Turning it into luxury apartments
is not keeping the spirit of the place alive. Restoring is different from turning it into rich people's pads.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:13, 2 replies, latest was 15 years ago)

Surely it's better to preserve a disused or poorly maintained historical building
by turning it in to apartments, and keeping some of the character and history, than it is to just let it moulder and decay?
(berk, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:16, Reply)

Definitely not
turning it into apartments means basically trying to make as much money as possible. Developers will do anything possible and find every loophole to cut costs and ensure they make maximum profit.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:20, Reply)

But nobody is going to restore it without an invested interest of some sort.
That interest could be that they are in love with the castle and would see it's restoration as the person's hobby/leggacy/whatever, and then the funding for the upkeep of it once the restoration has happened. The sort of finances involved could be crippling.

And also, castles were made for the rich/well-to-do, it's exactly in keeping.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:20, Reply)

Their interest is money
do you think developers give a shit about keeping history intact? It's possible to restore and develop things into more functional usage and still keep features/history, but it's not cheap and so it doesn't happen
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:22, Reply)

Yes, definatly, to maximise profit.
You're right, history is a secondry consideration, but it still is one; why buy a castle, knock it down, and build appartments when you can just buy a field and do the same? The history (well, more so, the architecture), is a unique selling point that makes it a financially good thing... it's a possative catch-22.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Sun 27 Feb 2011, 20:25, Reply)