That's a good question, dear @storiesoferne π And maybe that's why the locals were outraged. This building belongs to the State Enterprise "Port Infrastructure", which means - to the government that runs the country, because each government, when it comes to power, first changes the heads of all state-owned enterprises with their own people. That is why here politics really distorts architecture and can obscure and prevent the ordinary person from seeing its beauty at all.
I would not say that the place is inappropriate, given that there are many other such modern and beautiful buildings around and due to the fact that it is easily accessible and traditional meeting place for people in general. But for an outsider, this place may be completely inappropriate and you are absolutely right that a location in the city center suits it better. However, this building is owned by the port infrastructure, so it cannot be located elsewhere. And in that sense, the locals are probably right.
As for the name, it even sounds so pompous to me that even communist, I mean, pompous in a communist way. But I took the trouble to check what events are held here and they are completely traditional. For example: a pediatric conference, an international medical symposium, an international maritime forum, a jubilee congress on cardiology, etc.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Okay, I got it, and thank you for the clarification. Now it's absolutely clear. For business sustainability, it's definitely common sense for the Congress Center to be constructed within their state-owned coastal territory, within the boundaries of the "Port Infrastructure". It would also be a foolish move for them to develop a project outside of their jurisdiction, exercising less control of favorable outcomes.
Because that building is indeed a specialized venue for both local and international events, conferences, and exhibitions, the name "Congress" might be well suited to their initial intentions - to create vanity, extravagance, and a stately display of power for the public. Nevertheless, it's merely a name. Yet what's more important is the resulting architectural, cultural, and above all, the economic bottom line of that built landmark, whether it has truly served its purpose or not. Do you think so? π
Yes, that's understandable. I'd be scratching my head too if I was in your place. Well, I think nationalistic people, especially citizens of a country that had arguably strong political influences in the past, would be suspicious of your public actions, because of being different from the prevalent "herd mentality". Although you're a local yourself, your true intentions were simply for your interests in photography, design, and architecture.
Therefore, to avoid further confusion, including the unnecessary meddling with sensitive issues, let's just offer them the benefit of the doubt, and stick with what we do best - sharing our architectural impressions and experiences about the built environment. Thank you for this thought-provoking conversation dear @soulsdetour. Have a lovely one! π