the building itself is on the heritage register and rightly so. it's eighty years old and it had played a vital role in the defense of nineteen thirty-nine when it flanked a barricade that held one of the main roads most easily accesible for the invading forces. from my understanding, its memorial value is less of achitectural and more of sentimental value. the building is operational and it houses a renowned pre-war public high school. these all are reasonable arguments for preserving its form and design, and if the roof support is valuable because of, let's say, unique technological solutions, i'm all for minimizing modern intrusions in the structure, sure. but the whole ado doesn't employ the argument that an alteration of a registered structure has to be prevented. the main point seems to be the possible removal of German artillery rounds. (which, funnily, are dug up on a weekly basis in this minefield of a city, and up to this day were routinely disposed of.) i don't know whether this is indeed the argumentation employed by the officials who red-lighted the investment or it's just what the press considered the most noteworthy part of the affair, however in each case there's a person who seriously needs to rethink their stance.
Reply
Leave a comment