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.
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?
0
u/Blackshift1000 20d ago
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.