junctionist
Senior Member
Sometimes, the only reason why a rebuilt building looks fake is because no one of the present generation realized how the building looked when new. (The differences between new and old buildings aren't always as great as we think they are.) When I see an old stone facade completely cleaned of pollution, revealing rich hues of colour on a facade that used to be a lot greyer, I find it looks beautiful but also odd because I didn't imagine that the original facade was so sophisticated in terms of material choice.
I would advocate rebuilding only if it's impossible to preserve a building or if it was demolished some time in the past, because it's such a challenge to get it right. But challenges can be good. If a building can be rebuilt to the exact same design and proportions, using the same materials down to the colours of the original, it should be a fine way of continuing the existence of heritage architecture. The problem with the Bay Adelaide case was that they modified the design of the heritage facade in rebuilding it, further compromising the heritage aspect. It was already a facadectomy, one of the shallowest forms of heritage preservation, but they watered it down some more.
