Then and Now. A Dilemma

I shot a decaying rural complex a few years ago, for a rural Architecture project that I was doing.

The place was in pretty bad shape, but the Architecture was original and curious. I knew that they have recently started to restore the complex, to sell a weekend apartments. On one hand the complex has been saved. It has not collapsed beyond repair, like one place I visited with a curious and unique roof truss. But on the other modern material s and fittings have taken away the charm that the derelict complex had.

This place is a few miles from my home in Reggio Emilia and was shot with my collection of shift lenses.

As it was

As it is

Well, it seems like a pretty reasonable rehabilitation. The use of modern materials, adaptation to current regulations and budget constraints usually lead to a loss in the aesthetics and antique character of the place. But, as you say, there are much worse alternatives...

Most of the old buildings I photograph have been altered over the years, often centuries. So I guess adapting to preserve, whilst modernising is a good thing.

The pictures of how it was sure do look better though.

Yes, and, especially in the case of churches, they have normally been built and rebuilt on the remains of the previous ones...