Quote:
Originally Posted by olga
I wonder the same thing. I find it rather provoking actually. This kind of buildings have always been built just to show off how rich you are. It's one thing preserving the old ones, but do you really have to build new ones? Doesn't Moscow and Russia have lots of old beautiful buildings to take care of and spend the money on instead, you can ask.
But it looks beautiful, it really does.
|
This was not preservation, this was completion of an unfinished project. The choice had been between 1) spending money forever to keep it in the state of pic #1 of this thread and 2) fixing the park and finishing the Palace to make an attractive place for Muscovites (foreign tourists are welcome if they care). Anybody who thinks that preservation of authentic ruins for eons to come is free is delusional. Please check how much Athens, Rome and other places with climates much milder than Moscow's spend to keep their ruins preserved. It makes sense when 1) it is important for cultural identity of a nation and 2) it keeps tourists coming and paying for it directly or indirectly. This was not the case with this estate. The park and Palace in the unfinished state had not represented anything particularly significant in terms of historical events or cultural heritage. Neither was the park a draw for tourists - rather it had become an attraction for homeless people and criminals. My opinion - this was the case of money well spent. I am glad we are now rich enough to have done so.