Just curious about the "If you buy it you can do whatever you please"-part most people here seem to have as their main understanding. In Germany (and most of Europe, at least I thought it's that way) old buildings often get a protection from the state which prevents the owner from modifying or altering certain things about them. So, yes, for people living in those buildings it's completely normal to get "forced upon them" what they can and can't do with their property.

It seems the english speaking equivalent to what we have over here ("Denkmalschutz") is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_heritage_management

Is this less of a deal in e.g. the Netherlands or are people in this thread overstating in which ways the new owners "changed" the building and modified it?

(As an example, you'd get smacked around here if you'd add or modify electrical wiring within the walls and would have to find a solution that doesn't involve damaging the walls.)

-_-Quails

Australia796 Posts

April 20 2012 15:08 GMT

#182

On April 20 2012 23:40 r.Evo wrote:
Just curious about the "If you buy it you can do whatever you please"-part most people here seem to have as their main understanding. In Germany (and most of Europe, at least I thought it's that way) old buildings often get a protection from the state which prevents the owner from modifying or altering certain things about them. So, yes, for people living in those buildings it's completely normal to get "forced upon them" what they can and can't do with their property.

It seems the english speaking equivalent to what we have over here ("Denkmalschutz") is this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_heritage_management

Is this less of a deal in e.g. the Netherlands or are people in this thread overstating in which ways the new owners "changed" the building and modified it?

(As an example, you'd get smacked around here if you'd add or modify electrical wiring within the walls and would have to find a solution that doesn't involve damaging the walls.)

I'm also not clear on the Netherlands policy, but you can be quite creative within the guidelines for heritage buildings.

Things like the skatepark in the church pictured earlier in the thread don't actually have a serious effect on the character of the building itself, only on its use, so if the community was happy with it and it wasn't so important historically that it had to be maintained as when in use I don't think there would be any big issue with the conversion. Likewise for a building which uses an internal steel frame to support upper floors where there were none.

You have an organisation you can appeal to if you do want to make other modifications in most countries though.

Etrnity

United States88 Posts

April 22 2012 23:45 GMT

#183

On April 20 2012 20:02 Joedaddy wrote:
Some interesting information on the Church as described in the Bible:

Show nested quote +

That being said, my personal belief is that while the physical cross itself is not holy, nor does it contain some mystical powers, it is a symbol of the sacrifice that God and his son Jesus made. As such, it should be treated with a certain amount of reverence.

How the building is being used is irrelevant. Their disregard for the symbolic meaning of the cross is something that will have to be settled between them and God.

Bottom line is that as a Christian I am not personally offended by any of it, but it does make me sad when so_so many people have such little regard for God and what the cross represents.

I'm right here with you. I suppose my last post was a little hidden in meaning. A lot of people point to the old testament and misunderstand the lessons and disregard the significance of Christ. But that's a tangent. I'm fine with buying a Church and turning it into something else, as long as the previous Church has a chance to remove the objects if they please. The Church that Christ refers to is a sense of community, and there is only one reference that I know of (feel free to correct me), of a physical Church, and that is the Church in Israel in which the Mosque currently sits. The significance is of course the second coming of Christ, but again, this is slightly a tangent.

Rebornlife

Canada224 Posts

April 23 2012 00:04 GMT

#184

There should be no guidelines on using religious buildings for something else. Historical buildings whether religious or not should be protected (I'm talking signifigant buildings here).

Countless children have been molested in churches. Martyr's have been created in mosques. (the list goes on - not picking on any one religion)
A cross turned pool cue holder? Are you kidding me? People actually care about this shit?

[Erasmus]

Australia286 Posts

April 23 2012 00:18 GMT

#185

There is a church just down the road from me here in Australia that is now a Bavarian Bier Cafe. Previously it was an Italian Restaurant after it was no longer used as a church.
+ Show Spoiler +

Etrnity

United States88 Posts

April 23 2012 00:36 GMT

#186

On April 23 2012 09:18 [Erasmus] wrote:
There is a church just down the road from me here in Australia that is now a Bavarian Bier Cafe. Previously it was an Italian Restaurant after it was no longer used as a church.
+ Show Spoiler +

I think that's a lovely building. I would rather see an old Church be maintained by someone else then let the building go into ruin. Better part for me is that if people recognize that it's an old Church, it may make them think about going to Church. I'm all for it.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Germany171 Posts

April 27 2012 14:52 GMT

#187

True, mainly becuase we have magnificent classical/neoclassical/baroque architecture not present in America. France is the gold standard in heritage preservation.