Huh, thanks for that perspective, I (US native) was firmly in the “how could they do this?!” camp, but you’re right! When old ass buildings are all over the place it’s probably much more pressing to figure out how to allow ongoing development and construction, vs. how to preserve the aesthetic of yet another centuries-old brick structure.
Edit to add: ugh I still can’t get over how ugly and deliberately discordant it looks, reasonable takes be damned!
Every country, even in Europe, is full of old but still disposable buildings of not much value.
In Italy we desperately want to hold onto every historical building like it’s the peak of human achievement, but in the end that takes too much resources and you end up half-assing the job in most of them.
At least in Belgium those old/new buildings didn’t have so much to do with allowing continuing construction, as much as expanding the function of some institution while keeping some continuity. The one in OP is a Port Authority (Antwerp is one of the major ports in the continent, after Rotterdam) and they needed to expand, so they kept the old building and added… A flying ship. The glass and steel thing is supposed to be a flying ship. The old building is below it, very nearly intact.
Another cool one for me was the Antwerpen-Centraal train station. They preserved 100% the look of the facade, and expanded in the back and below. It has train tracks on 3 different floors (none of which are the ground floor). Look at some of the pictures of the inside.
I was definitely including “expanding for extra use” in what I mean by allowing construction, but either way thanks for the info. I’ve seen some utterly hideous stylistic choices (which, to be fair, seem garish and “loud” by design, I didn’t uncover some secret), but I really like when it’s done with some care. Probably not a realistic goal in every case, as y’all have helped me see.
Huh, thanks for that perspective, I (US native) was firmly in the “how could they do this?!” camp, but you’re right! When old ass buildings are all over the place it’s probably much more pressing to figure out how to allow ongoing development and construction, vs. how to preserve the aesthetic of yet another centuries-old brick structure.
Edit to add: ugh I still can’t get over how ugly and deliberately discordant it looks, reasonable takes be damned!
Every country, even in Europe, is full of old but still disposable buildings of not much value.
In Italy we desperately want to hold onto every historical building like it’s the peak of human achievement, but in the end that takes too much resources and you end up half-assing the job in most of them.
At least in Belgium those old/new buildings didn’t have so much to do with allowing continuing construction, as much as expanding the function of some institution while keeping some continuity. The one in OP is a Port Authority (Antwerp is one of the major ports in the continent, after Rotterdam) and they needed to expand, so they kept the old building and added… A flying ship. The glass and steel thing is supposed to be a flying ship. The old building is below it, very nearly intact.
Another cool one for me was the Antwerpen-Centraal train station. They preserved 100% the look of the facade, and expanded in the back and below. It has train tracks on 3 different floors (none of which are the ground floor). Look at some of the pictures of the inside.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antwerpen-Centraal_railway_station
I was definitely including “expanding for extra use” in what I mean by allowing construction, but either way thanks for the info. I’ve seen some utterly hideous stylistic choices (which, to be fair, seem garish and “loud” by design, I didn’t uncover some secret), but I really like when it’s done with some care. Probably not a realistic goal in every case, as y’all have helped me see.
The one you posted is utterly jaw dropping :)