Charles Bridge reconstruction - bungled or not?

Two groups of restorationists started to fight mercilessly over the Charles Bridge reconstruction. At one side are the representatives of the National Monuments Office (NMO), on the other one are the representatives of the National Monuments inspection of the Ministry of Culture. We informed you about their main points yesterday, now lets take a closer look at points the Inspectors made.

1.Some major mistakes in the documentation – there important sources missing. The inspection claims the reconstruction shouldn’t had started before documentation was complete. The NMO says the papers are just not in one file, and that there would be ‘something missing’ at all the big constructions

2.Too many Charles Bridge stones replaced – this is controversial. It is really necessary to replace all the damaged stones, even when some of them might have stayed there? Both the sides have geologists, who say something different.

3.Workers’ job of low quality – there are visible mistakes at the stone railing of the bridge, and that is undiscussable. In this point, the opposing sites agree, it must be repaired, in some places deconstructed and put together again so it would be tip-top.

In any case, we stand at a beginning of a long-term dispute, there probably was a professional misconduct, the interesting part is to watch, how much of the quarrel is about sights, and how much about power over sights.

Theme:

Time Navigation