Even after WW2, many of Rotterdam’s surviving buildings were torn down so the city planners could create "the city of the future". There are mony more examples of buildings in Rotterdam that weren’t destroyed in the war but were destroyed afterwards for modernization. You’d think that they would preservative of what they still have since they lost so much, but no. No respect for the city’s remaining heritage whatsoever.
7700csays
at least it was put to good use. not exactly the height of architecture tho
IhaveCripplingAngst says
Even after WW2, many of Rotterdam’s surviving buildings were torn down so the city planners could create "the city of the future". There are mony more examples of buildings in Rotterdam that weren’t destroyed in the war but were destroyed afterwards for modernization. You’d think that they would preservative of what they still have since they lost so much, but no. No respect for the city’s remaining heritage whatsoever.
7700c says
at least it was put to good use. not exactly the height of architecture tho
improvisedHAT says
Queen’s Church?
O, you mean the giant anglo Tits Church?
Why would they tear that down?