5 ms·

okay but why not just take down the entire thing and make something even cooler

• kingkawn 4y ago
  Because that would be destroying history. Filling in a fire-made gap with something new is no more intrusive to the building than a restoration that bears all the hallmarks of this era anyway.
  • cupofpython 4y ago
    It is no more a destruction of history than to intentionally make it different than it was. It isnt ideal to need to repair it, but the more we can preserve the effect on our senses (sight) of the original the better. If you fundamentally alter the way it looks, it is no longer a historical reference. It is something new, albeit with an interesting history / story. If you redesign it, you should also rename it. When something is repaired to the best of our ability, the future can look back on it and understand the context that we were trying to make it as it was - and all the hallmarks of this era will be identifiable as the minimum amount. If we redesign it, we make it more about us and our current time. the future will likely be able to redesign it better, so it's just going to look like an ugly patch that is way too extra. If we prefer to make the building about us and our current time, we should just destroy the entire thing and rebuild it from scratch as a full redesign.
    • kingkawn 4y ago
      The idea that we can make preservation repairs will be exposed as a fallacy a few decades after we've tried, when it becomes clear that our objectivity at the time was just regular hidebound contemporary trend following. Might as well embrace it and make something cool.