In Luxembourg, historic buildings are often referred to as “alte Bausubstanz”. Old building substance. Which is a bit like calling your grandmother “leftover genetic material.” Technically correct, but lacking a certain… reverence.

I once praised the beautiful architecture in the centre of Esch to a highly educated local urban planner. Sculpted façades, elaborate stonework, elegant proportions. Her response?

“Das ist doch nur alte Bausubstanz.” Just old building stock. As in: inconvenient, inefficient, best ignored.

That phrase has stayed with me. It captures something essential about the country’s uneasy relationship with its architectural past. If it’s old, it’s in the way. If it doesn’t sparkle, it’s suspect. And if you dare suggest otherwise, someone will remind you that Luxembourg used to be poor, and poor countries don’t have time for nostalgia.

But is that really true? Must history be treated as an obstacle? Can beauty only be brand-new?

It’s worth asking. Because once you’ve labelled something “old stock,” the next step is usually a crane, a permit, and a fresh coat of developer grey.

Curious how this mindset plays out and why some of us still think it’s worth resisting?

[Read the full post on heritage protection here →]

written by Helen M. Krauss