In principle i am not against whatsoever, but this has been done poorly.
Yeah, I don’t like this
I like that style a lot – very distinctive and it’s a nice mix of heritage and forward-looking.
Better then pulling it down, but thats it …
For decades, the alternative has been to demolish old buildings to build some ugly cuboids.
So I’m fine with this.
Also we need to reinforce listing historic buildings, houses and farms for protecting. Some towns are getting disfigured beyond recognition (see route d’Arlon in Strassen).
We’re renovating a ‘national monument’ at the moment (really doesn’t deserve such a high level listing, but politics). There was damage to part of it so, unfortunately, it had to be knocked down and rebuilt.
Working with sites et monuments it was clear that they don’t allow fake old, so we have to rebuild in a sympathetic but modern style. I’m not sure the developer of the one pictured really managed sympathetic, but they’ve probably got more money to spend on lawyers than we have so they’ll get away with more.
That drowing of a horse getting increasingly bad
More seriously, if those were 2 distinct buildings, even right next to the others, that would be fine. But like this on top it looks strange to me.
Mixed feelings, have seen worse things.
It can be OK, but the new building always has to be in the background or complementing the old one, not (literally) overshadowing it.
If you’re not willing to put the old building in the foreground or renovate it “as is” you should not keep it. It always (for me) looks like an excuse if you don’t.
Depends on how it’s done. This looks acceptable.
Meh, not a fan. They should have put more of the previous style on top. Pretty sure if they wanted the big windows, they could have had some fun with it to integrate the old style (fake old). This just looks lazy. Not necessarily bad, but bland and boring.
Great on principle. Execution can always falter. Your example is acceptable. I think you see most good examples with old farms and such or the very basic work where facades in inner cities are kept to preserve a streets look while you basically construct a whole new building.
In general it’s commendable to keep old buildings to safe resources and as it’s important to preserve architectural heritage, I’d rather have some new parts be stapled on so it can be used continually, rather than buildings being left empty.
Both are shit
One wasted window…
If they respect previous style, but this is just 2 different styles
17 comments
That it sucks.
At least, for me.
Nah, should have been build in the same style.
In principle i am not against whatsoever, but this has been done poorly.
Yeah, I don’t like this
I like that style a lot – very distinctive and it’s a nice mix of heritage and forward-looking.
Better then pulling it down, but thats it …
For decades, the alternative has been to demolish old buildings to build some ugly cuboids.
So I’m fine with this.
Also we need to reinforce listing historic buildings, houses and farms for protecting. Some towns are getting disfigured beyond recognition (see route d’Arlon in Strassen).
We’re renovating a ‘national monument’ at the moment (really doesn’t deserve such a high level listing, but politics). There was damage to part of it so, unfortunately, it had to be knocked down and rebuilt.
Working with sites et monuments it was clear that they don’t allow fake old, so we have to rebuild in a sympathetic but modern style. I’m not sure the developer of the one pictured really managed sympathetic, but they’ve probably got more money to spend on lawyers than we have so they’ll get away with more.
That drowing of a horse getting increasingly bad
More seriously, if those were 2 distinct buildings, even right next to the others, that would be fine. But like this on top it looks strange to me.
Mixed feelings, have seen worse things.
It can be OK, but the new building always has to be in the background or complementing the old one, not (literally) overshadowing it.
If you’re not willing to put the old building in the foreground or renovate it “as is” you should not keep it. It always (for me) looks like an excuse if you don’t.
Depends on how it’s done. This looks acceptable.
Meh, not a fan. They should have put more of the previous style on top. Pretty sure if they wanted the big windows, they could have had some fun with it to integrate the old style (fake old). This just looks lazy. Not necessarily bad, but bland and boring.
Great on principle. Execution can always falter. Your example is acceptable. I think you see most good examples with old farms and such or the very basic work where facades in inner cities are kept to preserve a streets look while you basically construct a whole new building.
In general it’s commendable to keep old buildings to safe resources and as it’s important to preserve architectural heritage, I’d rather have some new parts be stapled on so it can be used continually, rather than buildings being left empty.
Both are shit
One wasted window…
If they respect previous style, but this is just 2 different styles