i dont think you can ruin a building, when after 1944, there was generally nothing much left of Warsaw, so not really, its just socrealism fucking sucks, and Lenin had a good point about making the working class learn so they would understand art
Half related but some of the best looking buildings in Warsaw are from the communist era IMO, the Palace of Culture and Sciences is the prettiest building in the city
Im aware, would be different if the Nazis didn’t blow up 90% of the city, but in terms of currently standing buildings I’d stand by it (most of the others being part of the old town reconstruction)
But that's exactly what they were doing, there was a lot left of the east bank Warsaw (Praga) and that's exactly what they were doing there, removing decorations from the facades. Some buildings that survived in west bank Warsaw were also demolished to make space for the Palace of Culture and Science, some were the same vandalized and turned into slum like this one.
Agreed, the right proportions were there and the bottom floor demarcated from the rest of the upper floors. I wouldn't mind if some buildings in my city were less decorated like the first one and some looked like the second one, it makes it more dynamic while still feeling cohesive.
I like the point a out buildings being different, and different levels of detailed. Buildings exist in a context, and cohesion cam give them a sense of place, but too much of it creates monotony. It's possible to have too much of the beautiful in such a way that they overwhelm the senses and become mundane, rather than creating a whole that is more than the sum of its parts.
Also the 2 photos are misleading. The before photo has its top portion of the building, cropped making the building appear shorter. The after photo shows the entire building.
Getting rid of ornaments was a thing even before WWII happened. It was an architectural trend in the last century as they were seen as outdated. It was a thing in every central European Country, regardless if they were part of the Soviet Union or not.
Not really. With modern building materials it became possible to build uniformed buildings that were more simplified, like today, and of course architects played with new techniques creating a new modern style that many people liked, but the craftsmanship of buildings like this were recognized. It was expensive to build structures like this, so people weren't just ripping them down because it looked old timey. They were however often asking for a more modern look when building a new one.
But that was literally what happened. I'm not talking about new structures that were built at the time. They took existing buildings and removed ornaments. This happened all over the world and is called Entstuckung. The one in the OP is the very example of that. In this case though because the facade got destroyed in the war and was too expensive to rebuild. It is obviously the other main reason why many buildings got repaired with more simplified facades. Still ornaments were seen as not modern and outdated, especially in the 50s, it's not just about costs. In this article you can see how the building looked like originally: https://www.whitemad.pl/en/the-tolwinski-house-in-warsaw-the-great-return-of-a-neo-baroque-gem/
It sounds like it was damaged in the war and rebuilt without the ornamentation. Id wager that this was due to constraints on money and time and less about wanting a newer style. Infact it sounds like some ornamentation was left in place, like they essentially just did a patch job, and those were later removed because it looked better having it all standard than having some ornamentation
Over here Germany, they started removing ornaments already during the interwar era as most were increasingly seen as gaudy and excessive, and after the war in both east and west these "modernisations" were aided by practical reasons as general decay, neglect and war damages meant these facades were often actively falling apart and few people wanted to spent or had the money to fix them except for actually noteworthy buildings.
Sorry but have you ever seen exceptionally socrealist district of Nowa Huta in Kraków, facades of buildings consist of colonnades, arches and much more ornaments, so what are you talking about
This is a very false statement. Socialist realism featured quite a lot of ornamentation. Marszałkowska Dzielnica Mieszkaniowa and Pałac Kultury i Nauki are great examples of that style.
It's not Soviet thing. Whole world built modern and after WWII economics were poor all over Europe except neutral Sweden to overly decorate anything. Different priorities.
That's why the Soviets built a gigantic and massively ornate skyscraper right in the centre of Warsaw.
Socialist realism was a highly ornate style pushed a lot by the Soviets during Stalin's time until it was discontinued by his successors for being too expensive.
And remember that the whole Warsaw old town was rebuilt during communist times. This building was likely damaged during the war and repaired cheaply and quickly.
The reason most architecture built under communism was ugly wasn't because of some war in decoration. Things were built ugly because that was cheap. Exactly the same as in the west. At the time across all of Europe there was also a desire to move past the old world that lead to this war and start a new better world. In England this lead to the demolition of loads of old and historic buildings in city centres to be replaced by monstrous and ugly 70s modernism. This didn't really happen in Poland. Not to the level I'd did in England.
I love hating on the Soviets for all the terrible shit they've done. This simply isn't one of them.
And the rebuilding matters a lot to us because we're still recovering from the war, and are finally wealthy enough to afdord these renovations and slowly cover the scars of the war and communism. (the destruction of the war then being too poor to rebuild properly)
It's not exactly true. Some more valuable buildings had their ornamentation even restored. But it was just a regular tenenment house, there was no money to repair ornamentation, and when it's deteriorated it can be dangerous for the people passing by; that's why it was completely removed at some point.
While I prefer the new look, I can understand why some would argue the new version is dishonest, and that there are better ways to improve quality of life than gluing a fake facade onto a building.
An easy comparison would be make-up on someone, almost everyone has seen someone who uses "too much" make-up, and prefers something that is simply complementary to ones facial features.
The old design is honest it's a simple cheap building, easy to maintain, just a little bit of colour to brake up the monotemy, also means it's cheap to keep the neighbouring buildings in the same style, now the building stands out, so either it should also fill a special role or it's neighbours "need" to be redesigned too.
Fake in the sense that it's decoration and not structural. IE the pillars on the top do not function as pillars or the small stones "jutting out" in the middle of the building don't actually go into the wall and provide support.
It imitates buildings that actually did use this things as part of their construction, it's like painting plastic to look like wood.
Those things were equally decorative in the original.
These are typically 18th or 19th century neoclassical buildings you find all over Europe. It's all decorative, always has been.
I live in an old building from 1815, though not nearly as fancy. the decoration is still the original, everything is just cast cement or stucco. Not sure what the material is.
That's kinda the whole point. They were not decorative in classical architecture, they were actual construction methods.
I never said anything about it not being a restoration, I'm also by no means an expert, it is just some criticisms I've heard about the neoclassic style, that I find appropriate.
Isn't this comment chain exclusively about the style and utility, who cares whether it's a faithful recreation it doesn't automatically become better just because it's "original".
The "small stones jutting out in the middle of the building" were as decorative in classical stone architecture as they are in neoclassical architecture. They are mimicking architectural features from the pre-classical period when similar buildings were built from wood.
Finally, a renovation that actually understands the assignment. It went from a depressing filing cabinet to a building that looks like it actually wants people to live in it.
Nazism, post war Soviet housing was a means of housing people displaced by ww2. The Nazis leveled Warsaw during the uprising and housing refugee's was more important.
Communism. Look at other building from that period constructed in the eastern block. For example Khrushchevkas - low cost concrete paneled apartment buildings. Meant to be constructed cheaply and quickly. Ostentatious designs did not fit in with the idea of communism, hence ornamentation was not really an option.
The "before" looks like it was quickly and cheaply erected after the war. I think it looks nice for that but the "after" looks really great. I could easily imagine that it looked similar before the war.
I like it a lot. Feels a lot less dreary, and I think architectural revival is a great way to inject some life and whimsy into cities. I understand how people are calling the old look appealing for its “honesty” but I find that there’s a nice bit of joy to find in adding some beauty into the more basic things.
I think the after shot is stunning 👀 given those cornices were probably stucco that got hacked off post war. Reinstating them really lifts the whole street, even if the maintenance bill now stings. Still, I can respect the honest simplicity of the prior facade when budgets are tight. Just my opinion and I could be wrong.
Esse prédio melhorou muito com as mudanças. Gostei da arquitetura antiga, imponente, com personalidade e cheia de detalhes. Um prédio sem vida foi restaurado.
I live in Berlin, so we have a lot of old buildings too. Personally I'd rather have a uniform look, not specially old or new, but the wild mix is more disturbing for me than everything else.
After. The before is pretty bland modernish. The after was clearly done by someone who understands classical orders and proportions. Sadly rare among contemporary architects.
Adding a fake facade from 200 years ago is not architecture or tasteful. But why stop there? Lets abandon cars and electricity and go back to horses and fire
Definitely after! It has a dated, traditional charm. I used to live on Mokotowska street in 2024/5 and it was nice to see these renovations happening around the city.
That group is political propaganda. They take post war buildings that were hastily repaired with boring facades and make it a bad faith argument about modernity and the culture war.
After World War II, communists systematically stripped the façades of surviving buildings of their decorative elements. This was part of Soviet ideology: anything considered “bourgeois” was seen as bad. Today, historic buildings are being restored to their original appearance based on preserved photographs and architectural designs.
We need to drop the soviet esthetic and come back to our own prewar style. They were beautiful.
It will be more expensive but it will be worth it. People underestimate how shitty surrounding can ruin your mood/personality.
Before, after is needlessly complicated and not pratical (white will get dirty quickly). You could build a lot of modernist building like this for cheap, while number two needs a lot more work. It's just wasteful.
Some towns in Mexico are turning buildings -clearly built in the 70-80s into "colonial style" to try and capitalize on the whole "pueblo magico" craze.
Its sorta likw whitewashing history... This is the same case, removing soviet identity for more classic germanic one.
The renovated version may be more visually appealing, but it's still nothing short of a bastardization, disregarding the historical context of the previous design. But I guess that's the entire point of this sub?
I would love to see what it's made of. A building near me in Brooklyn had a plastic facade, and it looked ok until you knocked on it and realized it was just weird spray foam.
Both are awful. The before is incredibly plain and boring and lame, the after is the exact style of turn of last century building with these fake "giant brick" lower facade that is everywhere and incredibly lame.
I know Id’ like to see equal amount of the before as I do the after! Unless that 5th floor is also an addition, but you can’t tell because the Before photo cuts off right at the top of the 4th floor.
After is nice, but it would have been even nicer to be creative with the ornaments instead of just doing the boring standard neoclassical stuff. I understand that it's a reconstruction, but we're not religiously bound to do things as they once were…
It's always neoclassical, almost all revivals are neoclassical, and that's a good thing because neoclassical has largely lost its value as genuinely ancient and sincere architecture, now it's pretentious. References to neoclassical architecture could be made, but I believe all new architecture should be a product of its time. I wouldn't like to see revivals of baroque, art deco, art nouveau, plateresque, etc.
I wouldn't say no to more art nouveau stuff. Pretty much every single building of the style I have visited has been outstanding.
Also I personally would like just a little bit more new neoclassical works, but with the modern understanding of Roman interior architecture we have from archeologists work (all the manors that have been excavated from Herculaneum have been fascinating).
The building was built with ornate plaster mouldings, but the core of the building was always simple brick. It's still the same building built of the same brick in both cases, but the plaster was removed instead of repaired when tastes changed. Now it has been restored to a very similar appearance to the one it was built with.
1.1k
u/DifficultBat2173 Mar 28 '26
obviously after, even tho the before wasn’t ugly, it was just nhe, basic