> But then this is all subjective, so I guess you can't please everyone. Of course. To elaborate a bit on my thoughts: many cities have a distinct historical s

> But then this is all subjective, so I guess you can't please everyone. Of course. To elaborate a bit on my thoughts: many cities have a distinct historical style reflecting the unique development of the city. If we replace every building that's unfit for purpose with an completely new building (i think) we will converge to an indifferent mess, where every city starts to look the same. The globalisation of architectural style, if you will. Preserving the facade means allowing some part of the history to continue and preserve a bit of the character of the neighbourhood. It's all generalised, of course. It doesn't always make sense, it doesn't always look good and it doesn't always preserve something in a meaningful sense. But there are quite a few examples here that I think are nicely done. Some executions are done in a styl where you don't even realise that only the facade is old and everything else got replaced! > I don't think they do, it's disjointed and jarring. This might be one of the things where we just disagree. I often really enjoy the contrast when of old vs new. There are some interesting buildings that playfully combine old structures with new. Not in the article though. But this contrast is not well received by everyone, here's an example that I think does this very well, but others hate it: https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/dbxnyj/new_library_of_the_university_of_graz_austria/ https://www.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/dbxnyj/new_library_...