295Kviews
22 Times Buildings Were Renovated And Some Say They Now Look Worse Than They Were Before
295Kviews
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.
Also Russia, but this cladding just clips on so it could be removed and the oдвук building is still under there
OMG! The first pic was really cute! Why would ANYONE do such a thing?
hey janice let's replace this beautiful building with a yellow block
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
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.
Also in the 1950’s and 60’s it was common to take down buildings that were built in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. They didn’t have the latest features, elevators, cooling, etc. Often the old buildings would need massive remodeling to make them up to code. We are going through a very similar thing these days, many of the 1950’s-1970’s buildings have been cleared for more functional, efficient buildings. Also note, many of these were Russian and you had pre-revolution pictures compared to Cold War era where much of the old architecture and buildings were looted or demolished. The Russian government is still working on repairing and renovating what remains of many of those buildings and some buildings that are completely gone, they are rebuilding exact replicas.
I so much agree with you because nope, I do not like mindless posts. This one is made for easy outrage and condemnation - without having a single fact presented about the buildings. Where is the building? Is is structurally sound? Is it possible to renovate it? What has it been converted into, i.e. what is it used for? Private or public ownership? North western Europe is littered with disused churches and I cannot see why a much more secular modern society should have to keep every church as it once was. That money is much better spent on health and education, if you ask me.
Yes, someone doesn't know the meaning of 'renovation'. Most of these are replacements.
In the case of the Tamworth ones, it was just pure commercial expansion. A lot of the shops and pubs are still the original Tudor buildings with and are listed buildings now and can't be altered any further
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Is this known fact or supposition on your part?
Ivan Wahl +
Ivan Wahl ?
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.
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.
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.
Not all of those were not WWII bombed buildings. Besides, in the Atomic age 1950’s-1960’s, many of the 1800-1900’s buildings were razed for modern buildings. We are now seeing things like that happen again where our mid century buildings are outdated, un functional and in many ways, unsafe. It is the natural cycle. Not all buildings are relevant or practical enough to be saved.
Not really, I recognize a few from Montreal
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
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.
Also in the 1950’s and 60’s it was common to take down buildings that were built in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s. They didn’t have the latest features, elevators, cooling, etc. Often the old buildings would need massive remodeling to make them up to code. We are going through a very similar thing these days, many of the 1950’s-1970’s buildings have been cleared for more functional, efficient buildings. Also note, many of these were Russian and you had pre-revolution pictures compared to Cold War era where much of the old architecture and buildings were looted or demolished. The Russian government is still working on repairing and renovating what remains of many of those buildings and some buildings that are completely gone, they are rebuilding exact replicas.
I so much agree with you because nope, I do not like mindless posts. This one is made for easy outrage and condemnation - without having a single fact presented about the buildings. Where is the building? Is is structurally sound? Is it possible to renovate it? What has it been converted into, i.e. what is it used for? Private or public ownership? North western Europe is littered with disused churches and I cannot see why a much more secular modern society should have to keep every church as it once was. That money is much better spent on health and education, if you ask me.
Yes, someone doesn't know the meaning of 'renovation'. Most of these are replacements.
In the case of the Tamworth ones, it was just pure commercial expansion. A lot of the shops and pubs are still the original Tudor buildings with and are listed buildings now and can't be altered any further
This comment is hidden. Click here to view.
Is this known fact or supposition on your part?
Ivan Wahl +
Ivan Wahl ?
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.
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.
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.
Not all of those were not WWII bombed buildings. Besides, in the Atomic age 1950’s-1960’s, many of the 1800-1900’s buildings were razed for modern buildings. We are now seeing things like that happen again where our mid century buildings are outdated, un functional and in many ways, unsafe. It is the natural cycle. Not all buildings are relevant or practical enough to be saved.
Not really, I recognize a few from Montreal