Should the Crystal Palace be rebuilt?

Printable View

05-10-2013, 02:26 AM
-:Undertaker:-

Should the Crystal Palace be rebuilt?

Should the Crystal Palace be rebuilt?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/...43_964x528.jpg

This week the news came that London's famous Crystal Palace is to be rebuilt after burning down in the 1930s and never being rebuilt due to out of fashion Victorian architecture at the time and a lack of funds in the inter-war period. However, plans have been unveiled by a Chinese billionare and the Mayor of London Boris Johnson to rebuild the palace starting in 2015.

The Palace was, from my recollection, origininally built with the help of Prince Albert (husband to Queen-Empress Victoria) to hold great exhibitions within from all across the British Empire. Grand functions and spectacles such as tropical plants were given a home in the Crystal Palace to show off what at the time was a very patriotic feeling: Crystal Palace, occupying a hill near today's City of London (financial) literally was the crown to the area it was located in.

Burning down in the 1930s, the site has remained empty with only the stone bottom remaining with trees growing where the Palace once sat. Various designs and ideas have been put forward over the years to rebuild, but this latest proposal seems to be a very serious attempt to virtually replicate the fine building that was lost all those years ago.

So what do you think? should Crystal Palace be rebuilt or is it just a relic of a bygone area? if so, what else should be built on the site? and on a broader note, do you agree with this German-style concept of rebuilding grand old Victorian buildings that were lost during the last century?

Great pictures of the proposals and of the old Crystal Palace can be found here - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-unveiled.html

Quote:

There are plenty of nifty prizes to be won within this forum. Positive contributions towards official debates will sometimes be rewarded with a month's VIP subscription in a colour of your choice as part of the Top Contributor award. As well as this, reputation will be awarded throughout the debate to those who make valid and constructive posts. Those who make the best contributions within a month win the Debater of the Month award and wins themselves a month's worth of forum VIP and 10 reputation points. Finally, those who create debate topics that generate a lot of buzz and engaging discussion will receive 20 reputation points.

The debate is open to you.
08-10-2013, 06:16 PM
Jaiisun

The image does look beautiful, but I'd say it would need to have some functional purpose, as it did originally. What that purpose may be I'm not too sure!

I think, if possible, they should keep the remaining original building work and build on top of that to maintain the heritage and ensure that the message is that they're rebuilding what was lost, rather than taking what was there and starting the building from scratch.
08-10-2013, 06:46 PM
FlyingJesus

I don't personally see the point but if it's private money then there's no argument against it really. Rebuilding something just because it got destroyed seems rather silly and backwards-facing
11-10-2013, 07:13 PM
-:Undertaker:-

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

I don't personally see the point but if it's private money then there's no argument against it really. Rebuilding something just because it got destroyed seems rather silly and backwards-facing

Sometimes it's better to look backward to the things that worked and looked nice rather than march forwards off the cliff. It was the same thinking as yours in the post-war period that led to the demolition of beautiful Victorian buildings and their replacement with Brutualist tower blocks.
11-10-2013, 10:13 PM
GommeInc

Quote:

Originally Posted by FlyingJesus

I don't personally see the point but if it's private money then there's no argument against it really. Rebuilding something just because it got destroyed seems rather silly and backwards-facing

This is what I think too. It wouldn't have much use in this day and age if public money was injected into the project, but private money eliminates this concern.

It was an interesting building, but it's original purpose has been superseded by other buildings that hold conferences (plus the fact the Empire is non-existent by name and function). It would only really serve the Commonwealth and hosting internationals from across the globe, which is already done by Buckingham Palace, Downing Street and the Palace of Westminster. If anything, it's being built because of the history and the architecture, than for any practical purpose.
12-10-2013, 03:17 AM
FlyingJesus

Quote:

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

Sometimes it's better to look backward to the things that worked and looked nice rather than march forwards off the cliff. It was the same thinking as yours in the post-war period that led to the demolition of beautiful Victorian buildings and their replacement with Brutualist tower blocks.

And the same forward thinking that will demolish the 60s concrete towers in favour of better architecture in future, yet I'm sure one day someone will say "oh why did we get rid of these wonderful simplistic structures" and forget that everything has its day and that there is a reason things change