It goes round and round

The end of the Weißes Rössl has several people responsible

Demolition can take place at any time. There are penalties for disruptive actions. A site ban applies.(Bild: Christof Birbaumer)

The demolition of the listed Weißes Rössl in Gries am Brenner in Tyrol is due to take place these days. While the excavators wait for the go-ahead, there is a lot going on in the background. Many accusations are being made. Mistakes have been made on several sides. 

On Monday, work was still being carried out on the gas pipeline in Gries am Brenner. The White Horse Inn can only be demolished once this has been completed.

Last straw for the heritage office
The Office for the Protection of Monuments is once again trying to stop construction work and has submitted a further application for protection to the Innsbruck district authority in accordance with Section 31 of the Monument Protection Act in order to prevent demolition. However, a miracle will probably be needed to save the building at the last minute.

In the meantime, the monument conservationists, citizens' initiative, authorities and owners are at loggerheads. Who is responsible for the misery? As reported, the citizens' initiative has filed a complaint and is calling on the supervisory authorities to question the role of the district authority and the owner's actions. The Monuments Office once again points out that the demolition requires a permit from the Federal Monuments Office. This is also enshrined in the Tyrolean building regulations.

Process too slow
Mistakes were made on several sides after the fire in May 2023. For almost two years, the owner and the Monuments Office were unable to agree on an emergency cover. This suggests a lack of willingness to compromise, but also cumbersome procedures at the monument protection authority. This has also been criticized from several sides. New legal requirements have been in place since September. It remains to be seen whether these will be effective. They come too late for the Weißes Rössl.

The case also shows that monument protection is still not given enough priority. Strengthening this is not just the task of the heritage office.