To the question, "Should Lower Dacha be restored?" I tend to agree with Robert_Hall.
This is because, having been in Russia myself, and told quite a lot about the restorations of things while I was there, I see how much funding and time go into the care and maintenance of the most historical buildings (i.e. painting Catherine Palace over every year with paint derived from real gold). This is the Russian people's tax dollars at work, and while I too, believe in the importance of restoring the most important of the palaces to their full potential, I disagree that ALL should be.
As has been said, we already have the following restored with complete or partial dedication to the last imperial family:
1. Winter Palace
2. Alexander Palace
3. Catherine Palace
4. Livadia Palace
(And a few others I haven't listed, such as Pavlovsk, Kremlin, etc.; Not to mention the countless cathedrals which dedicate at least some of their funding to the upkeep of Romanov icons, artifacts, and so on and so forth.) While it is important that we remember Russia's colorful history, it is not necessary to reconstruct all things that were once theirs, simply for the sake of those who hold sentimental attachment to it. There are a good deal more people within Russia who would rather see government funding help improve education, medicine, and standard of living in general. The palaces mentioned above adequately preserve Russia's history. Reconstructing costly little vacation homes of the past denies Russian people of the present their right to monetary aide.
That said, however, something I do NOT agree with you about, Robert_Hall, is the treatment of other members here. This is a scholarly forum to discuss facts concerning history. The academics I know personally do not behave in the manner with which you have been replying to I-TsarevichAlexei13. Whether anyone agrees or disagrees on a point is one thing. But to name-call (And I use your words, "immature" and the idea of making a "shrine to the N&A cult") is another thing entirely. Yes, explain your point of view. Yes, you have a right to voice the knowledge you have obtained. But to throw in a "Have you even been there? I have." is quite unnecessary. Might it not have been better to state that you have been there and you are basing your opinions on your experience? I think so. No one needs to demean another person to make their argument more sound.
And, to play devil's advocate here, you previously mentioned that the Lower Dacha should not be restored, using it's age (finished in 1897) as a basis for your argument. It should be noted, in that case, that Cathedral on the Spilled Blood was not completed until 1907, and today still undergoes restoration (in fact when I last visited there it was having work on the domes). The Dacha was a place of birth of a boy who was once Tsarevich of all the Russias. The Cathedral was the place of death of another. If we are only basing the argument that the Lower Dacha should not be restored on its age, and historical significance, then you must also assert that there is no reason to restore the above mentioned Cathedral again.
-RomanovMartyrs
ETA: I am probably a member of the so-called "N&A cult" of which you speak, and I still do not believe in restoring this building. Just thought I would add that. Just because I revere them does not mean my opinion of them can be lumped into something that you deem "cult"-like.
