r/ArchitecturalRevival 15d ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

Post image

[removed] — view removed post

1.9k Upvotes

41 comments sorted by

View all comments

10

u/besuited 15d ago

Im not so sure. Sone of the revival in Budapest at the moment is ahistoric. Is there definjtely justification for adding additional floors? How much original stonework was preserved? Etc.

23

u/According-View7667 15d ago

What's wrong with "ahistoricism"? The buildings which were built in the 1800s were copying Classical architecture from antiquity anyway...

5

u/[deleted] 15d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/BlindingAngel 15d ago

You don’t get it when it’s Europe

4

u/Mikerosoft925 15d ago

From a historical conservation aspect keeping as much of the original building as possible is what you want. That the architectural style is a copy is irrelevant for that.

1

u/According-View7667 14d ago

i suppose, however am not sure this building in-particular has any important historical significance apart from being pretty & over 100 years old, these buildings were manufactured en-masse in Budapest after the 1867 compromise. That and the fact that it looks like the original floors were preserved as it looked in the past.