Posts by Weser

    Ursus, thank you for the very nice pictures and interesting information!


    In Vienna, outside the 1st district, I was always impressed by the
    harmonious appearance of the Josephstadt and Neubau districts, with many complete streets and squares (mostly historicist, but in the part of Josephstadt which is closer to the centre I think we have a lot of 18th century architecture).
    The district of Wieden is also of great interest, but here you can still see scars of the war: simple boxes, many of them grey (I wonder why
    they are not painted or improved in some way, so many years after the war-for instance the Belvederegasse). I don't know Landstrasse (the 3st district) so well, maybe it is better than Wieden.

    As a relatively new member, only now I had the opportunity
    to look at the wonderful photos of the Altstadt (pp 39-42).
    I visited Freiburg before five years or so and enjoyed exploring the many nice corners in the Altstadt (it was June, and, as expected,
    the wheather was excellent!). The wonderful photos by Youngwoerth
    gave the opportunity to visit again all these corners! One of the best "virtual tours" I experienced, thanks!


    Maybe somebody has information on the reconstruction of Freiburg-
    who were involved, how decisions were made etc...It was without doubt one of the most successful reconstruction projects in west Germany.

    Thanks! impressive photos..


    Why is Gent relatively "neglected" by tourists? Is it only because a less "strategic" geographic location?

    It is indeed a shame. I was in Ulm again before a few days, and again I felt that the Altstadt is attractive,
    with many nice streets. Not only the part between the Neue Strasse and the Danube, but also in the other direction of the Muenster
    (Platzgasse,Herrenkellergasse, Rabengasse and more). Exactly because of the successful reconstruction of large parts
    after the war, it is so important to watch and try not to do mistakes that damage what has been achieved. This does not mean that every new building
    is a mistake (see for example the nice ensemble in the marktplatz with the library), but in this particular case, it certainly is!

    Quote from "Däne"

    @ Youngwoerth


    "Staubig"? Für einen Deutschen vielleicht. Aber für uns Ausländer sind Städte wie Augsburg, Ulm oder Würzburg alles andere als staubig. Im gegenteil, manchmal würde ein Bisschen Staub (Patina) gut tun :)


    .


    Ich kann dir nur zustimmen.

    Quote from "youngwoerth"

    Äh, das ist Ulm doch auch? Ulm hat sich mir mit einer billigen Nachkriegsfußgängerzone und auch sonst reichlich vermieftem 60er-Flickwerk präsentiert. Die einzigen Unterschiede, die ich sehe, sind, das Ulm zusätzlich(!) auch noch eine streitbare "Neue Mitte" hat - und dafür weniger zusammenhängende und bedeutende historische Ensembles.


    As I already wrote, I find the buildings from the 50s and 60s in Ulm not so depressing. The simple gabled houses in the Muensterplatz create a nice ensemble with the Muenster. I think they replace some historicist
    19th century gabled houses, maybe not a big loss (If the pre-war houses were original gothic or rennaisance, then I was in favour of a reconstruction!).


    There is also a nice raw of modern gabled houses with different colours
    (from the end of the Hirschstrasse to the direction of the Rathaus, I think) which I find quite respectable.


    Even the Fussgangerzone (the Hirschstrasse) in Ulm is not so bad. Of course, the houses are simple, modest and unpretentious. But exactly these properties are not so bad for a newly-built street in an old city like Ulm.
    After all, the "main show" should be left for the historical substance!



    Gil

    Quote from "ursus carpaticus"

    Abgesehen davon waren die barocken und renaissancezeitlichen, von hervorragenden Architekten stammenden Augsburger Bürgerbauten wohl bedeutender als die vergleichsweise anonymen mittelalterlichen Häuser Ulms, somit wäre Augsburg weit mehr Betätigungsfeld für Rekonstruktionen, worum es hier in erster Linie geht.


    I certainly agree with that. By looking at the historic photos in this thread
    it becomes clear that in Augsburg some impressive ensembles of Buergerhauser
    were not reconstructed (although I understand that quite many such ensembles still exist in the city). This was a big mistake of the 50s and 60s. A question for Augsburger: are there any plans or suggestions
    to correct some of those mistakes and rebuilt further parts of the Altstadt?

    Thank you all for your interesting reactions!


    Quote from "MunichFrank"

    Du magst natürlich recht haben, dass manches historische Gebäude für sich genommen gar gewinnt, wenn es heuzutage in einer Umgebung wenig ansprechender modernistischer Klötze steht. Der Großspender des Wiederaufbaus des Potsdamer Schlosses, Herr Plattner, hatte letztens ein ähnliches Argument bezüglich der Situation in Potsdam gebracht. Aber ich würde darauf lieber verzichten, und ein historisches Ensemble klar befürworten, selbst wenn die einzelnen Gebäude darin dann nicht mehr herausragen können.


    But the plan in Potsdam is to rebuilt large parts of the Historische Mitte,
    not only the Schloss!
    Am I wright?!

    First, I am a new member here (from Israel). I was very interested in the last days to read this forum, which I only recently discovered.
    I can understand the messages in german mostly without problems, but it is easyer for me to write in English.



    I still did not visit Augsburg, although I had the opportunity for quite many Germany visits (for instance, in Tuebingen and Ulm). Maybe I will be there in the coming November. From the photos in this thread it is quite clear that the city has some respectable "Altstadt-Flair", althogh the post-war building has its impacts. Maybe in this sense Augsburg is in the same family like Ulm (but certainly not in the family of "perfect" old cities like Tuebingen or Esslingen).


    I want to say some general remark about such "non-perfect" old towns. I do not think that such towns are so dissapointing and desparating. Actually I like
    Ulm very much. The way I see the post-war building in a city like Ulm (and maybe also like Augsburg) is not one sided: to my opinion, there are some good points. Personally I like the simple buildings from the fifties in the Muensterplatz, since they harmonize with the Muenster and do not disturb its impact (maybe they even "help" to the impressive impression of the Muenster?). Smetimes (not always!) I even enjoy to see the contrasting styles (a simple building from the fifties and an impressive old building), and sometimes I even may prefer it to another historicist building from the 19th century. I admit that I even like the Stadthaus
    in the Muensterplatz (although this is of course another type of a modern building).


    I still have not experienced Augsburg, but I guess that also there a part of the post-war building is notso disturbing, and possibly even harmonizes well. It is important, I think, to make distinctions in this aspect. I think it is an over-reaction to say: "this old town is not a perfect old town, and so I do not like it, I give up!".


    Nevertheless, I will also be very glad if some heavy mistakes of the post-war years will be
    corrected (like the unsuccessfull part of the Maximlianstrasse, as we saw in the photos in this thread).


    Gil