Why do Western Europeans keep destroying their historical buildings and ruining the image of their cities?

Why do Western Europeans keep destroying their historical buildings and ruining the image of their cities?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=nCPlxipeteQ
youtube.com/watch?v=RKJur8wpfYM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

I don't understand,why do they squander their cultural heritage? Such a terrible waste

Need room for kikescrapers.

This one is bizarre, though. There's nothing there now.

Maybe those places got bombed and they preferred to rebuild sonething more fitting to the current era at the time

Those world fair buildings looked really fake and kitschy.

Its called cultural marxism my cousin.

>historical buildings
below average bait

they are planning to destroy almost three thousand historical buildings, such as churches
youtube.com/watch?v=nCPlxipeteQ

the buildings in the pictures you posted weren't historical buildings

It's a city,not a fucking museum. Sooner or later new buildings need to be built and old buildings need to be demolished to accomodate for various needs. A static city that doesn't change is not even a real city but a museum. On top of that, you're being incredibly dishonest by posting 1900: the year of the Paris World Fair. A lot of extra shit was put up to accomodate said World Fair. It's comparable to posting two pictures comparing the Olympic villages of London during the London Olympics and today.

As someone who hates modern architecture: quit your fucking whining. That church was being destroyed because its upkeep was deemed to expensive and nobody was attending it anyway. You're a hypocrite for whining about the destruction of these churches (with no monumental value comparable to the Notre Dame or Sacre Coeur) but sitting on your ass and tipping your fedora all day. If more people attended these churches, they'd be able to sustain themselves through donations.

Yeah, in fact in the second picture you can clearly see that the actually historical buildings (the Alexander III bridge and... I think the Dôme des Invalides?) are still there, entirely intact.

>Sooner or later new buildings need to be built
Newsflash: Europe's birth rate is below replacement level. What need have we for new buildings, when thousands of them stand all empty and unused? What if instead of destroying shit like a retarded kid with his father's hammer, we utilized the stuff that we already have?
>static city that doesn't change is not even a real city but a museum.
Yeah, well, take a good hard look at American and Asian towns and tell me that they're better than our historical cities. They aren't, they suck, they're absolute garbage.
>top of that, you're being incredibly dishonest by posting 1900: the year of the Paris World Fair. A lot of extra shit was put up to accomodate said World Fair. It's comparable to posting two pictures comparing the Olympic villages of London during the London Olympics and today.
That's not the point. You accuse me of being dishonest, but you're well aware that ruining the image of European cities with shitscrapers and other trash is very much in vogue and a real threat.
>That church was being destroyed because its upkeep was deemed to expensive and nobody was attending it anyway.
Yeah, let's just raze everything, because it costs money. Then we'll explain to our kids and grandkids that sprawling parking lots and fucking shopping malls were more important than preserving our culture and history.

>What need have we for new buildings, when thousands of them stand all empty and unused?
On what planet? Housing crises in Western Europe are through the roof, with Sweden supposedly being so bad that a second Stockholm would need to be built to solve the problem. Paris is actually the worst example you could mention as it's the political AND economic capital of France AND due to the Catacombs and various other reasons they cannot build "up" outside of designated areas like La Defense. There's a reason why living in Paris is so high, and that's due to insane demand.

>Yeah, well, take a good hard look at American and Asian towns and tell me that they're better than our historical cities.
I'd take New York or Tokyo over London any day mate. That said, your "old > new" dogma is pretty ironic considering we're discussing Paris, the city that was purposely demolished and rebuilt from scratch in the 1800s.

>You accuse me of being dishonest, but you're well aware that ruining the image of European cities with shitscrapers and other trash is very much in vogue and a real threat.
Correct, but that's not what the images you posted show. In fact, outside of the Tour Montparnasse that's a problem Paris simply doesn't have.

>Yeah, let's just raze everything, because it costs money. Then we'll explain to our kids and grandkids that sprawling parking lots and fucking shopping malls were more important than preserving our culture and history.
Hey, if the masses value malls over churches why bother preserving churches? Because you personally like looking at buildings you're never going to use? Start a fucking fundraiser then, or better yet: buy the entire church and renovate it once every 5 years entirely out of pocket. What's that? You can't afford renovations when there's nothing bringing in money, whether it's in the form of profit or donations? Strange, isn't it?

>On what planet? Housing crises in Western Europe are through the roof, with Sweden supposedly being so bad that a second Stockholm would need to be built to solve the problem.
That's only due to the influx of hundreds of thousands if not over millions of migrants and refugees. If it wasn't for them there wouldn't be a housing crisis.
>Paris is actually the worst example you could mention as it's the political AND economic capital of France AND due to the Catacombs and various other reasons they cannot build "up" outside of designated areas like La Defense. There's a reason why living in Paris is so high, and that's due to insane demand.
I for one think that Paris benefited greatly from being unable to build upwards. It'd look like London by now otherwise
>I'd take New York or Tokyo over London any day mate.
1800-1900's London was top tier. It's deeply saddening and unfortunate how it looks now.
>That said, your "old > new" dogma is pretty ironic
Not really. Architecture after the 1910-20's and with the dawn of modernism died. inb4 >b-but that's a subjective opinion!!!!!
Well no, it's not. Tourists from all over the world don't flock to modern cities. They flock to Europe seeking our objectively superior, aesthetically pleasing cities that are far more livable than they have at home.
>Hey, if the masses value malls over churches why bother preserving churches? Because you personally like looking at buildings you're never going to use?
You could just renovate them and use them like any other ordinary building, for like, government offices, libraries or community centers. Some are large enough to house an entire school in them.
Sure, some work would be involved in transforming them, to suit the different needs of the people, while keeping the essence of the building the same, but it could be done.

>It's a city,not a fucking museum
t.

Because pretty much all of these buildings were meant to be temporary for the World's Fair. The Eiffel Tower was meant to be demolished in 1890, but wasn't scrapped. I'm not sure the reason why.

Very few World Fairs keep their key item, such as Paris and Seattle. Plus for example, would Paris still want these dueling Nazi and Communist towers just meters away from one of their national icons 80 years later?

>fetishising old buildings that aren't even that old
there is already too much old crap on the continent that's hard to preserve and more keeps being dug up
I swear to god, in a few decades a bunch of faggots will be whining about preserving the commies blocks.

1) your photos are bullshit. They were taken during the world fair of Paris in 1900 and all those buildings were built temporarily for it and were not at all designed to last.

2) Paris like most of Western European cities have various laws and statute that forbid to destroy historical buildings.

3) most crap is Western European cities were built in the 60-70’s and most often in what was not considered downtown by then.

>That's only due to the influx of hundreds of thousands if not over millions of migrants and refugees
Of course. It's exclusively migrants and not the population growth of the 50s-80s as well as more people wanting to move away from armpits into big cities or anything.

>I for one think that Paris benefited greatly from being unable to build upwards.
Not my point, my point is that Paris suffers from a housing shortage because of that. Because of that it has to build wide, or destroy certain buildings for more 'efficient' ones.

>Not really. Architecture after the 1910-20's and with the dawn of modernism died.
Yes, correct. How does this change the fact that buildings being destroyed and rebuilt is the natural process of a functioning city? If you spent your OP arguing about a certain style rather than the fact that buildings are demolished, you'd sound less retarded.

>You could just renovate them and use them like any other ordinary building
That happens all the time. You're whining about one specific instance in which there was no demand for it. What are you going to do, force some locals to turn it into a café or whatever on their own expenses? You're complaining about a symptom of a greater problem (secularism, cultural indifference). You don't cure a disease by just treating the symptoms separately.

Yeah, that's horrible. Your point?

>The Eiffel Tower was meant to be demolished in 1890, but wasn't scrapped. I'm not sure the reason why.
It was made "useful" by planting a radio antenna on top of it, no joke.

Wooooww ohhh wooo

>massive slabs of reinforced concrete

Don't worry, in 500 years people will still be able to use them. These things won't go away.

point is people who share that opinion are generally retarded

...

I guess that would appear a valid argument if you're a retard who puts up strawmen and makes such massive leaps of logic he could represent his country in the Olympics.

It's a fact, not an opinion, but a hard fact that it's neccessary for non-monumental buildings to be regularly rebuilt, demolished and/or renovated in cities. The alternative is having buildings that collapse out of misery after a few decades. Your problem isn't that this is happening, your problem is that what's replacing these buildings is uglier than what came before it.

Holy shit, I can't believe you're so retarded I actually have to explain your own opinion to you.

Honestly, if they weren't complete retards, they'd keep the old buildings and Paris for tourism and turn some useless ass small towns into modern cities with skyscrapers and suburbs.

Paris is the most visited city in the world, they don't need a few more attractions.

what are you even rambling about? lol

>Of course. It's exclusively migrants and not the population growth of the 50s-80s as well as more people wanting to move away from armpits into big cities or anything.
Perhaps there would be still a housing shortage, but it would be manageable.
>Yes, correct. How does this change the fact that buildings being destroyed and rebuilt is the natural process of a functioning city? If you spent your OP arguing about a certain style rather than the fact that buildings are demolished, you'd sound less retarded.
I don't necessarily want to argue for just one style. There are tons of them, since the Greeks, we could use any of them. Just not this "modern" 20-21th century garbage that makes you wanna stab your eyes out from taking a side glance at them.
>That happens all the time. You're whining about one specific instance in which there was no demand for it. What are you going to do, force some locals to turn it into a café or whatever on their own expenses? You're complaining about a symptom of a greater problem (secularism, cultural indifference). You don't cure a disease by just treating the symptoms separately.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about secularism. Would you rather we still behave like Muslims? As for the indifference, that's entirely on Americans and their mass media poisoning the minds of the people.
>It's a fact, not an opinion, but a hard fact that it's neccessary for non-monumental buildings to be regularly rebuilt, demolished and/or renovated in cities. The alternative is having buildings that collapse out of misery after a few decades.
You do realize we have loads of buildings that are over 800 years old, or even older in almost mint condition, right? It's possible to build things to last for a very, very long time.
Well, not in capitalism. But before that, it was certainly a thing. Crazy, I know.

To see how the cities of Europe and America were in 1920 and to see them as they are now, is really depressing.
I find it insulting that as we have been making ourselves less illiterate, we have increasingly left aside our culture and heritage.

>Yes, correct. How does this change the fact that buildings being destroyed and rebuilt is the natural process of a functioning city? If you spent your OP arguing about a certain style rather than the fact that buildings are demolished, you'd sound less retarded

There were more inhabitants in Paris downtown in 1900 than now. The so called «shortage» in Paris is also due to the fact that contrary to most other big European cities it’s administrative boundaries did not move since the 19th century. Hence a big as suburb that was only fields and countryside and that is now a pile of concrete shit with no sense whatsoever since the shit ton of small cities were not able to work altogether to come up with a sensible urban planning.

Paris was rebuilt after WWII.

That’s exactly what they are doing.

It has never been destroyed during WWII.

>There is absolutely nothing wrong about secularism.
Then what's your problem with the disappearance of churches? The most aesthetic ones are already monuments,and if the smaller ones aren't being used what use is their in preserving them, if secularism is a good thing?

>You do realize we have loads of buildings that are over 800 years old, or even older in almost mint condition, right?
Houses where people actually live? You know that's highly exceptional, right?

This. There was some damage, and some of the buildings still have their bullet holes, but it wasn't bombed to oblivion like Rotterdam or London.

>Houses where people actually live? You know that's highly exceptional, right?

It depends where. We still have a shit tons of medieval buildings in some towns in Switzerland.

All of them went threw a great load of work to be maintained in condition though.

London wasn't exactly bombed to oblivion. Compare it to the damages suffered by Warsaw or Dresden.

>Then what's your problem with the disappearance of churches?
They are aesthetically most pleasing. And why wouldn't they? Believers for centuries tried to come up with the most elaborate ideas, trying to show their devotion to their god through art and architecture. And it shows.

I don't believe in what they're preaching but I can manfully admit that Christian art, music and architecture is excellent. Some of my favorite pieces of classical music are religiously themed. Händel's Messiah, Gregorian chants.
Should I stop listening to their beauty, because I don't believe in God? I don't think so.

>Should I stop listening to their beauty
Let me answer your question with another question: how much money does Mozart's music cost? I'm not talking about the value of his original music sheets or the value of the music itself, I'm asking you how much it costs to listen to it. Let me give you a clue:
youtube.com/watch?v=RKJur8wpfYM

Now tell me how much it costs to upkeep and renovate a church nobody is using.

>muh church
wake up instead of being a good goyim

#nofilter

Oops

nice concentration camp entrance

London used to look nice man

>

This

Ugly cities give you nothing to be inspired to protect and preserve, keep the cities ugly and fill them with crime, vice, and third world immigrants. This plan to break the human will is working perfectly.

hitler dindu nuffin, he a good boi

Exactly

Why do Scandis do this? ;_;

See the timeline? It was after the war, when everything started going downhill. It didn't use to be like this ever.

Whats the point of these architecture bitching threads? It's literally just pure bitching and moaning.

to bitch and moan

I don't know when we started hating nice architecture. You see the fourth image was demolished in 1937, before the war. Some of it was out of necessity probably, but I just cannot conceive the mind who'd look at the blueprints for the top right building and think that was a suitable replacement for the previous structure. We replaced a literal castle with a square, gray commieblock.

...

Because the future must be minimalist and devoid of any strong culture or nationalistic aspect, goy..

This.

Yes it happened before too, but this was all in the 20th century.. And I've read of the fairly heavy marxist/communist ideology influence in Norway before the war, it was brewing even then.

France actually did an excellent job at keeping its built heritage alive, better than many European country and in spite of 2 World Wars
A lot of it was restored, but with masters like Viollet-le-Duc the job wasn't half assed
The registering and protecting of "monuments historiques" started 200 years ago

*inhales*

you have to make way for the mosques

It's fucking nothing compered to the other western European capitals
We have a DESIGNATED building street away from all the historical stuff, pic related in the background
Also Paris is pretty much the only city with real skyscrapers. There a couple lonely towers like the Part-Dieu in Lyon but that's it

Are you trying to make a point ?

>Now tell me how much it costs to upkeep and renovate a church nobody is using.
It costs what it costs who gives a shit we can afford it and we should
Stop using economy as an excuse for ideology , if you really cared about the economy you'd instead militate to send niggers back home since that's what actually costs us money not "lol what about we start destroying the churches guys" you fucking communist sandnigger jew cunt

You built a black dildo right next to historical buildings

what kind of people actually live in the historical area?

Is it lower class people, or super wealthy?

>next to
And again, whats your point ?

No fucking idea, I don't live in Paris thank god

Paris is huge so there isn't just one historical area. The oldest, "real" Paris is the Île de la Cité, the island on the Seine river, that's where you'll find ancient beautiful stuff like Notre-Dame, the Sainte-Chapelle, the Conciergerie. I'm guessing an appartment with view on the river and cathedral is expensive as hell.
But there are many other so called historical areas. Paris is generaly expensive but it must vary. There must also be more recent places that cost more than old onces, because they're in a more attractive district or whatever

I live in the Quartier Latin and its definitely middle/upper-middle class.

because I was thinking. On the one hand the buildings are super old and small, so who would live there?
But on the other hand, there must be a lot of prestige living there, and it's such an important city (and also the beauty)

I lived my entire life in flats, I really do not need that much space, although the m^2 is around 10 000€ here.

If it's anything like Amsterdam, all those buildings are thoroughly remodeled indoors. Only the exterior is entirely preserved.

It is a denser population, so land is more scarce
(repost with better image)

Also wh1t the Dutch dude said, the buildings are really well preserved and most insides look like pic rel (although thats a really large room)

>It's a city,not a fucking museum
I'd rather it be a "fucking museum" to keep all the historical architecture.
Stop having so many children and letting everyone in.

are you free to nail things into the walls? I assume you can't remodel the interior too much, you can't knock down any walls

Why is Ireland's so low?

Nails are fine, its easy to cover up afterwards. Dunno about walls, I reckon its restricted and can only be done in some cases after filling up some papers at the city hall.

kek, while I'm sure it must exist I've never seen you guys post anything pre 20th century

that's because the entirety of argentina is stuck in pre 20th century

You and Perú on the other hand have a lot of exquisite pre 20th century architecture that you never post

because you need a balance between keeping a city "historical" and maintaining its cultural integrity, and also making it a functional modern economic city.

Lots of these old buildings are below standard, what if you want to renovate them so that they actually have wide corridors, non-crumbling walls, and electricity?

If you want a city that's trapped in time, go to Giza or something.

we have old colonial buildings spread all over and prehispanic ruins like "ruinas de los Quilmes" but it's nothing compared to Mexico or Peru
Most of the colonial structures in Bs As where demolished

>keeping old useless buildings that cost millions every year to mantain just for nostalgia

Lol, what an Hungarian faggot you are.

Those buildings served their pupose in the past, it's done, they are useless, tear them down and move on.

Theres still Grand Central which was always better anyway.

Besides, the demolition of old Penn Station caused such an uproar that it saved a lot of other buildings from being demolished in the future.

Also it was (((them))) who tore it down

Super wealthy
The closer to the center the wealthiest
I know some people who pay 16 000 € for a good apartment in the center and a friend who pays 1000 € for a shitty closet-tier studio without toilets in the center also (6th district)

But afaik there are some quotas like up to 20% of "social housing" which is for niggers and bureaucrats

Because said buildings got bombed to hell by B-17 Flying Warcrimes

I hate modern buildings too desu.
pic related

>ruinas de los Quilmes
WTF? I love Argentina now, just googled that site and I found it to be very impressive, reminds me a bit of some of the non Mesoamerican sites we've got in northern Mexico in places like La Quemada.

>Most of the colonial structures in Bs As where demolished
That's pretty sad, I'm sure a lot of that was unique.

Somehow looking at that arrogant spire reminds me of the babel myth

Because having trees is cooler than having building who like designed by 15 year old.

Not in any of those pictures but there was an image of a Swedish university with mid-19th century neoclassical buildings replaced by modernist blocs.
The reason was almost certainly that this was a scientific university and older buildings are not laid out in any way for that purpose.

The alternatives would be either gutting the buildings completely leaving only the facade or constructing new ones that resemble the old externally.
These are both expensive options and the second one can be done later so they probably didn't see the point.

Only one is by aalto.

Tell me about it.
Fucking Le Corbusier. Stockholm was ruined in 10-15 short years. Lots of beautiful building were destroyed to make room for commie-blocks. Those that were not demolished were made ugly to fit the new ugly shitty buildings.

I want to dig up the graves of everyone involved in urban planning the last 60 years, but especially during the 50's and 60's so we can spit on their bones.

weren't commie-blocks built in mostly empty suburbs?

...

...