[Chronamut]

So I've often wondered WHY the city is so against traditional buildings, and I was a bit discouraged at the result in that video, in that if one does a replication then it puts into question the authenticity of when the building was created, leading to a fake heritage/disneyland kinda vibe.

My question is why is it allowed when it is say the arliss shoes restoration, because it's restoring an original design, and why is that different from pretty much the exact same design somewhere else, but new? It seems a silly argument - I mean if you have the skill and the craft to create a neoclassical building, with modern concrete and steel inside, then go nuts. The connaught accompanying building is steel frame and not that old historically, and noone complained about that.

I obv have issues with contemporizing everything as I feel contemporary design often communicate a lack of knowledge and of craftsmanship of the old ways, where pride and design were focused on in architecture, and I kinda worry we are losing this craft, so they really shouldn't be discouraging these kinda projects when they come up simply because they basically don't have a "glass box" plopped on top to make it adhere to contemporary standards. There is more to architecture than glass and steel boxes, and while I do agree a fusion of old and new is often ideal, it is not always.

Obv. I'm a bit biased on this as I clearly favour the historic side of the city - as it's why people come here to film movies, because of the character and soul of the buildings, and the pride, which I feel contemporary buildings lack.

Just let core urban do their thing people - they are awesome at it.