>>1965520Firstly, I'm not the OP, it's not my picture.
Secondly, "1896" is the building number, not the date. Did you actually think that central Venice was built in the 1890s?
If you need more context, I found the building in question, see pic.
Thirdly, and I mean this without being rude, how did you decide that you were competent to make decisions on the quality of historical architecture? You immediately mis-identified the age of one of the most architecturally iconic places in the world, you gave an incoherent rant about a building's level of maintenance rather than its intrinsic architectural qualities, and the only value judgments you were able to come to were "just bad" and "not aesthetic". You then cap it all off by posting a photo of a Victorian neo-gothic pile which does not have one millionth of the value of the original article, that you dismissed. I put it to you that you don't have any architectural knowledge at all, you just rate things based on how clean the façade is. By this standard, the Parthenon is a piece of junk and should be demolished STAT.
