Krasna Horka castle in fire

[PlanesPictures]

Part of Slovak history in todays fire. Sad

http://roznava.korzar.sme.sk/c/6293835/poziar-hradu-krasna-horka.html

 

[Orionblamblam]

Yikes. Looks liek there are a number of people who are going to be in *serious* trouble... the people who started the grass fire, and whatever idiot put a flamable roof on the castle.

 

[flateric]

Part of Slovak history in todays fire. Sad

:'(

 

[Jemiba]

Historic buildings seem to be prone to fire damage, as was shown already in September 2004, when "Herzogin
Anna Amelia Bibliothek" (Herzogin Anna Amelia library) was destroyed by fire, with the loss of more than 50.000
books. I think, the roof truss of such a building will be still flammable in most cases. To protect that part against
fire is either very difficult, very expensive and maybe quite often not possible due to monument protection.
The answer would be automatic fire alarm systems and that's again eypensive ... :-\

 

[Orionblamblam]

To protect that part against
fire is either very difficult, very expensive and maybe quite often not possible due to monument protection.
The answer would be automatic fire alarm systems and that's again eypensive ... :-\

Or just a metal roof.

Of course, maybe "fire falling from the sky" might not have been high on the list of perceived risks.

 

[Matej]

...whatever idiot put a flamable roof on the castle.

Everyone who lived more than two hundreds years ago in Middle Europe and built castle. The point of the restoration is not to install the latest PVC tripple-glass windows, metal roofs and wi-fi hotspots. We have a few castles "restored" or better to say destroyed that way during the last 50 years and their current historical value is equal to zero. Krásna Hôrka castle had its fire alarm system, but it was rated only for a small fire, originated inside the building. When everything around is in fire, it can't do much.

Fortunately, some 90 % of the exhibits were saved: https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.345066795536482.89245.172541149455715&type=3

And in case that at least part of my post should be about aviation, one of the vehicles that helped extinguish the fire was Mi-17M helicopter from Prešov air base

 

[Orionblamblam]

We have a few castles "restored" or better to say destroyed that way during the last 50 years and their current historical value is equal to zero.

Better to let 'em burn to the ground?

If it's a choice between an authentic wood roof, or a metal roof that looks *exactly* the same... how is the metal roof worse? The wood portions of large structures are generally temporary at best... the stone walls may last centuries or millenia, but wood tiles last... what? A few decades? They will need to be replaced. It doesn't "destroy" a building to make it less dangerous. The White house has been rebuilt, the Pentagon has been rebuilt. They look much the same, but there were important structural and material changes.

 

[Arjen]

The wood portions of large structures are generally temporary at best...

I beg to differ. There are many ancient, centuries old buildings with major wooden structures surviving throughout Europe (and I suspect in other parts of the world too, but I've never been there), much of their structures still in their original state. In buildings this old, to replace the wooden structure by steel, concrete or PVC would destroy the building, leave a mere ghost of the building as it was. For me, it was a singular joy to pass through York's Merchant Adventurers' Hall, walking on floors that were literally sagging with age, dark stained wood creaking under my feet. History becomes tangible in these places. Maintaining buildings like that, keeping them safe from fire and rot, takes lots of time and money, but the world will be a poorer place without them.

I am extremely sorry to see the destruction of Krásna Hôrka. I hope lessons will be learnt. I dread the day when society decides to give up on these treasures.

 

[Matej]

This is a bit complex question. Being one of the volunteers, that are saving the second biggest castle in Slovakia - Šarišský hrad - I know a lot about it. Yes, it will destroy its historical value. You cant compare the sixty years old Pentagon or 219 years old White House (in fact actively used administrative buildings) with a castle that is almost twice as old as the whole United States. Here in Europe we are much prouder to our history and to preserve its... lets say authenticity. As an example, from hundreds of quarries, our "Monuments Board/Office/Administration" allowed us to use stones only from 1200 km distant quarry, because they best match the original material. And we agreed, because the point is to keep the authenticity as much as possible. In your logic, it would be the best to pull down the whole structure and build it again from scratch with modern materials and technologies. Maybe it will "look" the same, but it definitely "will not be" the same. Historical value is much more than look. And in 12th or 13th century they definitely didn't have any metal there. To illustrate it - I attached the picture of the castle Strečno. It was restored during the socialism using modern materials to "look" like during the old age. But because of that, its historical value is currently equal to that of Tesco hypermarket nearby. It works as an attraction to some tourists, but that's all.

How is the metal roof worse? What about lightning (because lightning rod will not save you in every case) or earthquakes, that sometimes happen in that area? You cant preserve building against any danger. This is the price.

Regarding the lasting of wood - we in Šariš castle still have some wooden beams dated to 15th century and they work fine

 

[Orionblamblam]

Re: Shadow on The Wall

The wood portions of large structures are generally temporary at best...

I beg to differ. There are many ancient, centuries old buildings with major wooden structures surviving throughout Europe ...

And today there is one less in Slovakia.

In buildings this old, to replace the wooden structure by steel, concrete or PVC would destroy the building, leave a mere ghost of the building as it was.

How would it have destroyed Krásna Hôrka to have clad the roof in steel that looked just like the original wood? How many people get up on the roof such that they could actually tell?

 

[Matej]

Re: Shadow on The Wall

How would it have destroyed Krásna Hôrka to have clad the roof in steel that looked just like the original wood? How many people get up on the roof such that they could actually tell?

I will answer you with question: Why don't you (US people) burn the original of the US constitution and replace it with the digitally printed copy on nonflammable paper, that looks *exactly* the same?

 

[Matej]

As a curiosity, I have somewhere the photos, how those wooden tiles are made, but except one I cant find them at the moment. They are not manufactured in factory, but every one is handmade without any electricity, using 800 years old documented techniques. Period costume is another plus

 

[Orionblamblam]

Re: Shadow on The Wall

How would it have destroyed Krásna Hôrka to have clad the roof in steel that looked just like the original wood? How many people get up on the roof such that they could actually tell?

I will answer you with question: Why don't you (US people) burn the original of the US constitution and replace it with the digitally printed copy on nonflammable paper, that looks *exactly* the same?

You question is a non-sequitur. The honest comparison is to note that the US didn't just hang the original Declaration of Independence or Constitution on a wall; it's protected by some of the most advanced, elaborate and blatantly obvious protection imaginable, including several inches of armor-glass.

This is not the way these documents originally were handled.

The US (and a whole lot of other nations, of course) has gone to great lengths to protect many historical artifacts, including squirreling them away in deep dark holes and putting replicas on display. This has not prevented the occasional disaster, of course. And when that happens, people are held to account.

As previously mentioned, the US has also completely rebuilt old buildings such as the White House when it was clear that they needed to be updated. The White House was *gutted* during the Truman administration, and turned into a fundamentally new building, but built to the old plans.

A building does not have a soul. A building is a collection of stone, metal, wood, plastic, glass or whatever else was used in building it. A building does not care if its roof is wood or metal; the only ones who care are *people.* And if your intent is to preserve a building for future generations, then a determination to stay with unsafe materials rather than safe materials is to put the feelings of *future* people at risk. Because a building that is gutted or destroyed will not mean as much to future generations as an intact building. Imagine if the National Air and Space Museum were to go up in flames tomorrow, with a complete loss of all artifacts and dispalys: no more wright flyer, no more Spirit of St. Louis, no more anything. Future generations won't care to come visit them because they'll be *gone.* Thus putting them in a fire resistant glass, steel and concrete building - rather than a more historically accurate wood workshop, say, or a hangar filled with jet fuel - might take away some of the historiocity, but the loss is trivial compared to the preservation.

Also, think of it this way: what would the people who originally built it have to say? If the original architects had had a steel roof option available to them, knowing that it would make the building much more fire resistant, would they have chosen it?

Or think of it this way. Imagine that you built some fantastic wooden structure, like, say, a Scandinavian stave church or some such. You'd know that fire was a perpetual risk. But assume further that a time traveller from a hundred years from now could come back and say that the building has become an important national/cultural landmark or shrine, and collapse or fire was an immanent risk. The technology exists to infest the structure with nanites that would work through the wood and string a matrix of fullerene nanotubes, diamond coatings and titanium fibers that would make the building as structurally sound and fire-resistant as a block of granite. It would look the same externally, unless you examined it with a microscope. And the building might sound and flex differently. What would you tell the time traveller? Fix it up for future generations, or let it turn to crap?

 

[Orionblamblam]

As a curiosity, I have somewhere the photos, how those wooden tiles are made, but except one I cant find them at the moment. They are not manufactured in factory, but every one is handmade without any electricity, using 800 years old documented techniques. Period costume is another plus

Modern manufacturing:

Now, the question is to bebuild using the Old Ways, or rebuild with new materials, or to just let nature take its course.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

The very fact that the castle survived this long as wood suggests the fire hazard was manageable. Some discreet sprinklers might have been nice to have, but I doubt you'd have very good water pressure on top of a hill like that without spending a great deal of money. I see no point to rebuilding some historical castle just to make it more fire proof at great cost. If it burns down it burn, and how is this different then tearing out all the existing wood to put in steel anyway? The walls didn't come down, if anyone has the money to rebuild it, then choosing newer materials would be appropriate.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Wow, really? The only way to put sheet-steel shingles on top of a building is to completely replace all the wood within the building? Apaprently Europe is doomed. Turn off the lights, shut the door, shows over, time to let Europe descend back into anarchy and barbarism.

One shudders to imagine the cost of adding sprinklers. I imagine you'd have to not only replace all the wood within the structure, but tear down the stone walls, feed the stones into massive grinders, convert it all to powder, feed the rock powder into a nuclear reactor to melt it all into liquid hot magma, pour it into molds made of a gold/platinum/diamond alloy, and cast all new stones. Of course, since the castle was originally built on a hill, will the hill itself have to be torn apart and rebuilt somewhere else?

Would the cost of making the castle proof against Greek econo-protesters and British soccer hooligans entail replacing all the hydrogen in the sun with dark matter?

Translation: steel shingles ain't exactly rocket surgery, folks.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Your rambling like they should have seen this coming all along, and have ignored all other sources of fire, like you know, ones inside the building, while they did so. If you were serious about how you'd go about fireproofing a building like this you'd consider internal fires to be much more likely, and protecting against them takes a lot of very serious work. So tell me, if this was such an awful decision, why is it the place didn't burn down before? As has been pointed out its older the the entire United States.


It sure isn't rocket science that buildings can burn a lot of different ways, and that it is nonsensical to insist that only one single threat be protected against while reducing the historical integrity of the building. You might notice they didn't spray down the US constitution with fireproofing coatings either. In fact they did absolutely everything they could not to have the document damaged at all.

 

[Orionblamblam]

... while reducing the historical integrity of the building.

Please define "historical integrity" of a building. Include reference as to the validity of electrical systems, (including lighting and telephones), air conditioning, indoor toilets, the use of anything more modern than horses&carts for the transport of supplies and maintenance by people other than slaves or serfs.

Would the Declaration of Independence be better served by hanging in a simple hand-made wooden frame? Would that not have more "historical integrity?"

 

[Jemiba]

Perhaps it would be a good moment to calm down a little bit ??! ???

As this is an aviation forum, maybe it helps to think about an aircraft as an example to explain, what
Matej to my opinion meant with "historical value":
Just think of an Me 109, Spitfire or P 51, principally complete, but somewhat corroded, a danger that it'll
face again in the future. How about replacing the metal skin with plastics and spars and longerons with parts
made from carbon ? Or a Fokker Dr.I or Sopwith Camel, with its structure replaced by alumnium tubing. Would still
look the same from a distance, but would it still be a historic aircraft ? Would be just a kind of full-sized
model kit, I think ! And the same is true for a historic building. Integrating electricity, modern telecommunications
and so on (in a careful way !) don't mean to replace old structures, but in most cases just is necessary to secure
usability in our times and so the possibilty of earning a part of the livelihood, comparable of the installation of modern
radio set and a GPS into a WW II fighter, that is intended to participate on airshows.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Perhaps it would be a good moment to calm down a little bit ??! ???

What the hell would be the fun in that?

Just think of an Me 109, Spitfire or P 51, principally complete, but somewhat corroded, a danger that it'll
face again in the future. How about replacing the metal skin with plastics and spars and longerons with parts
made from carbon ?

That would not fix the corrosion problem, since those materials crap out just as fast or faster. If you wnat to prevent corrosion... put it indoors.

Perhaps a better example would be an old airplane made out of truly crappy materials. The Zero, IIRC, was made out of magnesium alloys for lightness. Magnesium doesn't last *at* *all* out in the world. So if you want a Zero that you can actually fly... you'd damned well better build it from different alloys.

If you have yourself an old Me262 that you want to fly around, you could either give it all new turbojets (as was done with the replicas a few years ago), or build new ones to the original plans. But if you go the latter route... you'd better update the metals. Because the alloys in German wartime jet engines were *crap*. And they *knew* they were crap. They would have been *thrilled* to build their engines using the alloys we would naturally choose today.


I'll make my original point *YET* *AGAIN.* A steel-shingle roof would be *indistinguishable* from a wood one, unles you were right on top of it. How close do the tourists get to the roof? If they can't tell... what could *possibly* be lost?

 

[Arjen]

I can assure you that replacing wood by steel/concrete/fiberboard/pvc is immediately distinguishable in centuries old buildings, even to casual observers. I have seen plenty of examples of it. It's sometimes necessary to introduce new materials to save crumbling structures, but all too often it's done because there isn't enough money to do the job properly.

 

[Orionblamblam]

> I have seen plenty of examples of it.

I've seen plenty of examples of mass-produced steel roofing systems that were indistinguishable from slate, wood, asphalt and adobe. Shape, texture, paint.

Fortunately wood and serfs are cheap, so replacing the roof here the Old Fashioned Way should not be too expensive.

 

[Arjen]

Restoring Krásna Hôrka, even using many volunteers, will be very costly - if and when it happens.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

Please define "historical integrity" of a building. Include reference as to the validity of electrical systems, (including lighting and telephones), air conditioning, indoor toilets, the use of anything more modern than horses&carts for the transport of supplies and maintenance by people other than slaves or serfs.

Sure I'll do that right after you provide a detailed budget proposal for replacing the roof with steel including all labor and insurance costs for the work. Be sure to cite the actual budget available for maintain the castle and how it meet the requirement.

Would the Declaration of Independence be better served by hanging in a simple hand-made wooden frame? Would that not have more "historical integrity?"

Last I heard the Declaration of Independence is in a wooden frame, though its not hanging. Now meanwhile in Pennsylvania we have numerous wooden covered bridges as old as the country which have been preserved and are still in use. They could burn down at any second, but have not. I guess we should go completely replace them with steel bridges painted to look the same right, so we have no risk of fire?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Please define "historical integrity" of a building. Include reference as to the validity of electrical systems, (including lighting and telephones), air conditioning, indoor toilets, the use of anything more modern than horses&carts for the transport of supplies and maintenance by people other than slaves or serfs.

Sure I'll do that right after you provide a detailed budget proposal for replacing the roof with steel including all labor and insurance costs for the work. Be sure to cite the actual budget available for maintain the castle and how it meet the requirement.

The castle requires no maintenance. It's burnt. That's the natural state for ancient buildings.

I'm curious what the budget for replacing the wood ash roof with *anything* will be.


But I will take note of your avoidance of the point. Apparently, adding lights, AC, telephones and internal plumbing to a medieval castle does not harm its "historical integrity," whereas some sheet metal shingles does.

Now meanwhile in Pennsylvania we have numerous wooden covered bridges as old as the country which have been preserved and are still in use. They could burn down at any second, but have not. I guess we should go completely replace them with steel bridges painted to look the same right, so we have no risk of fire?

A cheap-ass wood bridge is not a medieval castle-museum. If one burns down, building another one is not especially expensive, nor have you lost a whole lot. Unless, of course, y'all stock your covered bridges with artwork and such.

 

[Jemiba]

... Apparently, adding lights, AC, telephones and internal plumbing to a medieval castle does not harm its "historical integrity," whereas some sheet metal shingles does. ...

Lights, AC, telephones and internal plumbing generally are added to the old structure, which can still remain
the same it was before. But as I understand, you would replace the wooden shingles with steel ones. That would
mean to take away an old part and replacing it with something, that just looks like the old one. In the end, a medieval
castle could end as a kind of Neuschwanstein Castle, which already was a fake, when it was built.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Lights, AC, telephones and internal plumbing generally are added to the old structure, which can still remain
the same it was before.

How so? You have fundamentally changed the *spirit* (sigh...) of the place. If you have messages to send, use a slave. If you want lights, set some pig fat on fire. If you need to take a dump, use a bucket.

But as I understand, you would replace the wooden shingles with steel ones.

I would *now.* Since there are, of course, no more wooden shingles. Prior to the fire, I would have either added steel shingles over the wood ones, or replaced the wood with steel during regular maintenance. What was the exected lifespan of the wood shingles anyway?

That would mean to take away an old part and replacing it with something, that just looks like the old one.

Yup. I fail to see why this would be a problem. I fail to comprehend the seemingly unreasonable passion some people have for maintaining a pointless antiquity simply because it's old... or *seemingly* old. Weren't the wood roof shingles added to the castle within the last few years anyway? Which mean that even the wood roof is, in fact, a modern fake. It was just a less practical modern fake than a steel modern fake.

I wonder if there might be some differences between American and European views on this sort of thing.

 

[Arjen]

I wonder if there might be some differences between American and European views on this sort of thing.

There are some differences between your views and mine on this subject. Don't know about American vs. European.

Time and money is being spent on historical buildings to retain them in a state as close to original as deemed practical. Views on what is practical may differ. From your comments, you don't strike me as being overly concerned with keeping buildings in their original state. Others think differently about that, and are willing to invest time and large sums of money. Private money, in many cases.

Look at it one way, and this is a fire hazard.

Look at it another way, and it's a national treasure, one that people are most anxious to preserve. I appreciate your point that modern technology can be used to better preserve these buildings, but many people feel that by being overprotective you can destroy a building just as sure as burning it down.

It is a matter of balance. Now, check your wallet.

 

[Sea Skimmer]

But I will take note of your avoidance of the point. Apparently, adding lights, AC, telephones and internal plumbing to a medieval castle does not harm its "historical integrity," whereas some sheet metal shingles does.

I ignored it because I said reduce, not eliminate, and because its obvious that you don't actually care about the topic one and your commentary is just an excuse to complain about something.

A cheap-ass wood bridge is not a medieval castle-museum. If one burns down, building another one is not especially expensive, nor have you lost a whole lot. Unless, of course, y'all stock your covered bridges with artwork and such.

So yeah you don't actually care about the historical value of anything. That's fine, but don't expect other people to swallow it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

From your comments, you don't strike me as being overly concerned with keeping buildings in their original state.

No. Why should I be? Buildings change over time, as almost all things do. Stagnation = death.

Buildings are not the Mona Lisa or Starry Night. Those paintings, once the artist was done with them, were *finished.* Buildings constantly change, since they are *functional* structures that need to do a job, and deal with changing needs, technologies and environments.

My house is currently powered by an exterior power grid. If I could replace the "legacy" electrical lines with affordable and reliable photovoltaics on the roof, I'd do so. If I could then replace the PV array with an affordable and reliable fission reactor, I'd do that too.

Look at it one way, and this is a fire hazard.

It is indeed. however, there is a *major* difference between this and the castle: a visitor can get right up close to the wood roof shingles here. On the castle? Doesn't seem to be the case. If you can't get close enough to tell the difference... then what's the difference?

but many people feel that by being overprotective you can destroy a building just as sure as burning it down.

These people are what I like to call "crazy." Truman rebuilding the White house did not destroy it more than when the Brits burned it.

I believe a good case can be made that every now and then perhaps *every* building should be razed to the ground. Otherwise people get fixed to living in the past, rather than striving for the future.

It's one thing to remember the past. It's another to venerate it.

 

[Orionblamblam]

So yeah you don't actually care about the historical value of anything.

Yep. That's why I spend so much time on aerospace history. Because I don't care about history.

 

[Matej]

Restoring Krásna Hôrka, even using many volunteers, will be very costly - if and when it happens.

The new roof should be there till the end of summer.

How so? You have fundamentally changed the *spirit* (sigh...) of the place. If you have messages to send, use a slave. If you want lights, set some pig fat on fire. If you need to take a dump, use a bucket.

That's (kind of) good point. When I visit the castle, I want to see and feel, how the people lived in past. If I want to see and feel latest state-of-the-art technology, I will visit Silicon Valley.

Buildings are not the Mona Lisa or Starry Night. Those paintings, once the artist was done with them, were *finished.* Buildings constantly change, since they are *functional* structures that need to do a job, and deal with changing needs, technologies and environments.

In first part you are in my opinion wrong. Some significant buildings are just like Mona Lisa - piece of art and evidence of past, that we should preserve in their original form. Regarding the *functionality* of Krásna Hôrka, it was built as administrative center, settlement of the king and fort to resist against Turkish incursions. Last Turkish incursion that I know about happened a few hundreds years ago, so the functionality of castle changed significantly - now it is museum where we preserve our proud past. This is its current purpose. And this is the reason, why it is unacceptable to look like modern glass-aluminium cube.

In second part you are right - it need to do a job, deal with changing needs, technologies and environments. As I wrote before, its job is not anymore administrative center, nor settlement of the king and nor a fort. Its museum.

My house is currently powered by an exterior power grid. If I could replace the "legacy" electrical lines with affordable and reliable photovoltaics on the roof, I'd do so. If I could then replace the PV array with an affordable and reliable fission reactor, I'd do that too.

And this is because all the time this building has the same purpose - to be your settlement. You live in, you develop, so the building changes with you. The same I do with my house, car, computer.... But last time I checked, I did not find any king on Krásna Hôrka.

It is indeed. however, there is a *major* difference between this and the castle: a visitor can get right up close to the wood roof shingles here. On the castle? Doesn't seem to be the case. If you can't get close enough to tell the difference... then what's the difference?

You need actually to visit one to understand it. If you be in Europe sometime, you are welcome

Otherwise people get fixed to living in the past, rather than striving for the future. It's one thing to remember the past. It's another to venerate it.

You can remember only that, what you actually did not destroy. There is no future without the past.


The last important point is that you did not identify the right problem. You are applying the method that is not the solution. It was not the wooden roof, that caused the trouble. There is unwritten rule, that every ancient building with significant wooden structures should have safety perimeter, covered with rock or small grass. In this case, from north side there was a forest directly next to the castle. This was a problem. Because this was how the fire moved to the roof.

Metal roof is not a help. On the contrary, it should cause worse troubles, as can be clearly seen on the Kunerady manison. During 2010, it underwent a very similar fire, but the damage was much worse because to extinguish a fire under metal roof is much harder and time consuming than under all-wooden roof.

Attached are the photos of Mi-17, that is regularly used here to fight with fire.

 

[Orionblamblam]

Some significant buildings are just like Mona Lisa - piece of art and evidence of past, that we should preserve in their original form.

Which in many cases would mean gutting the building, and tearing down large portions of the structure that have existed for centuries. How many buildings 500 or more years old can actually be restored to the "original form"?

And who is to say that the "original form" is the "best form?"

Take, for example, the USS New Jersey or USS Missouri. These ships were retired in, IIRC, the 1990's, and were equipped upt to 1990's standards. But they were built in the early 1940's, and looked substantially different at the time. Before being put on display as museums, should they have been restored to the original 1940's configurations?

Regarding the *functionality* of Krásna Hôrka, it was built as administrative center, settlement of the king and fort to resist against Turkish incursions.

So... should there be the heads of dead Turks stuck on pikes around the perimeter? Might have an effect on tourism.

Last Turkish incursion that I know about happened a few hundreds years ago, so the functionality of castle changed significantly - now it is museum where we preserve our proud past.

Not if it all goes up in flames...

National museums should be, essentially, fortresses against the ravages of time and dumbassery. Look at the Louvre... I'm pretty sure they've made some substantial changes to it over the last few centuries, and who would want it restored to the original condition? Who would want the Mona Lisa just nailed to the wall for every greasy idiot to paw at?

There is unwritten rule, that every ancient building with significant wooden structures should have safety perimeter, covered with rock or small grass.

Ah, but that's not the original condition of the ancient building, is it. You are deciding to make major changes that, unlike a metal roof, are vast and *obvious.*

Metal roof is not a help. On the contrary, it should cause worse troubles, as can be clearly seen on the Kunerady manison. During 2010, it underwent a very similar fire, but the damage was much worse because to extinguish a fire under metal roof is much harder and time consuming than under all-wooden roof.

Did the fire start inside or outside?

Attached are the photos of Mi-17, that is regularly used here to fight with fire.

Are you arguing that the Mi-17's should not have been modified away from their original condition? I bet they originally had rocket pods rather than water systems. Would rockets have helped with the fire? I suppose maybe for the Kunadery Mansion... use the rocket to blow the metal roof off to get at the burning goodies inside.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Castles are very useful to defend against Muslims invasions. The problem is that then bad people occupy them and tend to terrorize their neighbors.
In my country, the poorest areas are those with more castles and the State restores them, may you believe it?...... with funds coming from local tax payers.
Vlad, Dracula, young Frankenstein, the Canterville ghost, eccentric millionaires, satanic rites, tourist buses....It seems the only way to get rid of these things is through fire.

 

[Arjen]

Restoring Krásna Hôrka, even using many volunteers, will be very costly - if and when it happens.

The new roof should be there till the end of summer.

Good.

You need actually to visit one to understand it. If you be in Europe sometime, you are welcome

Exactly.

 

[Jemiba]

"And who is to say that the "original form" is the "best form?"

Good point, for most ancient buildings, it would be difficult to reconstruct them to the
original form, because they were modified and reconstructed over and over again. So, the best
you can say of such a building often is "that is about, what it looked like during the 16th century",
or something like that. Well, many buildings, that later evolved into big castles actually started as
wooden fortresses, so back to the "original form"? Certainly no.
Another good point was the comparison with the USS New Jersey or USS Missouri. Should they have
been restored to the original 1940's configurations? Haven't actually seen those ships still yet, but I
remember my first disappointment, when seeing the HMS Belfast on the Thames, wearing WWII camouflage
paint, but actually being in its 1950s guise. Nevertheless, inside, you still can get the feeling, what it is like
to be in a WWII warship, so it was ok for me and I think, it would be the same in one of those US BBs.
Climbing into the gun turret, you can see those inches thick steel walls and the tons of guns and equipment.
It's often somewhat corroded, but those are the ravages of time ! Of course, especially in the case of USS
Missouri, or USS New Jersey it probably would be possible to replace the steel turrets with replicas made
from concrete, so avoiding corrosion. shape would be the same, so, why not ? The whole ship could be replaced
that way, with internal bulkheads and subdivision made from drywall installations, free from corrosion, easy repairable
and even changeable, so in the lower decks, you could even mimic the last hours of the Bismarck or Yamato !
But to me, doing that would be a kind of vandalism, similar to "restoring" the Mona Lisa (which surely has become
darker over the centuries, than originally painted by da Vinci !) by scraping off those old layers of paint and
replacing them with modern acrylic paints.
As old paintings many old buildings, although formerly built just for pragmatic reasons, of course, have to be regarded
as a piece of our culture, or even as a piece of art today.

 

[Orionblamblam]

"And who is to say that the "original form" is the "best form?"

Good point, for most ancient buildings, it would be difficult to reconstruct them to the
original form, because they were modified and reconstructed over and over again.

Or destroyed. If an 800 year old castle must have a wood-shingle roof... how about the Colluseum? Should it not be restored to the condition of its glory days, upt to and including having teams of sailors running around controlling the sail-like sun shades? How about the pyramids of Giza... should they be clad in limestone again?

If money was not an issue, should "ruins" be restored? Sometimes the ruins are not even particularly ancient... the Parthenon, for example, blown up by Turkish gunpowder and Venetian artillery. And a little further afield... how about the Hagia Sophia in Istanbul? When the Greeks reconquer Istanbul and rename it Constantinople (or should it be Byzantium?), should they knock down the minarets? Should the Israelies tear down the doem of the Rock and rebuid the temple?

I guess a few people might have some problems with these ideas...



In any event, the Slovaks have a new resource to help them prevent disaster like the castle fire: BATMAN.
http://news.yahoo.com/batman-brings-order-southern-slovak-town-045424965.html

 

[Arjen]

So tell me. How many thousand year old buildings have you visited?

 

[Orionblamblam]

Fortunately, the US is not overburdened with an excess of 1,000 year old buildings.

Besides, once a building is "older than the memory of anyone alive," it doesn't really matter how old it is.

 

[Justo Miranda]

Frankly, I cannot think of any logic reason for all those monuments, to the arrogance of already forgotten tyrannies, not having the same destiny than the statues of Lenin and Sadam......Is it perhaps that slaves that were mistreated, and goods that were embezzled, 3000 years ago do deserve less space in our consciences?

We forbid airplane models with a swastika, the red star is just a beer brand already, but nostalgic individuals of dark ages do not lose any influence in our societies. They do deny evolution, earth roundness or the landing of the Apollo spaceship on the moon; they have managed to end crewed spaceflights and many nuclear power plants..... And still continue restoring castles and other symbols of repression, for cultural reasons