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? 😊
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! 😊