Ugly Buildings

[Pardalis]

You guys haven't seen this beauty.

 

[lionking]

It's not so much the Scottish Parliament building, but it's location IMO. I mean, it hardly complements Hollyrood.

 

[lionking]

Montparnasse Tower is the biggest abomination in my opinion. It should be demolished.

 

[ravdin]

No mention of the Hotel of Doom in North Korea? Or this monstrosity built by the Soviets?

 

[lionking]

No mention of the Hotel of Doom in North Korea? Or this monstrosity built by the Soviets?

There was by Darat post#8.

 

[IMST]

Experience Music Project in Seattle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorn_Centre

Was considered classicaly bad.

Wow. Parking garage much?

You guys haven't seen this beauty.

Sure haven't. Link=broke.

 

[applecorped]

We're #1!!!!!!!

 

[lionking]

We had one, but had the good sense to pull it down.

 

[dudalb]

While it can't match the horribleness of Liverpool, the newish Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in LA is no prize. (I sit about two blocks away from it as I type this.)

Say what you like about the Catholic Church, they used to know how to build a beautiful church. Not any more, if the above monstrosity is any indication.

On my own hate list, the New De Young Art Museum in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is hideous. It has been nicked named "The Aircraft Carrier" because of the wierd placing of the observation tower, but I consider that to be a unfair insult to aircraft carriers.



The Photo does not do it true ugliness justice.

 

[NotJesus]

On my own hate list, the New De Young Art Museum in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is hideous. It has been nicked named "The Aircraft Carrier" because of the wierd placing of the observation tower, but I consider that to be a unfair insult to aircraft carriers.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_18840491e1a7836b78.jpg[/qimg]

The Photo does not do it true ugliness justice.

Looks like a Howard Johnson's in Hell.

 

[NotJesus]

Another view of Liverpool. Here we see a typical English street on a pleasant sunn... Oh my God, what is THAT???!!!

 

[geni]

Or this monstrosity built by the Soviets?

As completed not to bad. Nothing special but fairly inoffensive.

 

[Ernie M]

Who’s to say “I know ugly when I see it?”

I have personal preferences for what qualities I find “attractive” in a building- but do my individual preference translate into a universal agreement of building-ugly?

I'm not saying I find the buildings on the "Top 10 Ugly" list attractive, I'm just questioning how or what makes a building universally pleasing/attractive.

LINK FOR ARTICLE AS IT APPEARS ON VIRTUALTOURIST.COM?
I haven’t been able to find the ugly-criteria used to assemble “The World’s Top 10 Ugliest Buildings and Monuments” list on Virtual Tourist Website.

Could someone post the actual VirtualTourist.com link if they have it? I read the “Top 10” list on
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20081114/lf_nm_life/us_travel_picks_ugly but couldn’t find it on VirtualTourist.com

Interesting to note about the list, the #1 (Boston City Hall) and #10 (Birmingham Central Library) are “Brutalist” architecture, based on an inverted ziggurat (loosely translated, an inverted pyramidal structure with a flat top.) But if an inverted ziggurat is ugly, how come enough people found it attractive enough to build?

 

[Fiona]

I was on my holidays in Spain a little while ago and I flew into Bilbao. I went there for the Guggenheim and it is awesome. But I had no notion of the airport there. I arrived quite late. I got off the plane and noticed the walk to baggage was quite - well - pleasant. I noticed the windows and the shapes around me. And I went on and got my stuff. And I felt- relaxed - but again the place was an airport so I got on with what i was doing. And then I went down to the place I was to get the car. And I remember commenting how good the windows were and how the shapes were interesting. And I got the car and off I went.

I came back through the same airport. I was strangely aware I was thinking about this airport on the way to it: a background thought cos I was on the wrong side of the road and I couldn't make sense of the road signs: but it was there.

And I got there and dropped the car and it did not go smoothly and yet - I was not annoyed. And the building was doing that to me. I did not know that then. But that done, I went up to the main bit. Day time now. It was beautiful. Just beautiful. A big space with a quiet, cathedral quality. Not because it was made of stone - it wasn't. It was made of ordinary white airport stuff. But it soared and my heart soared with it. And I looked for a while. and then I moved around. And there were arches. But they contained the escalators; they functioned; they were practical; and they lifted my spirit.

Usual airport stuff - hang about for a long time and queue for everything. And I was happy to do it. And this was the building doing this to or for me.

And I flew to Stanstead. Made of the same material - and a thoroughly unpleasant place

And from there to Glasgow. Ironic. The airport occupies a similar space to Bilbao (though the site is flatter): and the lay out is the same. And the material is the same. And the building is ugly: and the space is cluttered with shops selling crap. And the experience is hot and uncomfortable ( though Glasgow is a cold place compared to Bilbao); and awkward and, frankly, stressful.

And for the first time in my life I realised that an airport can be beautiful: and it can be ugly. It can process you, or it can serve you. It can embrace alienation or it can acknowledge that humans fly. And this is a choice we can make.

I learned something. When I came back I mentioned this to my acquaintance/friend Ikarus. And he told me that the man who built Bilbao airport is a famous architect. I had no idea: but that is a testimony to the art and skill of this profession: because this worked for me with no expectation and no idea at all. We should, those who are like me anyway. value this and demand it. For we deserve no less and money is not all there is to life

 

[geni]

Who’s to say “I know ugly when I see it?”

I have personal preferences for what qualities I find “attractive” in a building- but do my individual preference translate into a universal agreement of building-ugly?

I'm not saying I find the buildings on the "Top 10 Ugly" list attractive, I'm just questioning how or what makes a building universally pleasing/attractive.

Large scale polling if it is important. Otherwise it isn't normally that hard to find out. People tend to be rather vocal in their opinions of new civic architecture.

Interesting to note about the list, the #1 (Boston City Hall) and #10 (Birmingham Central Library) are “Brutalist” architecture, based on an inverted ziggurat (loosely translated, an inverted pyramidal structure with a flat top.) But if an inverted ziggurat is ugly, how come enough people found it attractive enough to build?

Because untill you've built it it is quite hard to tell how good or bad it will look. There are simply to many factors to get it right every time. One thing that slightly annoys me is that the artists impressions of proposed buildings never seem to include a version of the building when it is raining.

 

[quarky]

If you want to see ugly, you can't really beat the strip mall zone of any burgeoning small town in the U.S.

Any town over 30,000 people.
You'll see the golden arches and all the rest of it...buildings too ugly to mention; collectively exceeding the weight of all other buildings on earth, of questionable beauty.

Anything unique, however hideous to the eye, gets huge points, compared to the 'run-of-the-mill' supercenter.

This is a personal thing to me. I watched ugliness happen in my country.
I was helpless against its onslaught.

( how could we let this happen?)

 

[Wowbagger]

From the article:

5. Port Authority Bus Terminal; New York City, New York

Those who pass by this iron monstrosity might be tempted to ask about a completion date, but alas, this is the finished product.

I remember doing that once!

 

[IchabodPlain]

Who’s to say “I know ugly when I see it?”

Me, you, Elvis, Jeebus, anybody. Well not any body...certainly not a dead body...or a body of water.

I have personal preferences for what qualities I find “attractive” in a building- but do my individual preference translate into a universal agreement of building-ugly?

Probably not, after all, it's only your opinion.

I'm not saying I find the buildings on the "Top 10 Ugly" list attractive, I'm just questioning how or what makes a building universally pleasing/attractive.

Aesthetics. It isn't the same for everyone, and yahoo doesn't speak for the planet Earth. No need to let it bother you.

Interesting to note about the list, the #1 (Boston City Hall) and #10 (Birmingham Central Library) are “Brutalist” architecture, based on an inverted ziggurat (loosely translated, an inverted pyramidal structure with a flat top.) But if an inverted ziggurat is ugly, how come enough people found it attractive enough to build?

I found it ugly because of the gobs of concrete in it's exterior front. It looks gratuitous in it's blocky design, and frankly, like a pile of rubble from a recently demolished bridge. But that is my opinion (and it has nothing to do with it's inverted ziggurat-like resemblance).

Care to share your opinions on any specific ugly building?

ETA: Welcome to the Forums!

 

[roger]

Come on, this beats any of those 10.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The Community of Christ has a “Temple” in Independence, Missouri, that looks, more than anything else, like some evil villain's lair out of a really, really bad science fiction movie.