Thank you for clarifying that. Usually in architecture you can see bones and remnants left from the original, but many of these were clearly different.

I so much agree with you because nope, I do not like mindless posts. This one is made for easy outrage and condemnation - without having a single fact presented about the buildings. Where is the building? Is is structurally sound? Is it possible to renovate it? What has it been converted into, i.e. what is it used for? Private or public ownership? North western Europe is littered with disused churches and I cannot see why a much more secular modern society should have to keep every church as it once was. That money is much better spent on health and education, if you ask me.

Yes, someone doesn't know the meaning of 'renovation'. Most of these are replacements.

In the case of the Tamworth ones, it was just pure commercial expansion. A lot of the shops and pubs are still the original Tudor buildings with and are listed buildings now and can't be altered any further

This comment is hidden. Click here to view.

Is this known fact or supposition on your part?

If we were misled on even one of the photos it negates the entire premise of the post. Replaced is not renovated and if a major portion of the original building was destroyed and replaced with something else entirely that does not qualify as a renovation either.

Not all of those were not WWII bombed buildings. Besides, in the Atomic age 1950’s-1960’s, many of the 1800-1900’s buildings were razed for modern buildings. We are now seeing things like that happen again where our mid century buildings are outdated, un functional and in many ways, unsafe. It is the natural cycle. Not all buildings are relevant or practical enough to be saved.

Not really, I recognize a few from Montreal