Pros and cons
Since the end of World War II, the reconstruction of buildings has been the subject of controversy, especially in the cities hardest hit by the war.
In the public debate on reconstruction, it is mainly assumed that historic or historicist architecture is perceived by the average citizen as more attractive than contemporary architecture. The loss of the historical essence is seen as an aesthetic devaluation, the voids of historical construction created and poorly closed are perceived as a permanent defect in the urban landscape.[4].
The reconstruction of buildings generates controversy between architects and conservationists for different reasons. In general, the issue of the reconstruction of prominent urban places in the context of the urban landscape proves to be significantly more prone to conflict than in the case of remote or open-air buildings, for example, with experimental or didactic reconstructions.
Many reconstructions are new buildings on the inside with a historic façade design, but with modern construction technology and completely new uses. The original building structure is often barely preserved and architects in particular argue against this approach, arguing that a historical impression is simply created to attract certain consumer groups.[5].
There are also examples of reconstructions that lack original substance, such as the reconstruction of the Old Town of Warsaw, completely destroyed in World War II and which is included in the UNESCO World Heritage list. Reconstructed buildings are generally not perceived as such by those unfamiliar with them, making the urban landscape more attractive to the viewer. Even in the consciousness of residents, the fact of reconstruction of a building is mostly forgotten after a while, buildings are again perceived as an organic part of their environment. The desire to maintain the original essence of monuments, as defended by conservationists, cannot be satisfied in many ancient buildings (Theseus Paradox).
Architectural remains recovered after the demolition or destruction of a building can also serve as material for its reconstruction. By inserting them into the reconstructed building their original effect can be re-experienced, although this is often not possible due to excessive damage or wear and tear from being kept outdoors. Cases such as the Old Town of Warsaw or the Frauenkirche "Frauenkirche (Dresden)") of Dresden, where each stone that was preserved and recovered from the rubble was reinstalled in its original location, are rare exceptions, due to the great technical and economic effort they entail.
A crucial issue in the protection of monuments today is the preservation of their original essence. This not only refers to the material raised at the time of construction, but also to the various subsequent layers that bear witness to its era. In the conservation of historical monuments, these layers, together with the essence of the construction period, are considered historically and artistically valuable. The practice of both architecture and art history goes so far as to consider no version of a building as the original: neither the first version, nor the most splendid or popular at the time, nor the last one that has survived. If a building had to be restored to its original state there would be no justification for deciding what this is.
Faced with this special conception of the essence, a reconstruction never has the historical complexity nor the history of the original building. With the reconstruction of a certain historical state, the authenticity of a monument is lost. A new modeled building never corresponds to its model due to changing materials and construction techniques, even if it is very faithful to the original. As a historical document, what is destroyed is always lost, and its replacement constitutes a new document.
With the Venice Charter of 1964, a central and internationally recognized guideline was created to always try to maintain the original structure of the building. This charter is the most important monument conservation text of the 20th century and defines basic values and procedures for the conservation and restoration of monuments.
Many citizens see the loss of architectural heritage primarily as a loss of quality of life; Some buildings are assigned an ideal meaning that goes beyond their pure substance. Certain lost buildings are perceived as defining the identity of a place, residents identify these buildings as an indispensable part of their city. On the other hand, architects and conservationists often object that a reconstructed building always has the appearance of new architecture in the background and never reaches the cultural value of the original. Those who oppose reconstruction also often point out that reconstruction could contribute to the transfiguration of the past. In any case, notable buildings usually have a high symbolic character. Its destruction increases this symbolic content. It is difficult to predict how this identity is transferred to a reconstruction.
Critics of the reconstruction of the architectural profession and related professions assume that modern urban design and contemporary architecture are a continually developing expression of social identity. According to this, it is important for a society to maintain its architecture, which responds to its living conditions and needs and whose expression is through new building projects, and not by recreating old architecture. This consensus on the contemporary is questioned by supporters of reconstruction.
From cultural and historical criticism, reconstruction is seen as a phenomenon of the 19th and 20th centuries that hardly had role models in history and that is now outdated. Reconstruction can therefore only be historically legitimized to a certain extent.
On the other hand, the term urban landscape, as an architectural unit that extends beyond the individual building, only entered the field of architecture in modernity. Advocates of reconstruction, on the other hand, have little fear of contact with the harmonious architectural conceptions of the 19th century and also point to the enduring popularity of domes that were completed then according to principles that are not permitted today.
However, it is precisely the free access to the formal language of all previous eras that is considered one of the essential features of historicism seen in postmodernism. In another sense, the reconstruction responds to the demand for a response to the needs of the time and in this sense it is an expression of contemporary construction activity. There is no telling how later historical eras will judge the contemporary phase of architecture and its peculiarities.
For architects, it is sometimes preferable to create something new rather than build replicas. In this sense, each new building is more historically accurate because the destroyed buildings were an expression of their own time. The constructive solutions of historicist architects compete with the construction of new projects.
From a global perspective, the discussion about the pros and cons of reconstruction is an issue rooted in Eurocentric sensibilities.
However, other cultures, both in the Anglo-American region and in Asia, approach the issue differently: the regular and complete reconstruction of a Buddhist temple is part of the centuries-old tradition of Asian architecture, the European concept of being faithful to the original plays a subordinate role in this culture to this day.
Japan's 2,000-year-old Ise-jingū shrines are ritually rebuilt every 20 years according to exactly the same plans made of wood.
In China, for example, while entire cities and historical centers are sacrificed for major urban and economic planning projects (Shanghai, Three Gorges Dam), historicization projects are also implemented, such as the Datong Old Town project, a city in the Ming style, or the reconstruction of sacred buildings destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.
Also in the USA the concept of monument plays only a subordinate role and is much more related to historical monuments significant in cultural and historical terms rather than from an architectural history point of view.