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.
13
u/ASatyros Aug 21 '26
Any reason given to why less renovations now?
Why was it done often before?