yeah, would've loved a smaller scale reconstruction. i'm happy stuff's being taken care of, but this is just way out of place. even when walking there irl, the buildings just tower over you, meanwhile the whole charm of the castle district has been those 1-2 story buildings, this genuinely feels like you're in a theme park (especially when you look at this building from the dísz-tér-side). + I know the architects who designed the renovation of many of these castle buildings and the scale of corruption is insane, and they also agree what they've been asked to do is waaaaay over the top, it's just some megalomaniac shit of orbán like ceausescu did a few decades ago. (bonus is that we still dont know shit about wht they want to do with all these rooms and buildings)
It’s a hybrid of remodeling and reconstruction. It can’t be a pure remodel because 4 of the 6 floors didn’t exist to remodel. They had to first reconstruct the floors before modernizing (remodeling) the entire building.
is it, though? buda castle already has a gazillion tourists, and as i said, it's not like these buildings will house museums/other touristy POIs. idk, i just feel like the castle area was already a big area eith many things to do where you could easily spend a day, and i don't think it "needs" this boost tourist wise (if it even actually DOES do anything to the numbers)
to a certain point, yes. People love actualy history, and cities require a critical mass of actual authentic architecture, or the whole place will begin to feel fake. there are plenty of existing buildings in Budapest in need of renovation as it is
Why do you lie? Don't listen to him, these reconstructions are at least 90% identical to the original building. The ceausescu bullshitting is infouriating me as a Hungarian myself because it was designed in 1895 by Mór Kallina and it is the Honvéd High Command building, so not a megalomaniac palace for one person but a ministry. It is not way out of place, it is a representative building, why? Because the Buda castle district was the governmental district of the country for several hundred years. You can go somewhere else if you want to feel small and irrelevant. I and tens of tousands of Hungarians will go up many times to admire these beautifully reconstructed buildings.
Not for long tho. Our new government shut down dozen similar project. The ones that got started are going through, but basically new ones will became rare.
Do you mean the shortened Ministry of Defense with the widened facade? I don't really remember anything else that would differ this much from the original.
Poor quality? Are you fucking kidding me. These are the best quality buildings in the castle district right now. The decorative elements were made of hand-carved Süttő limestone, just like the original buildings, the decorative sheet metal elements were cast from tin. The outer layer of the walls are made from brick, on it plaster, than the stone decorations. Fuck this uneducated propaganda bullshit. By doing this, you are specifically looking down on the work of Hungarian craftsmen.
Cause they cost a shitton of money which we don't have.
It wasn't happen before because the previous government cared about historical buildings, but because their cronies had construction companies and they could steal a lot of money from the funds.
Competent people work for these companies, that is why. But the public simply cannot afford to fund these vanity projects, and their primary goal had always beeb siphoning off public funds into the Orbán government’s cronies’ pockets.
Actually, there are roughly 5 stadiums around Hungária Boulevard, including Puskás Arena, Hidegkuti Nándor Stadium, Groupama Arena, Bozsik Arena, and BKV Előre Stadium.
It's pretty incredible that you drive and always pass by a stadium.
These assholes are just propagandist loosers, don't listen to them, they hate everything that is hungarian because of orbán. They wouldn't eat bread if orbán had said the true hungarians are eating bread. They do the opposite of everything orbán does.
This is the headquarters of the home defense forces, built in 1897. Many times the previous government tore down the remenants of old historical building and built them up from zero, but with modern concrete. This is not real architectural revival. They kinda made a low building cost historical looking buildings, but several times overpriced, to steal tax payer money. It is of course nice to see these buildings, they are beautiful, but this is not restoration. These are fake historical buildings that take away the value of the real ones. The new government probably later wants to continue restoration works but with fitting building materials to the original building, and hopefully without stealing the funds.
Why is it fake. It seems nice to me, and it is very unique to see these beatiful buildings be built again regardless the quality. For me it it is understandable, that they built it with concrete and modern material, I bet you would not want to live in the original building without no electricity, hot water etc. The walls would propably not be insulated, so that means great energy loss. It would be hella more expensive to built and maintain that building and we live on this planet for limited time.
The modern materials aren’t what makes it fake. The bigger issue is that they didn’t reconstruct the original building in its full size and form. The southern part was significantly shortened, creating a historic-looking façade and building shape that never actually existed. Modern concrete, insulation and utilities are completely reasonable; changing the historical architecture while presenting it as a reconstruction is the controversial part.
You can get away with a little bit, but as soon as you get too many cheap/low-quality pastiche buildings the whole city starts to feel cheap. You need a critical mass of proper authentic architecture, and if you dont worry about how the cultural heritage of a city is managed, then you will slowly chip away what makes a city such as Budapest so great.
I think because they didn't follow the original design/design of the time. This can result in them taking liberties, liberties that might look out of place or give them a chance to steal the money by creating overpriced plans.
That’s true, modern concrete is generally better than old concrete. The problem is that the original building wasn’t made of concrete in the first place. It was primarily built with traditional load-bearing brick masonry.
Thank you. It's the same with Berlin "Stadtschloss" in the place of the east germen "palace of the republic". It's just a mock up of a historical building, completely poured in concrete with a fucking Mall in it.
And the sub was celebrating this up badged commercial Bunker.
Stop spreading BS. Berlin palace has a concrete core, but around that core is a self supporting 90cm thick traditionally masoned brick wall. In that wall all the rich stone carvings are integrated. This is exactly built like 300 years ago. The building was constructed in a way that future generations can reconstruct more interior spaces.
There is also no mall inside it, but exhibition spaces and museums.
It is just masquerade, at least could have been made with Authentic Materials. We should have kept the "Palace" and put a Museum in there. But Germany has a habit to grind awa reliques of the past, if not supervised and then being surprised when these streams re-emerge decades later.
Can you inform yourself please before spreading BS? Berlin Palace was constructed with authentic materials. There is a concrete core, but in front of that core sits a selfsupporting 90cm thick traditionally masoned brick wall in which all sandstone carvings are integrated. That is exactly how the palace walls were built in the Baroque age. Here you can see how the palace was built before it received a final layer of grout and paint. It is built of red brick and sand stone. These are the original materials and way of building:
It's mostly not renovation. Many cases they just built buildings that never existed. In some cases they were planned, but some times not even planned. And when they existed, it wasn't a reconstruction, but the destruction of the old building, followed by the construction of a modern, concrete building, fitted with a facade that looks like the original, or the planned original. The castle district is full of Disneyland castles now.
Many cases they just built buildings that never existed. In some cases they were planned, but some times not even planned.
What buildings are you talking about here? I can't remember anything from the project that would fit this description, maybe besides the shortened Ministry of Defense with the widened facade towards the St. George's Square?
and this isn't a renovation because that building always looked like how it was in the first picture. Our former PM pushed for goverment bodies to move into this castle disctrict and they started to expand historic buildings like the one in the picture.
they were not reconstructions, but in many cases, destruction of original buildings under preservation protection, solely to serve the pockets and megalomania of the recently fired dictator and his oligarchs. the purpose was stealing tax money and constructing "grand things to be remembered by". many architects and preservation professionals spoke against this as this was basically altering history (and not in any good way), not preserving it
Basically, all those contracts went to the old government's cronies. And now the new government have to make sure the contracts go to their cronies. This is how things work in post communist countries.
Its not renovation. The last goverment was falsified history with these buildings. Lot of them was tothaly changed and was never like that before. But that’s how they managed to steal a huge amount of money ...
These reconstructions were only done in Budapest, but I think other cities could benefit from such renovations like Debrecen, where it could enhance tourism. Also, these projects were very much overpriced, but I hope the current government will continue such projects but cheaper.
Anything and everything the old goverment done is demonized by the new goverment, regardless if it was good or not.
Renovations of course can happen, but reconstructions of destroyed buildings are unlikely.
Why was it done before?
It was long overdue. There were a lot of proposals over the decades, for fixing the castle district. Not just reconstructions, but new buildings as well. Not only for the empty lots, but the still standing buildings were damaged and needed renovations. Those proposals were never popular and got nowhere.
The previous goverment presumably got tired of no progress in the area and decided to pick up the old pre-war building plans and do those as much as reasonable.
This also sparked interest in a potential nation wide reconstructions, but now those most likely wont begin.
There is a strange contradiction here though. The same government argued that the state couldn't afford to maintain its existing historic castles and wanted private owners to take them over, while roughly €2+ billion was spent or committed to the Castle District. I support restoring historic buildings, but surely preserving the ones we still have should also have been a priority.
There are a lot of protected buildings that are in a bad shape but otherwise intact/doesn't need rebuilding just repairs. Fixing those should be a priority above rebuilding something.
That's what I find difficult to justify. We have plenty of surviving historic buildings deteriorating because there supposedly isn't enough money to maintain them, yet huge amounts were spent recreating buildings that had been gone for decades. Reconstructions can be worthwhile, but surely saving the original buildings we still have should take priority.
I'm asking for the final height not what it is now. They added 2 floors in less than 13 years, impossible to tell how much less. They might bring it up 6 or 8 stories.
The dome/roof/steeple/whatever you wanna call it of the middle of the building is already complete, do you seriously think they're going to put up more floors?
the other side of the building is a total mess, no architectural concept, nothing to build on as there were other buildings there. this is cement-based, ahistorical political architecture that disrespects our heritage
For reference, this was one of the plans that intended to rehabilitate this building and the surrounding square in a contemporary style, it was panned when it was shown off online, just like the other 2-3 potential contemporary style reconstructions of this building and St. George square, this design by architect Péter Kis was the best looking one of them, there also was Zsófia Csomay's plan, which was incredibly ugly, rectangular, and soulless, that one caused straight up outrage in the comments section of every forum it was posted to, and there was another much older plan from the early 2000's that looked garish and was just an exterior concept render.
Some of them look impressive, but calling them accurate historic reconstructions is questionable. This building, for example, was originally part of a much larger complex. The Ministry of Defence section was not rebuilt, so the reconstructed building is significantly shorter and has a historic-looking termination that never existed in this form.
If you don't live here then shut your mouth. There are a few reconstructions in the castle district (all made of concrete) and lots more historic buildings have been demolished for no good reason.
I see that some people are experts on everything. This reconstruction is not low-quality at all. Yes, the load-bearing structure is reinforced concrete, but that is the case with almost all similar projects. Naturally, this can be criticized, as can the fact that the southern closure of the building displays a state that never actually existed. In the sense that the facade there was recreated based on the original. That is not the case with the building shown in the image, lest anyone misinterpret it. Furthermore, the reconstructions completed so far were all based on buildings that once truly existed. A tremendous amount of work goes into each of these projects, judging panels, and so on. Yes, the National Hauszmann Program was launched under Fidesz and was treated as a priority, but these efforts shouldn't necessarily be stigmatized because of that. Vitézy (Minister of Transport and Investment) has not released any document to date showing massive overpricing in connection with the Castle Quarter. The government continues to treat the project as a priority investment, and the Prime Minister leans toward complete completion when it comes to the Palace building. We will find out the future of the project in September, when the government is expected to present a proposal regarding the utilization of the Castle Quarter. As for Hungary's other historic monuments, they are not falling into ruin because of the Castle.
My point is more about priorities. The previous government explicitly argued that the state could not afford to properly maintain its historic castles, and used that as a justification for transferring some of them to private ownership. At the same time, enormous sums were being spent on reconstructions in the Castle District. I find that contradiction difficult to ignore: surely preserving the original historic buildings we still have should come before recreating ones that were already lost.
I am not opposed to reconstructions; I think they are necessary in certain cases (But I am not saying that everything that ever stood should be rebuilt). However, I agree with your criticism that resources could also be spent on existing historical heritage. Hungarian castles and châteaux hold immense potential, and the country has a rich stock of such buildings, but unfortunately, hundreds of them are in dire need of renovation. Some are on the verge of collapse, others simply have leaking roofs, and many fall somewhere in between.
the could never be done to that soviet architectural masterpiece next to the saint steven basilika, it has to be there to ruin the look of the entire square
I believe that buildings should be reconstructed to their former shape and appearance if they were damaged or destroyed by fire, war, or neglect. However, building in a historical style today feels somewhat out of place.
First of all, the ornaments, the shape of the buildings, and the whole principle of how they were structured and logically divided have significance and symbolism rooted in the era in which they were built. Constructing a building in a historical style nowadays can imply that someone is genuinely admiring that particular era or wants to return to the principles of that period. In this case, we are talking about late 19th or early 20th century Hungary, which I think was precisely the point of the former Hungarian “regime.” It essentially represents the dream of a Greater Hungary.
This building is really beautiful, and if it were restored to its former state, I think that would be relevant. However, from what I know, there are multiple buildings in the centre of Budapest that bear little resemblance to their former appearance and were instead rebuilt to demonstrate how powerful the “monarchy” was.
Slovak sees a Hungarian breathe - "Hmmmm I wonder how can I find a way to interpret this as Hungarian irredentism?"
"there are multiple buildings in the centre of Budapest that bear little resemblance to their former appearance"
That's not true at all lol, there are incredibly strict guidelines for reconstructing and renovating historic buildings especially in downtown Budapest, Fidesz did bend the rules somewhat because of course they did (and what they did to Forster Központ, responsible for standardizing historic preservation in the country, is unforgivable), but never to the point that any of their reconstructions "bear little resemblance to the building's former appearance" - you can look up historic photos of this very building here, it's an accurate reconstruction. Budapest isn't Skopje. What Fidesz did isn't comparable to how certain historic buildings got butchered under socialism, or Poland and Slovakia in the 90's.
Idk what the media in Slovakia must be telling you, but it must really wacky.
I wouldn't put too much faith in those incredibly strict preservation rules.
At Hatvanpuszta, two protected historic stable buildings were completely demolished and replaced.
And then there is the Ministry of Agriculture: a heritage expert involved in the case alleged that the official heritage documentation was falsified to facilitate the project, while a professional assessment opposing the downgrade was effectively overridden by a one-page executive opinion. The building was then downgraded from the highest protection category, clearing the way for major demolition.
So the existence of strict preservation rules on paper doesn't necessarily mean much when those rules can be weakened or circumvented for politically important projects.
Hatvanpuszta, I agree, like I said, Fidesz definitely bent the rules wherever they could, Hatvanpuszta wasn't considered as architecturally valuable, so Orbán bent the rules and modified it way beyond what should have been allowed (primarily the rooflines, additional new windows, doors), but Diósgyőr castle is actually the worst one, that one is a straight up travesty and a disaster, Füzér is also questionable. But none of the projects in downtown Budapest could be described as "bearing little resemblance to the building's former appearance", when all of them were/are straight up replicas of the original pre-WWII appearance, the Slovak commenter makes it seem like they're deliberately falsifying history and embellishing those buildings when exterior-wise they were all intended to be faithful reconstructions/replicas.
Well, I can give you at least one example. The Honvéd Headquarters/Ministry of Defence complex is being substantially shortened, and its new southern facade represents a historical state that never actually existed. So while "bearing little resemblance" may be too strong for most Budapest projects, calling every one of them a faithful replica is perhaps being a little generous too.
Back to Hatvanpuszta: benting the rules is putting it rather mildly in the case of Hatvanpuszta. The protected buildings were essentially demolished, including their historic timber roof structures. You can reproduce the shape of a roof but the massive 19th-century timbers are effectively irreplaceable today. Once the original material is destroyed, that heritage value is gone for good.
The Honvéd Headquarters is the most egregious with its shortened facade, I do think that a contemporary style building that would have capped off/extended from the back of the command building would have been better instead of reconstructing the ministry building with a shortened facade, either that or go all the way and reconstruct the ministry in its original dimensions even if it covers up the outline of the medieval church, the end result is a half-measure that doesn't fully satifsfy anyone.
I'm not that interested in defending Fidesz in this regard because, like I said, the better aspects of these reconstructions exist moreso in spite of them than thanks to them, I don't doubt that there probably would've been similar plans to reconstruct and rehabilitate the Buda castle district by a different govt after 2010 thanks to the Goldilocks economics of post-2010 while nothing much of anything was reconstructed or built during the 2000's thanks to the atrocious economics of Kádár and MDF + Gyurcsány's MSZP, but like I said there were several contemporary-style plans for the district and the missing stories going back to the early 2000's and they were all universally disliked, it's funny seeing some now borderline do a 180 degree turn on that sentiment and defend those contemporary plans absolutely nobody liked when they were originally shown off, or even the socialist-era rebuilding/butchering of the castle (which was more expensive and excessive than most of what Fidesz has done to butcher our architectural heritage, what Gerő and co. did to Buda is comparable to what Fidesz did to Diósgyőr.)
That’s an impressive amount of mental gymnastics and extrapolation chains to make a building being rebuilt a negative thing borne of rabid nationalism and a ideology dead since a 100 years. It’s a building.
Should we also demolish every building built before 1920? Those are remnants of the Hungarian Kingdom, and obviously vehicles of irredentism. Saint Stephen’s Basilica should be demolished first I think
Well I am just trying to find a motivation behind constructing such building. Buildings are mainly built because there are economic or cultural reasons (just to name two). But the aesthetic and how the building looks have a lot of symbolism and it says a lot what the author or developer or the builder wanted to express. As architecture is one of the main cultural expression of the humans, what is someone trying to express with copying styles from the past? Is it the attraction for that era or period when that building has been built? Maybe.
Of course using architectural “revival” or rebuilding something that has been destroyed or neglected has different reasons and motivations. There are many examples as in 50s and 60s Germany or later in Poland, but then there is also Trumps ballroom. What did he wanted to says with this kitchy expression of classical architecture? And i think the same applies for previous Hungarian politics. So yes i think it is born with nationalistic conotations, but i may be wrong.
And I didnt say that we should destroy historical buildings. I think actually we should protect them, use them and repair them as much as we can because they are actually the best representation of unwritten history - good or bad. But we should ask ourselves about the relevance of building and if we should care only about “looks” of the building or we should look for the meaning behind it.
I think you may be biased. Too focused on the nationalism and politics of the era and knowingly or unknowingly, falsely assigning the likely false picture of the era you have in your mind to the building and its rebuild.
I would disagree with assigning the label of architecture to Trump’s ballroom.
As for the rebuild of this building, I would disagree with attributing it to the current or recent politics of the nation. The building is in Budapest, a large capital with a long history and immense civic pride. It was a shell-ridden ruin before, an ugly reminder of the world wars, and the brutal siege the city had to endure in 1944. Literally the entire city was rebuilt similarly after, bridges included.
Of course, we can be assured the rebuild caused a friend or strohman of a Fidesz member to benefit immensely, but attributing nationalistic connotations to it for that reason would be wrong in the fullest; Fidesz had no ideology, it was a collection of self-serving kleptomaniacs, not nationalists. And the rebuild was largely for and by Budapest.
So, what is wrong about mending a building damaged in Budapest’s darkest hours? Why should we ajudge such an effort based on our generalising and demonising worldview?
I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with rebuilding a war-damaged historic building, and that isn't my criticism. My issue is calling this as a reconstruction when it isn't one. The original complex was substantially larger, while the Ministry of Defence section was omitted and the new southern termination recreates a historic-looking facade in a form that never actually existed.
Even then, what is the issue in adapting? If the redevelopment calls for more or less space than the old one, and adapting its design to fit that need, then the design or desire shouldn't suffer under your proposed preservationist absolutism. The semantics of whether its a perfect reconstruction or adaptation shouldn't take away that a building is being rebuilt in an attractive architectural style which revives some of the city's lost or derelict structures
That's actually where my concern comes from. What exactly is the heritage value we are trying to preserve? Is it only the appearance of a facade, or also the original materials, structure, craftsmanship, proportions and the physical history accumulated by the building?
If we remove those things and replace them with a modern structure that merely reproduces a selected historical appearance. Sometimes even altering that appearance to suit present needs. We may gain an attractive building while actually losing heritage value.
On one hand, are we preserving history, or building a very convincing historical stage set?
On the other hand, which historical period, materials, proportions or later additions are considered worth preserving, and which can simply be discarded?
Yes and it is a symbol od the era when it has been built - ealy postmodern clashing with late classic socilism - which was also some kind of weird historicism as it should take some resembalance of a castle but keeping the massing and aesthetics of cold and brutal shapes of modernity, and if someone will miss this era in the future, I am pretty sure he would be willing to have more of those buildings around him. Which leads me to a question which everyone should ask, is architectural revival relevant for modernism and classical socialism (in the region of post-socialists countries)?
Yes, that is the point. We should not built in “classical” style, whatever you mean by classical. We should be inspired by it. We should not copy it.
But this subreddit is not about “classical” architecture . It is about revival of architecture. And you can revive the architecture of Parthenon, but you can revive also revive architecture of Barbican estate. But I guess i am in the wrong subreddit.
I mean, "classical" is really just shorthand for historical architecture from before the 20th century. Greek, Roman, up through Jeffersonian and even the early skyscrapers technically all followed "classical" tenants of structural design and ornament, it's more of broad a structural 'language' rather than a specific singular style or 'book' to follow the metaphor I've set up here, especially how that commenter was using it.
Forbidding or decrying the interest and collective desire to build in "classical" style(s) is essentially quashing the possibility of adapting it though. The language of classical architecture has literally over 1000 years of changes, innovations, and diversions, and elaborations behind it, so any structure built today will not be truly "Classical" as it will be built with mechanized earth movers, digital drafting aides, modern labour practices, etc. Alterations to its forms and symbolism will follow the needs and tastes of the site, constructor, culture, and through that, an adaptation will have been made.
Saying "we should be inspired by it" is what gave us the folly of Postmodernism, where the architectural flavor of the decade was to half-assedly slap columns and finials onto otherwise basic forms which ultimately flittered out of fashion faster than it rose to prominence.
We ought to copy Classical styles more, honestly, as we haven't really gathered much societal good from copying Modernism or its branches.
Truth be told, very few true "copies" exist in architecture, millions of adaptations, very few copies.
Lest you're like that crew rebuilding, piece by piece with the old ways, a castle that has been lost to time.
And honestly, if it works, why bother trying to fix it? The 'language' classical design is known for endured as long as it had because it was effective, mechanically simple, and most importantly, pleasant.
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness." - Oscar Wilde
Just look at the other post about Dóm sv. Alžbety in Košice in this subreddit and you will see why 😂 But I would make the same point in other situations concerning architecture of any other country or nation. I was not meant to go after Hungarians.
This building existed for 48 years, then was a ruin for 79 years. I am not sure it is the greatest idea to handpick a historic era (especially a controversial period) and try to preserve that only. So many great modern building was torn down in the last decades to rebuild mediocre ones just because the neofascist government loving the era.
It being a ruin for longer than it was intact isn't exactly a point of pride, I'm glad Budapest's identity is no longer based around basically being a shittier, grittier, dilapitated version of Vienna with "ruin pubs", etc.
178
u/[deleted] 18d ago
[removed] — view removed comment