4 ms·

The old building is likely small, not adapted to modern security, equipments, facilities and will cost much more in refurbishment and use. It also probably was

The old building is likely small, not adapted to modern security, equipments, facilities and will cost much more in refurbishment and use. It also probably was not that well built and/or degraded for years. Just replace it, new will be better in this case.

ams6110 8y ago
I agree, it looks like it was all made cheaply from poured concrete that is now cracking and disintegrating.
dmos62 8y ago
> replace it The movements for preservation of architecture would likely have something to say about that. A lot of people are tired of the whole demolish-build shtick, and yet others find it insulting in its disregard for what they find to be monuments. In my opinion, some of the most inspiring uses of space and architecture today are happening in ex-abandoned, ex-unused industrial buildings. An example I've visited recently is the former Peugeot factory in Brussels [0] that is currently used for exhibitions, concerts, or just hanging out at the bars and food courts that have installed themselves there following a doctrine of minimal intervention. Shortly it will be transformed into a museum of modern art as an outpost of Centre Pompidou [1]. To quote the architects whose proposal won: "We want to radically engage with and trust what is there." That sentence pretty much sums up the trend I'm pointing out. Another example is Rijeka, a city with a unique history, that has a heritage of an abundance of industrial architecture and very unique urban planning. Many of its industrial complexes lie abandoned, within earshot of city centre. Some of them are being brought back to life, spurred, in large part, by the European Capital of Culture 2020 that is happening there. This summer EASA took place there [1]. It used the revitalised Export building (in the photos look for the building that has "exportavo" witten on it). 600 people slept in the same hall for two weeks. I was there, it was a cool experiment. [0] http://kanal.brussels/ http://kanal.brussels/ [1] https://www.dezeen.com/2018/03/23/car-factory-transformed-art-museum-centre-pompidou-brussels/ https://www.dezeen.com/2018/03/23/car-factory-transformed-ar... [2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/107959684@N04/sets/72157670142948327 https://www.flickr.com/photos/107959684@N04/sets/72157670142...
- gregoriol 8y ago
  I'm not saying that all old buildings should be replaced: there are a lot of good examples around, we have many here in Paris too, also thinking of the famous Saarinen TWA Flight Center (still have to see some transformation results on this one though). However, this one, compared to other projects you mention, won't likely be usable for art or other entertainment as it is located within the airport area. It won't likely work again as an airport facility either, since too small and not adapted to modern requirements. It could maybe become a hotel like the TWA building, but that would likely cost a huge lot of money seeing the current state on the pictures, and the need has to be justified, "tourism" like for the Saarinen building won't probably be enough. I'd be happy to argue "for" preservation, but the article does not show any viable projects either: it seems like people want to preserve, but without a clear idea about what to do with it. On the "against" side, there are a lot of new projects replacing old buildings that have been a huge success.

ams6110 8y ago

I agree, it looks like it was all made cheaply from poured concrete that is now cracking and disintegrating.

dmos62 8y ago

> replace it The movements for preservation of architecture would likely have something to say about that. A lot of people are tired of the whole demolish-build shtick, and yet others find it insulting in its disregard for what they find to be monuments. In my opinion, some of the most inspiring uses of space and architecture today are happening in ex-abandoned, ex-unused industrial buildings. An example I've visited recently is the former Peugeot factory in Brussels [0] that is currently used for exhibitions, concerts, or just hanging out at the bars and food courts that have installed themselves there following a doctrine of minimal intervention. Shortly it will be transformed into a museum of modern art as an outpost of Centre Pompidou [1]. To quote the architects whose proposal won: "We want to radically engage with and trust what is there." That sentence pretty much sums up the trend I'm pointing out. Another example is Rijeka, a city with a unique history, that has a heritage of an abundance of industrial architecture and very unique urban planning. Many of its industrial complexes lie abandoned, within earshot of city centre. Some of them are being brought back to life, spurred, in large part, by the European Capital of Culture 2020 that is happening there. This summer EASA took place there [1]. It used the revitalised Export building (in the photos look for the building that has "exportavo" witten on it). 600 people slept in the same hall for two weeks. I was there, it was a cool experiment. [0] http://kanal.brussels/ http://kanal.brussels/ [1] https://www.dezeen.com/2018/03/23/car-factory-transformed-art-museum-centre-pompidou-brussels/ https://www.dezeen.com/2018/03/23/car-factory-transformed-ar... [2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/107959684@N04/sets/72157670142948327 https://www.flickr.com/photos/107959684@N04/sets/72157670142...

gregoriol 8y ago
I'm not saying that all old buildings should be replaced: there are a lot of good examples around, we have many here in Paris too, also thinking of the famous Saarinen TWA Flight Center (still have to see some transformation results on this one though). However, this one, compared to other projects you mention, won't likely be usable for art or other entertainment as it is located within the airport area. It won't likely work again as an airport facility either, since too small and not adapted to modern requirements. It could maybe become a hotel like the TWA building, but that would likely cost a huge lot of money seeing the current state on the pictures, and the need has to be justified, "tourism" like for the Saarinen building won't probably be enough. I'd be happy to argue "for" preservation, but the article does not show any viable projects either: it seems like people want to preserve, but without a clear idea about what to do with it. On the "against" side, there are a lot of new projects replacing old buildings that have been a huge success.