Get Premium
Dark mode theme is available exclusively for premium users. Learn more about the benefits of subscribing.
No fees, cancel anytime.
Dark Mode 
No fees, cancel anytime 
then open in external browser
and click "Open in External Browser" 
22 Times Buildings Were Renovated And Some Say They Now Look Worse Than They Were Before
Beauty is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder—most of us were taught to never judge a book by its cover. Or, more simply put, to not be superficial. However, scientists argue that aesthetic appreciation of beauty is hard-wired into our brains—we can't escape it. Subconsciously or consciously, we all like to look at beautiful creatures, be it an animal, or a building.
Therefore, some people that are more leaning towards traditional architecture are worried that the notion of beauty in buildings is fading away. As cities all over the world are experiencing globalization, the newly designed buildings can sometimes look awfully alike, even if they were built thousands of miles apart. We're all familiar with the glass boxes in the prestigious areas of cities, that, according to some, are lacking that certain kind of charm, or je ne sais quoi, that makes them unique in their own way. But before we get all judgy, we want to let you decide what you think of these building renovations. Bored Panda has made you a list of before and after pictures of some buildings around the world that were renovated in a way that didn't sit right with some people. Do they look good to you? Scroll down below to see them all and tell us your opinion!
This post may include affiliate links.
RELATED:
#3
#5
Nizumi 5 years ago
Now this one I know: It's one of the new mega-hospitals in Montreal. The church was going to be demolished completely. The architect kept some of it to work it into the design. You can find it on google maps. Same thing was done further up the same street (St. Denis) for one of the entrances to UQAM. I'm in total agreement with the comment about mirror buildings. All I see is hundreds of dead birds per building..... https://www.google.ca/maps/@45.51184,-73.5563959,3a,75y,189.01h,108.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sHK4GfZFoRDNZUDOdIhW-cQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Jessica Nametz 5 years ago
I am guessing the tower of the church was declared a national landmark and that's why it's still there and they built the rest around. Big yuck...
Alyssa Fry 5 years ago
This just made me look at the pic and think god what has time done to us??
Sarina Greenhaven 5 years ago
What is up with people liking giant mirrors instead of buildings?
mermaidgirl960 5 years ago
Gosh, maybe to look at their dumb reflections...
Load More Replies...
SirPatTheCat 5 years ago
Prime real estate in a busy downtown area. While it is unfortunate, some people simply don’t have enough love for old buildings to pass up that money.
Load More Replies...
Ann Abdelzaher 4 years ago
I think this is a case of not being able to salvage the main church.. this happens sometimes where it just isn't structurally safe.
mermaidgirl960 5 years ago
Oh, c'mon! They really thought they could get away with keeping that one piece. Why did they renovate that part of the building but replace the rest? The renovation would have looked good if they didn't add a giant glass box -_-
Martin Kaine 5 years ago
I love the idea of keeping a steeple, but put a park around it, not a glass monstrosity
Octavia Hansen 5 years ago
Making it into an office-church or church-office . . . lot of sq footage but lost the soul.
Sophia boone 5 years ago
Why would they renovate it in the first place? It was beautiful the way it was
Marcellus the Third 5 years ago
Nobody goes to church so can't pay for upkeep; only tower designated landmark so minimally maintained and rest built up.
Load More Replies...
H Edwards 5 years ago
I am no fan of the church, but the one thing they did give us was beautiful buildings. They can easily be repurposed without tearing them down.
Load More Replies...
#6
Samantha Lomb 5 years ago
Also Russia, but this cladding just clips on so it could be removed and the oдвук building is still under there
#10
Popcorn Colonel 5 years ago
OMG! The first pic was really cute! Why would ANYONE do such a thing?
#11
ShawtyCantComeToThePhone 5 years ago
hey janice let's replace this beautiful building with a yellow block
Add New Image
What do you think ?
Tabernus 5 years ago
This is a pretty lazy list - many of the original buildings were either bombed or cleared after WW2. In many instances the replacement buildings were put up quickly and cheaply, or were genuinely believed to be cutting edge in the '60's
Kendra Miller 5 years ago
Thank you for clarifying that. Usually in architecture you can see bones and remnants left from the original, but many of these were clearly different.
Load More Replies...
Kel Gal 5 years ago
I imagine that so many of the before buildings were in such bad condition that it was less expensive and safer to tear them down.
Harley Hoglin 5 years ago
Every photo that shows a building destroyed in WW2 and what replaced it needs to be removed. Comparing what became a bombed out pile of rubble to a new building is bullshit.
Ivan Wahl 5 years ago
If we were misled on even one of the photos it negates the entire premise of the post. Replaced is not renovated and if a major portion of the original building was destroyed and replaced with something else entirely that does not qualify as a renovation either.
Load More Replies...
Russell Ellwardt 5 years ago
Many of these are not renovations but replacements. This "list" is no list. Totally useless.
Paulina 5 years ago
The title of this post is so misleading 😠 Those are NOT renovations! Most of the pictures show what was in that spot decades ago and then what's there now. Given most of those are from Europe it's safe to say that "before" buildings no longer exist because of the bombings in WW2 or were torn down not much later due to damages.
mph seti 5 years ago
A lot of the time, this is done because there's really no other choice. An old building is falling apart and otherwise unsafe/unusable as is. We don't t know the full stories, here. That said, turning something charming and comfortable into something Brutalist or Minimalist isn't usually a good idea. Especially when it's a result of gentrification driving out people in favor of new, wealthier, people.
Petra Schaap 5 years ago
i kinda like Brutalism... its so ugly and weird that its fascinating... its a part of history now, but I dont understand they thought it was a good idea back then.
Load More Replies... Olivia Agave 5 years ago
Most of these were either damaged or destroyed in WW2, or the original structure was unstable after being abandoned for years. Now, if you want something gross that doesn't come under these conditions - Maidstone Museum, listed old mansion house that they cut a hole in and slapped a burning gold and glass structure on the side of. maidstone-...f1baca.jpg 
StardustRainO8 5 years ago
I don't know any historcial facts or storys behind these bulidings, but people shuld take a look back and appericate the buliding thats aleready there.
WilvanderHeijden 5 years ago
A lot of the old buildings got bombed so that's a valid reason to replace them with was considered modern architecture. Sadly even today beautiful buildings get destroyed because a council wants to "step into the future" by building ghastly concrete towers. That's why a lot of cities are so terrible depressing. Grey pavement, grey buildings, black tarmac.
Jungkook Hbdhgs 5 years ago (edited)
Sad. Before old building look beautiful and interesting. Lazy after new build. I hate new build like modern buildings. I like vintage and cozy old things.
fainasKeturatis 5 years ago
"renovation" is not building from the foundation on the remains of last building but renewing or "making something look new again". Half of those are not "renovations".
no_name 5 years ago
Let me just point out that not every building survives hundreds of years intact and very often they need to be demolished, and sometimes it happens that during wars buidings (and not just buildings) are destroyed. In those cases, noone creates an exact replica of something once built, but tries to come up with new modern ideas, not necessarily better of prettier, but that's the way it is.
lara 5 years ago
In Russia this type of architecture is called "Stalinist." The horrific monster buildings he had built in Moscow are called "The Seven Ugly Sisters".
person (i think) 5 years ago
Dumb list. Most of these are re-builds, not "renovations". Two totally different things.
El muerto 5 years ago
many of these are down to destruction during war...but too many horrible examples of bad taste
H Edwards 5 years ago
The Birmingham city centre one was done in the 1970s. From the 1950s to the 1980s there was a lot of this in the UK.
Load More Replies...
Eliyahu Rooff 5 years ago
It's also worth remembering that many old buildings have deteriorated to the point where restoration is prohibitively expensive, even if the original was beautiful. They often don't meet modern safety standards, and would require that builders tear them down to bare bones to retrofit them so they are energy efficient and safe.
Steve Cruz 5 years ago
Photos a century old don't show what state the property was in when it was renovated or replaced. The Regency-era (early 1800s) buildings where the Birmingham City Library (built in the 1950s) had been bombed.
Łukasz Markuszewski 5 years ago
As Tabernus said - the WW2 is responsible for most of this devastations. We must also remember, that a lot of old buildings, especially housing, was not very nice to live in - lack of toilets, dark patios, narrow backstreets, lack of elevators - many of them looked nice but during '50 and '60 they were considered unlivable and obscure. This is why they were demolished and replaced with modernist blocks, even though some of the demolishings were controversial back then. In Poland we have a lot of very modern demolishings (the reason is corrupted governments allowing developers to destroy original urban structure), one of the most known is "renovation" of 14th century Dzialdowo Castle. They put styrofoam on it and then colours. Luckily it was stopped and reversed by the old monuments protection institution. See below: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/DR3tIdFbbUWaxCEasghRxhjHn1kgQXRn654uPjS1ogq2k79wbT9TyPuCJ9Vw6pXt5TIxY4_pjTyvr-SSsw
marianne eliza 5 years ago
Now now. I'm sure if the author actually knew what renovation means, they would have chosen differently. But it is so hard to learn new vocabulary.
Data1001 5 years ago
In addition to the point several other comments made, I think a lot of these were gradual changes, as well. It wasn't like overnight they went from a beautiful gothic building to some ugly modern cookie-cutter design. Not to mention that at the time when many of them were built, that style was very common, and probably wasn't thought of as anything outrageously special, so when updates needed to be made, little thought was given to keeping the style of the previous build, which was probably thought to be outdated at the time of the renovation.
David Donaldson 5 years ago
For a contributor that studied English linguistics their understanding of the word "Renovated" leave a lot to be desired.
Rob Chapman 5 years ago
Sometimes this happens in reverse. The Chronicle Building in San Francisco (built in the 1890's), was damaged in the 1906 earthquake & rebuilt by 1915 (very close to it's 1890's appearance). It was modernized in 1962 with an aluminum & glass exterior, and then restored back to it's 1915 appearance in 2014.
Sandij D 5 years ago
This happens all over especially as real estate/rental costs increase. It is mostly not due to war damage or the inability to renovate. Often the facades of the 'new' buildings are put on top of, next to and over the old building in order to increase the space and, therefore, the $$$ made off each site. Several that I am very familiar with were supposed to be heritage sites - before someone with money and connections came in and snatched the property up.
Julie Johnson 5 years ago
Some people wouldn’t recognise beautiful architecture if it fell on them or the skill and craftsmanship it took to create it.
Lærke Littlebird 5 years ago
It's not renovating if you replace old with new. Renovating means keeping at least some part of the old.
ISpiltLipstickInYourValentinoBag 5 years ago
I loved the old buildings! Idk why anyone would want to get rid of them but it would probably be because to make more stuff :(
Leigh Hogan 5 years ago
Most of the time they are in disrepair to the point of dangerous.
Load More Replies... Dorothy Cloud 4 years ago
I just quit looking. The new designs were just so unattractive, ugly and truthfully just plain disrespectful!
Petra Schaap 5 years ago
or maybe a bomb distroyed the building in the war...
Load More Replies... Tabernus 5 years ago
This is a pretty lazy list - many of the original buildings were either bombed or cleared after WW2. In many instances the replacement buildings were put up quickly and cheaply, or were genuinely believed to be cutting edge in the '60's
Kendra Miller 5 years ago
Thank you for clarifying that. Usually in architecture you can see bones and remnants left from the original, but many of these were clearly different.
Load More Replies... Kel Gal 5 years ago
I imagine that so many of the before buildings were in such bad condition that it was less expensive and safer to tear them down.
Harley Hoglin 5 years ago
Every photo that shows a building destroyed in WW2 and what replaced it needs to be removed. Comparing what became a bombed out pile of rubble to a new building is bullshit.
Ivan Wahl 5 years ago
If we were misled on even one of the photos it negates the entire premise of the post. Replaced is not renovated and if a major portion of the original building was destroyed and replaced with something else entirely that does not qualify as a renovation either.
Load More Replies... Russell Ellwardt 5 years ago
Many of these are not renovations but replacements. This "list" is no list. Totally useless.
Paulina 5 years ago
The title of this post is so misleading 😠 Those are NOT renovations! Most of the pictures show what was in that spot decades ago and then what's there now. Given most of those are from Europe it's safe to say that "before" buildings no longer exist because of the bombings in WW2 or were torn down not much later due to damages.
mph seti 5 years ago
A lot of the time, this is done because there's really no other choice. An old building is falling apart and otherwise unsafe/unusable as is. We don't t know the full stories, here. That said, turning something charming and comfortable into something Brutalist or Minimalist isn't usually a good idea. Especially when it's a result of gentrification driving out people in favor of new, wealthier, people.
Petra Schaap 5 years ago
i kinda like Brutalism... its so ugly and weird that its fascinating... its a part of history now, but I dont understand they thought it was a good idea back then.
Load More Replies... Olivia Agave 5 years ago
Most of these were either damaged or destroyed in WW2, or the original structure was unstable after being abandoned for years. Now, if you want something gross that doesn't come under these conditions - Maidstone Museum, listed old mansion house that they cut a hole in and slapped a burning gold and glass structure on the side of. maidstone-...f1baca.jpg
StardustRainO8 5 years ago
I don't know any historcial facts or storys behind these bulidings, but people shuld take a look back and appericate the buliding thats aleready there.
WilvanderHeijden 5 years ago
A lot of the old buildings got bombed so that's a valid reason to replace them with was considered modern architecture. Sadly even today beautiful buildings get destroyed because a council wants to "step into the future" by building ghastly concrete towers. That's why a lot of cities are so terrible depressing. Grey pavement, grey buildings, black tarmac.
Jungkook Hbdhgs 5 years ago (edited)
Sad. Before old building look beautiful and interesting. Lazy after new build. I hate new build like modern buildings. I like vintage and cozy old things.
fainasKeturatis 5 years ago
"renovation" is not building from the foundation on the remains of last building but renewing or "making something look new again". Half of those are not "renovations".
no_name 5 years ago
Let me just point out that not every building survives hundreds of years intact and very often they need to be demolished, and sometimes it happens that during wars buidings (and not just buildings) are destroyed. In those cases, noone creates an exact replica of something once built, but tries to come up with new modern ideas, not necessarily better of prettier, but that's the way it is.
lara 5 years ago
In Russia this type of architecture is called "Stalinist." The horrific monster buildings he had built in Moscow are called "The Seven Ugly Sisters".
person (i think) 5 years ago
Dumb list. Most of these are re-builds, not "renovations". Two totally different things.
El muerto 5 years ago
many of these are down to destruction during war...but too many horrible examples of bad taste
H Edwards 5 years ago
The Birmingham city centre one was done in the 1970s. From the 1950s to the 1980s there was a lot of this in the UK.
Load More Replies... Eliyahu Rooff 5 years ago
It's also worth remembering that many old buildings have deteriorated to the point where restoration is prohibitively expensive, even if the original was beautiful. They often don't meet modern safety standards, and would require that builders tear them down to bare bones to retrofit them so they are energy efficient and safe.
Steve Cruz 5 years ago
Photos a century old don't show what state the property was in when it was renovated or replaced. The Regency-era (early 1800s) buildings where the Birmingham City Library (built in the 1950s) had been bombed.
Łukasz Markuszewski 5 years ago
As Tabernus said - the WW2 is responsible for most of this devastations. We must also remember, that a lot of old buildings, especially housing, was not very nice to live in - lack of toilets, dark patios, narrow backstreets, lack of elevators - many of them looked nice but during '50 and '60 they were considered unlivable and obscure. This is why they were demolished and replaced with modernist blocks, even though some of the demolishings were controversial back then. In Poland we have a lot of very modern demolishings (the reason is corrupted governments allowing developers to destroy original urban structure), one of the most known is "renovation" of 14th century Dzialdowo Castle. They put styrofoam on it and then colours. Luckily it was stopped and reversed by the old monuments protection institution. See below: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/DR3tIdFbbUWaxCEasghRxhjHn1kgQXRn654uPjS1ogq2k79wbT9TyPuCJ9Vw6pXt5TIxY4_pjTyvr-SSsw
marianne eliza 5 years ago
Now now. I'm sure if the author actually knew what renovation means, they would have chosen differently. But it is so hard to learn new vocabulary.
Data1001 5 years ago
In addition to the point several other comments made, I think a lot of these were gradual changes, as well. It wasn't like overnight they went from a beautiful gothic building to some ugly modern cookie-cutter design. Not to mention that at the time when many of them were built, that style was very common, and probably wasn't thought of as anything outrageously special, so when updates needed to be made, little thought was given to keeping the style of the previous build, which was probably thought to be outdated at the time of the renovation.
David Donaldson 5 years ago
For a contributor that studied English linguistics their understanding of the word "Renovated" leave a lot to be desired.
Rob Chapman 5 years ago
Sometimes this happens in reverse. The Chronicle Building in San Francisco (built in the 1890's), was damaged in the 1906 earthquake & rebuilt by 1915 (very close to it's 1890's appearance). It was modernized in 1962 with an aluminum & glass exterior, and then restored back to it's 1915 appearance in 2014.
Sandij D 5 years ago
This happens all over especially as real estate/rental costs increase. It is mostly not due to war damage or the inability to renovate. Often the facades of the 'new' buildings are put on top of, next to and over the old building in order to increase the space and, therefore, the $$$ made off each site. Several that I am very familiar with were supposed to be heritage sites - before someone with money and connections came in and snatched the property up.
Julie Johnson 5 years ago
Some people wouldn’t recognise beautiful architecture if it fell on them or the skill and craftsmanship it took to create it.
Lærke Littlebird 5 years ago
It's not renovating if you replace old with new. Renovating means keeping at least some part of the old.
ISpiltLipstickInYourValentinoBag 5 years ago
I loved the old buildings! Idk why anyone would want to get rid of them but it would probably be because to make more stuff :(
Leigh Hogan 5 years ago
Most of the time they are in disrepair to the point of dangerous.
Load More Replies... Dorothy Cloud 4 years ago
I just quit looking. The new designs were just so unattractive, ugly and truthfully just plain disrespectful!
Petra Schaap 5 years ago
or maybe a bomb distroyed the building in the war...
Load More Replies... You May Like People Are Sharing Their Decked-Out Bedrooms, And Here Are 30 Of The Most Amazing Ones 50 Times People Were So Proud With How They Decorated Their Homes, They Had To Share The Photos (New Pics)
Žydrūnė Trukanavičiūtė
Greta Jaruševičiūtė
Related on Bored Panda
