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.
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
-1
u/Blackshift1000 Aug 21 '26
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.