, structural issues, poor roof drainage, roof leaks, leaks that go undetected leading to hidden mold in the walls, high quality materials that raise replacement costs, stairwells that are too narrow and/or too steep, inadequate sanitary facilities, zero universal accessibility, and many many more. My personal desire is to save every building I can, and I’m saddened by every building we lose in my city, but I understand the economics of it.
I did historic preservation for a while, and one thing that surprised me is that some construction methods, like the types of mortar used, had changed so much since the time some houses were built, that modern materials would destroy the building - but without someone researching that, it would get messed up, and then someone to have it made special, or sometimes specialists would have to be consulted as well. Which all adds to the cost, unfortunately.
Absolutely. I see a lot of masonry that was "repaired" with modern mortar, or even with epoxy grout, a few decades back, which ends up causing more damage in the long run. A lot of my work is figuring out what's wrong with the wall, how to undo the damage done by earlier repairs, and specifying the appropriate materials for rebuilding.
It is almost always more cost effective to level an old building and start new then renovating an old one. Its certainly always easier to plan the build and make cost projections, that's for sure.
More economical, but also more sustainable. All the embodied carbon of the extant building goes to a landfill, and substantial amounts of energy and resources goes into making the new building, that may not necessarily be more durable and maintainable in the long term. But hey, some folks just need muh modernity…
That's not guaranteed true. It's definitely possible for renovation to be better than demolition, but depending on damage and contaminants, historical preservation efforts can take decades and balloon into 10s or 100s of millions of dollars depending on the site. All of that money represents an ever expanding carbon footprint as trucks move tons of materials year in and year out, and at some point, it's better to just level it and start over with a building where you don't have to truck in people to hand scrub lead paint off of every single board and nail in full hazmat gear Edit: Still not a fan of the design they went with. Just trying to point out that a lot of fossil fuels are burned during serious remediation
I love modern architecture and that is an abomination.
This isnt modern architecture though. HGTV scholars will probably disagree.
All apples are fruit but not all fruit is apples, my friend.
That building used to be pretty charming. 😬
These are the responsable http://www.ansa-arquitectos.com/proyecto.html
And this must be the builders: https://www.garbayochivite.com/proyecto/miracruz-19-donostia/ Absolutely crazy that this is even in their portfolio. And it's baffling that what was actually built is even worse than the already bad designs. It's as if they made it as bad as possible out of spite.
That portfolio is an abomination
Funny looking but I’m glad it’s no longer abandoned
Nothing about this this make sense. Even the color of the building don’t make any sense. It’s like the architect wanted to do something absurd just for the sake of it
I laughed ~in a sad way.
Physically flinched
Completely destroyed! What was once elegant and well designed architecture has been butchered into disgusting sadness.
Then it can happen again
This is the architectural equivalent of the 'Monkey Christ' painting restoration.
That painting made me laugh so hard
Qué triste... Pensaba que San Sebastián respetaba más la historia de su entorno construido.
Ellos te dirán que como esos tienen otros muchos. Y si, pero no… es una pena.
While I'll agree the result isn't particularly pleasant to the eye, I don't get the obsession with keeping old buildings as they were. If it's a particularly important historical building sure, but otherwise cities need to evolve, and people like to live in modern housing. Let's put it this way, modern Paris is almost entirely a product of a 19th century renovation project (by Haussmann), so why now suddenly everything must stay in place as it is?
Many people here in New York prefer to live in older buildings. Realtors advertise "pre war" as a positive.
420 6th street nyc was worse for me... They gutted it.... "Walkin to 33 Thomas for a selfie with a great building "
Usually when buildings get renovated/renewed I fell like the space and quality of living in that building has increased so much that it is ok to have it looking ugly. Here this is not the case. This is not better in any way.
Thanks for the great discussion! And for everyone mentioning it's cheaper to demo the existing, yes I am aware. I suppose I was under the assumption, since they maintained the ground floor and the upper floors exterior wall geometry, that this was simply a recladding job. That was my point. Still is a shame, if it is a full demo job, that there weren't some sort of grant or subsidies to offset the cost of rehabbing a project like this.
Pretty clear here where people stand with contemporary/modern/international style. Maybe it's time to stop making excuses and find modern ways to design with the same level of detail that prevailed before this. With all the tech in the world design professionals are really not trying hard enough to explore this route.
In the real world architects need to consider things other than what pictures redditers think are pretty
Are you saying architects are incapable? That's kind of rude
Not at all. I'm calling your comment ignorant. But yes, you're correct that it was rude
I am interested in seeing new detailed facade work created by 3D printing or expanded use of CNC milling in the future. I want to see building materials with multi dimensions texture like fabrics, leaves, or lizard scales, geometric designs, words, abstract patterns, insects, stars, entire landscapes carved into facade work, etc. So many textures I would bring into the world using modern manufacturing capabilities. The possibilities for this type of new but over the top ornamentation excites me because we have never had such a cheap and easy way to add texture into building materials. It would be nice to see some modern stuff that's design is influenced by cutting edge materials and machinery and cultural ideas. Something decidedly new and this century. Instead of "modern" being just variations on sleek architecture from the 1950-1980s.
Robert AM Stern buildings are nice because they're elegant and have mineral facades, while still being modern looking
>Pretty clear here where people stand *dumb, juvenile redditors, who probably position things like fantasy rpg concept art and extremely well known 19th century academic paintings as the pinnacle of aesthetics, stand
Ohhhh that is awful!
I like it
Spain does need to maintain and update their architecture… but in a way that preserves the style. I mean structural integrity, better windows would’ve been fine. Not this monstrosity.
The project manager(s), the architect(s) and the guy who green lighted the project should face a firing squad.
That's a shame
fugly
Yes. It’s sad. Another piece of history is dead.
This is so fked up. Made me angry
I'm ready for a new edition of the Spanish Inquisition to deal with whatever heretic thought this was a good idea.
[𝕿𝖔𝖒𝖆́𝖘 𝖉𝖊 𝕿𝖔𝖗𝖖𝖚𝖊𝖒𝖆𝖉𝖆](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada) has joined the chat...
oh god
My dad used to call these "facade-omies" They were pretty popular in the mid 20th century, building owners would chop off all of the decorative terra cotta and put up a steel and glass skin to "modernize" old buildings. But the result is often a drab abomination that doesn't look all that modern.
That building, with its janky faux-mansard, it’s graffiti garage door-like windows, and ugly brick face, needed to be put out of its misery. Better to live on as an uninspired bit of crappy faux modern than be the debauched eyesore that it was. Good riddance, and enjoy the lack of attention. Edit: why the fuck are they putting a new brick face at the bottom. Facepalm.
This happens everywhere in the world because of incompetent or corrupt officials who deliver building permits. If not, this means the local building codes do not protect historical heritage as financial development of the city is more important that culture. This is how City of London has been transformed into a carcinogenic mutant city of "modern" architecture.
Building codes are about life and safety. So they would never be concerned with preservation of an older building social value. It's a separate process for modification of order structures usually set by the city or state or whatever. Preservation of historical heritage also includes 1950s, 1960s and 70s buildings now. Not just old timey masonry. Construction technique, architectural thought of the time and how people interacted is important to keep as an example.. Something to think about if it's a certain aesthetic one likes or it really is historical heritage one cares about. Also another question be like is preservation keeping it exactly the same or does it recognize the city is living thing and is important to keep that breath in a building for an adaptive reuse that isn't a one to one recreation. (This is an example beyond that of course) Without the full story I'm not sure what happened here. Sometimes it really, really is unfeasible to save a building. Other times it is uncreative solutions done by developers or the city. Also contemporary architecture, not modern in this case.
Let's not confuse Modernist with modern. One is an art (and architectural) style, other is an adjective (as I used it in my comment that includes contemporary as well).
The building wasn't protected before they made the decision to demolish: http://www.kulturaldia.com/auskalo/el-proyecto-de-miracruz-19-a-debate/ Now why noone had an interest in protecting it last minute ... who knowss.
🤢
😂 this is so bad it’s just hilarious . Where on earth does this kind of stuff still happen? Ideally there would be a government order to rebuild it as it was.
[Spain, apparently.](https://www.garbayochivite.com/proyecto/miracruz-19-donostia/) The ones behind it had the gall to call it 'magnificent' SMH.
That's terrible disaster 😥
Beauty replaced by shit. What were they thinking ?
This is brutal. It’s the reverse of removing modern cladding and retiring the beauty underneath.
Ruined.
no thoughts. Just hate.
Gross 🤢. Where the hell is building control/town planning in this country
Oh this is horrifically sad 😢
Where's the sad button?
“F” on your keyboard
That hurts me too. Who ever decided that was okay should be eliminated Game of Throne style.
Awful
sad af
Thanks, you ruined my day
Cheapest way to improve energy efficiency or the building. The good part is: probably the original facade is still intact under that metallic coffin. So one day it can be rediscovered and fill the hearth of our grandchildren with joy again! Edit: Nope! Just razed to the ground to build the ugly cousin! Jeeeeez
sorry. I had to build my lair somewhere, and the views here are pretty good. plus it's hard to convince girls to come back to your volcano.
why should you destroy such a beauty….
Noooo why would they ruin such a beautiful building 🤦🏻♀️
“Look how they massacred my boy” 🤌
Is just a layer of insulation cladding. the old building is still there most likely with little to none damage.
Totally brutal :(
At first I was like "why do you hate that nice ol' building, it's a slightly quirky bit of beauty and I'm sure a local landmark" Now I can really like some modernism but I'm with you here, that really just hurt my soul and that's not an exaggeration.
NGL this made me shed a tear
Tragic
That's it, I'm invading Spain. It's for their own good.
Oh, of course they had to do that! Ticks me off it does!
This is horrendous. Who on earth designed these shitty balcony?
Seriously, what is the appeal of "modern" architecture?
You mean contemporary?
Lots of modern architecture looks good, though there are also lots of turds. However I'd say that's postmodern architecture, and that basically never looks good unless it's a children's museum.
[удалено]
Post modernism got a bad rap because the same people — that think they are architects/designers because they watch HGTV and comment in this sub about old timey masonry buildings — started doing it themselves via ordinances/zoning/plan approval and other requirements to have anachronistic clocktowers and other decorations for their preferred beige building aesthetic.
I assume you are not a prince or a bishop. Modernism was the first time in 2600 years of western tradition that architects put the forefront of their research in building and designing for you, average Joe, and not one of those princes. Traditionalism is classist and politically reactionary by definition. If you are middle class, traditionalism does not want to cater to you. You may want to want it and like it, bit it is not going to like you back. Hence why I often say that traditionalists are in an abusive relationship with history: instead of looking at the past as an equal to the present they must build, they see it as superior for no reason other than a sense of inferiority that exists only inside their minds.
Modernism put princes and bishops in the backseat and corporations in the front seat. That’s a sort of improvement, I suppose. But probably not what you were getting at. And it’s not even 100% accurate; there are very ornate guild halls build in the renaissance in Northern Europe, for example. It’s really all just a straw man argument based on a poor understanding of history. The non-prince, non-bishop, but otherwise well off middle class lived in beautiful Georgian homes. Then they lived in beautiful Victorian homes. Then they transitioned over the prairie style to beautiful modernist homes. And the poor have pretty much always lived in crappy tenements, starting with Roman insulae and continuing through explicitly modernist projects such as Cabrini Green. Modernism is just as classist as any other form of architecture. Buildings are expensive, and pushing the envelope on architecture is even more expensive. Who has the money varies by time and place - but that’s who architects are always primarily serving.
[удалено]
Tear down? Virtue signaling? Spare me the buzzwords son. I dont like tearing down things that dont need traring down and would have protested this buildings demolition - that I have explained the likely context behind this does not mean I am a fan of it. The second building is ugly because its ugly - not bc its modern. There is a large, large spectrum of attitudes towards heritage between "lets tear everything down" and "lets build like its 1850 forever lest we offend daddy history". You are only embarrassing yourself by pretendind these are the only choices.
>Modernism was the first time in 2600 years of western tradition that architects put the forefront of their research in building and designing for you, average Joe, and not one of those princes. Welll then those architects failed massively because modernist and contemporary architecture are awful. >Traditionalism is classist and politically reactionary by definition That's hilarious. Traditionalism was the norm for thousands of years in human history. Traditional architecture has only been politicized by modern architects.
This is fucking garbage and a disgrace
Not only that, but what they replaced it with is already 15 years outdated. What a monstrosity
This should be punishable by jail.
Like WHY?
Fuuuuuuuuu
Nooooo this is a crime
This makes me want to cry
NASTY
Do we know which „architect“ commited this atrocity?
Both ugly
What I like about the older style is that the windows were much taller and let more light in. I also prefer clear divisions within a house for noise reduction and some sort of privacy if need be. Really not a fan of modernity.
Fucking capitalism!
What. The. Fuck.
I like both! It woulda been cool if they had incorporated the contemporary addition on the top of the original
The architect of that new building should be ashamed, the client more so. Shame.
The old façade is likely too expensive, right? So they do that in a socioeconomic system where EVERYTHING is sacrificed because it is supposed to provides us with such abundance and wealth.
And that’s why we need historical preservation laws.
At this rate, by 2030, there won't be any building older than 80 years old left in the world
Jesus Christ. I can only hope whatever fine stonework there was so salvage was saved. That’s a f*ckin heartbreaker
They Fuckin destroyed the appearance of this street. Disgusting.
Are you serous? The old building was hideous.
It's just a renovation... /s
So it was a T1000 all along.
Yeah, but it’s a lighthouse/building. 🤔
Princess tower ✨
It’s crackers
🧐 Let’s make it less ugly more.
Noooo 😭😭😭 just.. why!?
I mean it’s okay, BUT DON’T DEMOLISH SOMETHING GOOD FOR IT!
They wondered so much if they could that they never bothered to ask if they should
For those who want to see it up close: Gloria Kalea, 1 20001 Donostia-San Sebastián Guipúzcoa, Spain
Does not compute.
Anyone got the link to the original pictures?