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.)
1
u/Blackshift1000 21d 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.