Ruined buildings and their replacements in Europe

[Luli Pop]

Originally Posted by ReiAyanami

This is actually an improvement, for a change.

Even if you don't like barroque, how that could be an improvement?

Replacing a unique landmark by a "non-luogo" is never an improvement.
No douth about that!

[Rascian]

Originally Posted by beren_me

Off-topic:What is that big structure seen in the distance, in photo no. 3?Also, do you happen to have more color photgraphs of interwar Yugoslavia, besides picture no.4?Thx

It's the prewar Belgrade fair complex (Staro Sajmiste). Built during the 1930', during WW2 it became the site of a terrible nazi concentration camp. 90% of the complex was destroyed in the 1944 bombing of Belgrade.
Today there are some plans to reconstruct the buildings with one part dedicated to a holocaust memorial .







Sorry but I don't have other color pics from prewar Yugoslavia as I know.

btw, I found one other nice picture of the former bridge

[1772]

Originally Posted by Unknownsoldier

years of kapitalism destoyed as least as much as communism did, especially in the 60's. 70's and 80's. In western countries people thought as well that the new and the modern could replace all those buildings people truely loved. In the town I grew up, the town hall has been replaced twice since the 1980's, my old school disappeared, as did a few old churches, a windmill has been replaced, the shopping center has been renovated a million times and new squares, streets and buildings were constructed that now remain empty or serve as the backside of another (and yet newer) aim to create a new Utopia. The only reason all this happened is the money that could be made by constucting no matter what on the spot the old buildings stood. In communism it is at least someone to blame for, in kapitalism no-one (or everybody) is responsible for the loss of all this.

Not to get political but who are you kidding?
Cpnservative politicans in the west have always been advocating the preservasion of old architecture.

The once eradicating it in the 50s, 60s and 70s where the leftists, 68-left and social democrats of western Europe.

[Unknownsoldier]

Think what you want to think, and blame who you prefer to blame. That is what I will do as well. A political discussion here wouldn't be in the right place and it won't bring those buildings back.

[Mr Bricks]

Originally Posted by 1772

Not to get political but who are you kidding?
Cpnservative politicans in the west have always been advocating the preservasion of old architecture.

The once eradicating it in the 50s, 60s and 70s where the leftists, 68-left and social democrats of western Europe.

Actually that is not true at all. Just take a look at what happened in Sweden and the US.

[1772]

Originally Posted by Mr Bricks

Actually that is not true at all. Just take a look at what happened in Sweden and the US.

Yes? Sweden was run by social democrats that had an agenda of replacing the odl with the new.
I kind of know, since I'm swedish.

[Unknownsoldier]

I think you somehow misunderstood my post. It was not about the question if it were right-wing or left-wing people that demolished all those buildings, I made a comparison between western countries and former socialist/communist countries and stated that the damage is about the same. On this side of the iron curtain, it was nor left nor right or either both.

[Iluminat]

It's quite a complicated issue. For example in Warsaw communist authorities rebuild many historic buildings from the XVIII century and older because they were already considered precious, however they also destroyed a lot of XIX century buildings that were too young at that time to be appreciated. Even Art Nouveau was considered worthless kitsch so I'm not sure it is wise to judge decisions from the past by todays standards, when fashions changed etc. Today many interesting Brutalist buildings are demolished and I'm quite sure it will be considered a barbarism some day too.

[ReiAyanami]

Originally Posted by Luli Pop

Even if you don't like barroque, how that could be an improvement?

Replacing a unique landmark by a "non-luogo" is never an improvement.
No douth about that!

I love baroque, and this building wasn't even baroque to begin with. Possibly a very bad mix of neo-baroque and art nouveau that thank god was an architectural dead end.

[Karasek]

Another one from Dresden. The so called "Kugelhaus" (globe house) from 1928.
It was destroyed by the Nazis already in 1938.



Today (train station of a miniature railway):

[Karasek]

And now Poland. Aerial view of Hirschberg (the area was part of Germany before '45):




The Polish Commies turned Jelenia Gora into this:

[*****]

The bridge on croatia-serbia border

before




after

[francisco torres]

Moulin Rouge, Paris

before


after


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Chadoh25]

I like the old Moulin Rouge better!

[wolfpaw]

Were the Moulin Rouge buildings ruined, damaged or just replaced? Either way, the replacements are hideous.

[skysurfer26]

What a pitty, the old ensemble of buildings looked 100 times much better !!...would it be that hard to rebuild the whole thing like it was?...its bringing each year tons of tourist, should be able to fix it...thanx for the beautiful pic !!

[BDzsH_88]

The Elizabeth Bridge (Erzsébet híd) over the river Danube at Budapest, Hungary.

The original bridge was built between 1898 and 1903.



It's blown up by the retreating german army (1945.01.18)

The new bridge (the only one in Budapest, which was not in it's original form reconstructed) was built between 1961 and 1964.

[BDzsH_88]

Another explame from Budapest



It's Kálvin (Calvin) Square, probably one of the most damaged places of city by the WWII.

[Benonie]

Originally Posted by francisco torres

Moulin Rouge, Paris

I didn't know Moulin Rouge was thàt ugly....

[Tiaren]

Originally Posted by francisco torres

Moulin Rouge, Paris

before


after


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Why the hell did they change it?

@Benonie
Standing in front of it, it's really not an impressive site.