- This topic has 3 voices and 6 replies.
-
Posts
-
A bummer of a story which shows how fragile history can be, with before and after photos:Lorry driver's height of folly: 500yrs of history wiped out as white van destroys 'priceless' archway
As bad as it is, and the archway is pretty much destroyed, accidents do happen. I am guessing the driver did not do it on purpose. He was no doubt in a hurry and made a bad judgement call. My biggere question is if this archway was of such historic significance and the abbey was pretty much ruined, why did they not have a different unimpeded entrance to the castle grounds? Seems limiting the use of the arch to foot or even car traffic would eliminate any chance of something like this happening. Apparently their risk assessment methodology needs a re-look.
I'm thinking they may have had a sign around there mentioning the height limitation. The thing is, the guy brought it down pretty good, so he probably wasn't inching along when he was going under it. Well, not much can be done to save it now.
If the way they reconstructed the Frauenkirche in Dresden is any guide, the should be able to reconstruct so that you almost cannot tell a difference. To look at it now, only the scorched bricks show that it was once a pile of rubble. I visited it this spring on a day-trip.
Yes, that's true – they can reconstruct it. That's always been a let down for me. Not the fact that they do reconstructions, but the fact that we're losing bits of history here and there. It's one thing to say, “I'm walking on the same steps or under the same archway that the Romans did,” and another to say “I'm walking on steps and under an archway made in 1950 to look like a Roman building”. Reconstructions preserve the idea but not the reality. I appreciate the fact that Europeans do reconstructions, but I guess I wish that they wouldn't have to.
I appreciate the fact that Europeans do reconstructions, but I guess I wish that they wouldn't have to.
I can understand the sentiment but I guess I think about it a little different than you do. I don't really see how a reconstruction is any different than the original, I kind of think of it as being just more extensive repair work, which even the most solid building has to undergo. Generally the reconstructions I have seen are indistinguishable from the original except for the newness of the work. I think the level of effort in putting something back together is way more than building something in the first place and definitely highlights a determination to preserve and restore the beauty of the past for future generations. I think it is much worse when historic buildings and structures are allowed to decay because short-sighted politicians will not provide maintenance funding.
