• The_Walkening [none/use name]
    ·
    2 years ago

    I don't get why the new one's worse. @betelgeuse pointed out it was built in the late 1900s - that shit probably looked chintzy as fuck by the late 50's. There was plenty of beautiful stuff built from then that's worth preserving, but some weird fantasy castle shit just ain't it.

    Also those sorta mondernist designs from the midcentury at least look forward to a better world rather than back.

        • Trustmeitsnotabailou [none/use name]
          ·
          2 years ago

          I keep seeing gen z trash places that where built start of last century or before as gawdy etc.

          It's called craftsman ship you dorks.

      • The_Walkening [none/use name]
        ·
        2 years ago

        I'm not Gen Z, I just don't think that old is always historically significant. If anything, the bridge construction would be more important historicaly than the facades.

          • The_Walkening [none/use name]
            ·
            2 years ago

            I don't think that's the case inherently. An 80 year-old structure (in 1959) that's designed to imitate an earlier architectural style? I wouldn't say that's terribly historically important, and like I said before, it makes zero sense for what the people planning the redevelopment of Hamburg wanted to do with the area (and yes, it looks shitty today). Disneyland's 67 years old, that doesn't give it value. And there's plenty of structures that are 80+ years old and are no longer usuable. At the same time, there's plenty of 80+ year old structures still in use to this day.

    • wopazoo [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      that shit probably looked chintzy as fuck by the late 50’s

      yes but today it would be considered a historical artifact

      • The_Walkening [none/use name]
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        It was around 80 years old at the time and exists in an area that looks to be primarily dedicated to industrial use , and looks to be entirely post-war construction. Stonework/concrete requires upkeep, in addition to the regular upkeep of a bridge - it's totally rational for a West German city planner to take one look at it and say "nah fuck it this has to go". I mean if this was supposed to be part of an area that it fit into and it actually served a purpose, yeah it'd be great. But it's an imitation of a previous architectural style grafted onto something that's from an entirely different era. The bridge doesn't need to be defended from the Goths or whatever.

        That being said what the area looks like now is pretty grim.

    • NonWonderDog [he/him]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Was about to agree until I saw the picture of the castle on the new one.