Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
Apr 16th 2003, 1:14 am
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 05:23:37 GMT, "Gregory Morrow"
wrote:
>Hmmm...isn't "London Bridge" out there somewhere in yer vicinity,
>Dave.....????
Yeah. And they built an ersatz English town to go with it.
Haven't seen it though; it's really rather out of the way.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
wrote:
>Hmmm...isn't "London Bridge" out there somewhere in yer vicinity,
>Dave.....????
Yeah. And they built an ersatz English town to go with it.
Haven't seen it though; it's really rather out of the way.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Apr 16th 2003, 1:15 am
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
On Wed, 16 Apr 2003 12:04:54 +0000 (UTC),
[email protected] wrote:
>In article ,
>[email protected] (Wolfgang Schwanke) wrote:
>> Why is it a problem? What matters is that the shape and look of the
>> building are true to the original, so that the impression and
>> atmosphere of the place are preserved. Does it matter that it's the
>> exact same stones?
>It's a tricky issue because one can argue that there is something
>historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with, effectively,
>the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
Not unlike the Louvre displaying a very good copy of the Mona
Lisa.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
[email protected] wrote:
>In article ,
>[email protected] (Wolfgang Schwanke) wrote:
>> Why is it a problem? What matters is that the shape and look of the
>> building are true to the original, so that the impression and
>> atmosphere of the place are preserved. Does it matter that it's the
>> exact same stones?
>It's a tricky issue because one can argue that there is something
>historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with, effectively,
>the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
Not unlike the Louvre displaying a very good copy of the Mona
Lisa.
************* DAVE HATUNEN ([email protected]) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *
Apr 16th 2003, 7:52 am
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
> It's a tricky issue because one can argue that there is something
> historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with, effectively,
> the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
> But in any case, "much of Europe" is a grotesque exaggeration -- the
> practice is really highly uncommon.
I think I will stand by my statement. Only a few cities were untouched
by WWI and WWII: Paris, Prague, Krakow, and of course the cities
in countries not participating, like Stockholm. Copenhagen lucked out
because of politics. But cities like Vienna, Dresden, Frankfurt, Cologne,
Coventry, and huge numbers of cities in Eastern Europe were devastated.
Cities like St. Petersburg, Helsinki, London, and others were partially
devastated. In all of the cities I mentioned, the important buildings were
rebuilt. Well, except for Helsinki, where they just replaced all of the
destroyed buildings with McDonalds and Finnish fast-food joints. ;-)
Frankfurt did not bother to replace the old buildings, they just built new
ones like skyscrapers.
Casimer
> historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with, effectively,
> the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
> But in any case, "much of Europe" is a grotesque exaggeration -- the
> practice is really highly uncommon.
I think I will stand by my statement. Only a few cities were untouched
by WWI and WWII: Paris, Prague, Krakow, and of course the cities
in countries not participating, like Stockholm. Copenhagen lucked out
because of politics. But cities like Vienna, Dresden, Frankfurt, Cologne,
Coventry, and huge numbers of cities in Eastern Europe were devastated.
Cities like St. Petersburg, Helsinki, London, and others were partially
devastated. In all of the cities I mentioned, the important buildings were
rebuilt. Well, except for Helsinki, where they just replaced all of the
destroyed buildings with McDonalds and Finnish fast-food joints. ;-)
Frankfurt did not bother to replace the old buildings, they just built new
ones like skyscrapers.
Casimer
Apr 16th 2003, 11:15 am
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
In article ,
[email protected] (Casimer) wrote:
> > It's a tricky issue because one can argue that there is something
> > historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with,
> > effectively,
> > the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
> >
> > But in any case, "much of Europe" is a grotesque exaggeration -- the
> > practice is really highly uncommon.
>
> I think I will stand by my statement. Only a few cities were untouched
> by WWI and WWII: Paris, Prague, Krakow, and of course the cities
> in countries not participating, like Stockholm. Copenhagen lucked out
> because of politics. But cities like Vienna, Dresden, Frankfurt,
> Cologne,
> Coventry, and huge numbers of cities in Eastern Europe were devastated.
> Cities like St. Petersburg, Helsinki, London, and others were partially
> devastated. In all of the cities I mentioned, the important buildings
> were
> rebuilt.
Not all the important buildings in all the cities, by any stretch of the
imagination, were rebuilt as facsimiles. So I in turn will stand by my
comment that as a percentage of the building stock, even of the "important
building" stock, the number of such facsimile buildings across Europe is
vanishingly small.
Of course, there are certain areas of certain cities where they are much
more common.
(Your post to which I was replying, if you recall, said "much of Europe is
that way", which implied -- to me at least -- a practice much more widely
spread and common than is truly the case.)
[email protected] (Casimer) wrote:
> > It's a tricky issue because one can argue that there is something
> > historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with,
> > effectively,
> > the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
> >
> > But in any case, "much of Europe" is a grotesque exaggeration -- the
> > practice is really highly uncommon.
>
> I think I will stand by my statement. Only a few cities were untouched
> by WWI and WWII: Paris, Prague, Krakow, and of course the cities
> in countries not participating, like Stockholm. Copenhagen lucked out
> because of politics. But cities like Vienna, Dresden, Frankfurt,
> Cologne,
> Coventry, and huge numbers of cities in Eastern Europe were devastated.
> Cities like St. Petersburg, Helsinki, London, and others were partially
> devastated. In all of the cities I mentioned, the important buildings
> were
> rebuilt.
Not all the important buildings in all the cities, by any stretch of the
imagination, were rebuilt as facsimiles. So I in turn will stand by my
comment that as a percentage of the building stock, even of the "important
building" stock, the number of such facsimile buildings across Europe is
vanishingly small.
Of course, there are certain areas of certain cities where they are much
more common.
(Your post to which I was replying, if you recall, said "much of Europe is
that way", which implied -- to me at least -- a practice much more widely
spread and common than is truly the case.)
Apr 16th 2003, 12:10 pm
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
> (Your post to which I was replying, if you recall, said "much of
> Europe is that way", which implied -- to me at least -- a practice
> much more widely spread and common than is truly the case.)
I think I could have better phrased my statement something like,
many of the original great buildings & palaces have been rebuilt
to look like the original. Yes, I will agree, only a small minority
of the overall buildings fit into this catagory.
Casimer
> Europe is that way", which implied -- to me at least -- a practice
> much more widely spread and common than is truly the case.)
I think I could have better phrased my statement something like,
many of the original great buildings & palaces have been rebuilt
to look like the original. Yes, I will agree, only a small minority
of the overall buildings fit into this catagory.
Casimer
Apr 16th 2003, 6:56 pm
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
Casimer informed
rec.travel.europe with the following:
>> It's a tricky issue because one can argue that there is something
>> historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with, effectively,
>> the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
>> But in any case, "much of Europe" is a grotesque exaggeration -- the
>> practice is really highly uncommon.
>
> I think I will stand by my statement. Only a few cities were untouched
> by WWI and WWII: Paris, Prague, Krakow, and of course the cities
> in countries not participating, like Stockholm. Copenhagen lucked out
> because of politics. But cities like Vienna, Dresden, Frankfurt, Cologne,
> Coventry, and huge numbers of cities in Eastern Europe were devastated.
> Cities like St. Petersburg, Helsinki, London, and others were partially
> devastated. In all of the cities I mentioned, the important buildings were
> rebuilt. Well, except for Helsinki, where they just replaced all of the
> destroyed buildings with McDonalds and Finnish fast-food joints. ;-)
Actually, only major rebuilt bombing target in Helsinki I can think of
just now, the University Main Building, is still in its original use and
there is no "family restaurant".
> Frankfurt did not bother to replace the old buildings, they just built new
> ones like skyscrapers.
Bit like what was done post-war in Helsinki for buildings, which
survived the world war bombings fine. Here the new buildings haven't
been huge skyscapers, but usually more or less impersonal steel, glass
and concrete blocks. Think for example Enso HQ, which certainly isn't
the best possible building next to Uspensky cathedral, even if it was
designed by Alvar Aalto. And Hotel Kämp is a weird case: first they
demolished the old building, but bit later built a mock-up facade of
it to the new bank building built on the same site and now few years
ago they renovated the building into hotel again...
--
Heikki "Hezu" Kantola,
Lähettämällä mainoksia tai muuta asiatonta sähköpostia yllä olevaan
osoitteeseen sitoudut maksamaan oikolukupalvelusta EUR100 alkavalta
tunnilta.
rec.travel.europe with the following:
>> It's a tricky issue because one can argue that there is something
>> historically dishonest about reconstructing buildings with, effectively,
>> the intention of passing them off as older than they are.
>> But in any case, "much of Europe" is a grotesque exaggeration -- the
>> practice is really highly uncommon.
>
> I think I will stand by my statement. Only a few cities were untouched
> by WWI and WWII: Paris, Prague, Krakow, and of course the cities
> in countries not participating, like Stockholm. Copenhagen lucked out
> because of politics. But cities like Vienna, Dresden, Frankfurt, Cologne,
> Coventry, and huge numbers of cities in Eastern Europe were devastated.
> Cities like St. Petersburg, Helsinki, London, and others were partially
> devastated. In all of the cities I mentioned, the important buildings were
> rebuilt. Well, except for Helsinki, where they just replaced all of the
> destroyed buildings with McDonalds and Finnish fast-food joints. ;-)
Actually, only major rebuilt bombing target in Helsinki I can think of
just now, the University Main Building, is still in its original use and
there is no "family restaurant".
> Frankfurt did not bother to replace the old buildings, they just built new
> ones like skyscrapers.
Bit like what was done post-war in Helsinki for buildings, which
survived the world war bombings fine. Here the new buildings haven't
been huge skyscapers, but usually more or less impersonal steel, glass
and concrete blocks. Think for example Enso HQ, which certainly isn't
the best possible building next to Uspensky cathedral, even if it was
designed by Alvar Aalto. And Hotel Kämp is a weird case: first they
demolished the old building, but bit later built a mock-up facade of
it to the new bank building built on the same site and now few years
ago they renovated the building into hotel again...
--
Heikki "Hezu" Kantola,
Lähettämällä mainoksia tai muuta asiatonta sähköpostia yllä olevaan
osoitteeseen sitoudut maksamaan oikolukupalvelusta EUR100 alkavalta
tunnilta.
Apr 18th 2003, 4:08 am
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
In article ,
[email protected] (Casimer) wrote:
> I think I could have better phrased my statement something like,
> many of the original great buildings & palaces have been rebuilt
> to look like the original. Yes, I will agree, only a small minority
> of the overall buildings fit into this catagory.
Friendly agreement on r.t.e. -- whatever next!
[email protected] (Casimer) wrote:
> I think I could have better phrased my statement something like,
> many of the original great buildings & palaces have been rebuilt
> to look like the original. Yes, I will agree, only a small minority
> of the overall buildings fit into this catagory.
Friendly agreement on r.t.e. -- whatever next!
Apr 18th 2003, 2:20 pm
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article ,
> [email protected] (Casimer) wrote:
> > I think I could have better phrased my statement something like,
> > many of the original great buildings & palaces have been rebuilt
> > to look like the original. Yes, I will agree, only a small minority
> > of the overall buildings fit into this catagory.
> Friendly agreement on r.t.e. -- whatever next!
The US pulls out of Iraq allowing a new found Islamic government to oversee
its resources, Israel gives up its WMDs, and Saudi Arabia has free
elections.
---
DFM
news:[email protected]...
> In article ,
> [email protected] (Casimer) wrote:
> > I think I could have better phrased my statement something like,
> > many of the original great buildings & palaces have been rebuilt
> > to look like the original. Yes, I will agree, only a small minority
> > of the overall buildings fit into this catagory.
> Friendly agreement on r.t.e. -- whatever next!
The US pulls out of Iraq allowing a new found Islamic government to oversee
its resources, Israel gives up its WMDs, and Saudi Arabia has free
elections.
---
DFM
Apr 19th 2003, 12:03 pm
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
Deep Floyd Mars wrote:
> Israel gives up its WMDs,
Since Israel is surrounded on all sides by enemies, why on earth should they
give up their WMD's?
--
Best
Greg
> Israel gives up its WMDs,
Since Israel is surrounded on all sides by enemies, why on earth should they
give up their WMD's?
--
Best
Greg
Apr 26th 2003, 3:41 am
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Berlin, Hamburg, and Dresden
On Sat, 19 Apr 2003 11:55:37 +0100, Deep Floyd Mars wrote:
> The US pulls out of Iraq allowing a new found Islamic government to oversee
> its resources, Israel gives up its WMDs, and Saudi Arabia has free
> elections.
Given enough time, the first item is very likely to happen.
Alternatives being either bring Saddam back, or reinvent one.
Now someone tells me, which of the three options is the most palatable.
(OK, surely the third one.) :-)
> The US pulls out of Iraq allowing a new found Islamic government to oversee
> its resources, Israel gives up its WMDs, and Saudi Arabia has free
> elections.
Given enough time, the first item is very likely to happen.
Alternatives being either bring Saddam back, or reinvent one.
Now someone tells me, which of the three options is the most palatable.
(OK, surely the third one.) :-)
