Posted by terapr0 To be fair, the original "structure" was all but incomprehensible. Looks to me like the only thing left was a few pieces of a wall - hardly enough to perform any sort of meaningful restoration. Sure, someone with unlimited funds and the desire to throw fistfuls of money at this could *possibly* have re-built the structure based on historical documentation of what it *may* have looked like, but there wasn't really much to go by. If the choice is "keep whatever crumbling parts of the wall are still there and work it into your new design" or "tear the whole thing down and start from scratch", I'd choose the first option, but that's just me. Alternatively the owner could have done nothing and just waited until the rest of the wall fell into a big pile. I don't think that would have been preferable.
|
I'm in favor of a big pile of stone rather than an adulterated eyesore.
Since it's now damaged to the point were restoration is completely impractical if not impossible, he been better off making a house with the stone.
It bares little resemblance to the original -historic- structure in form or construction.
http://www.theguar...restoration-mockedThe "restorer" is claiming that concrete was used to fill in missing portions to restore structural integrity and differentiate the new from the original. Although it doesn't seem to be the case. Sounds good, but the pictures tell the truth... and the truth in this case is damn ugly.