Ugly buildings

Started by arkiv, October 08, 2007, 09:23:29 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lethevich

Quote from: Florestan on October 09, 2007, 06:54:07 AM
Well, I've been living in Holland for a while and it's just the same. :) At least the second picture could have been taken anywhere in The Netherlands. Ask Harry! :)

Danke for the clarification :)
Peanut butter, flour and sugar do not make cookies. They make FIRE.

karlhenning

Quote from: dtw on October 09, 2007, 07:07:16 AM
More on the Mpls. city hall from Wiki:

"Unlike most buildings in downtown Minneapolis, there aren't any skyways connecting the city hall to the rest of the city. Since any attempt at that would likely have been architecturally disastrous, tunnels were constructed instead."

Anyone else have "skyways"?

On the north campus at the University at Buffalo.

But I won't go back.

karlhenning

The north campus of UB is perfect for this thread, BTW.

orbital

Another architectural and city planning disaster:
The Ritz-Carlton in Istanbul. Completely destroying the most beautiful part of the city :(




Shrunk

#24
A couple of controversial new buildings from my city (Toronto).  I actually like both of them, but I can understand why others might disagree.



Michael Lee-Chin Crystal, at the Royal Ontario Museum.
Architect:  Daniel Libeskind




Sharp Centre for Design, at the Ontario College of Art and Design


BachQ


bhodges


bhodges

Quote from: Shrunk on October 09, 2007, 07:19:28 AM
A couple of controversial new buildings from my city (Toronto).  I actually like both of them, but I can understand why others might disagree.

I like both of these, especially the Liebeskind which is quite striking.  His original design for the 9/11 site here in New York was great, too, I thought, but quickly got watered down and ultimately, abandoned.  :(

--Bruce

karlhenning

Quote from: bhodges on October 09, 2007, 08:01:53 AM
That is really atrocious looking!  :o

--Bruce

Wasn't that in one of the Bond movies?

karlhenning

Quote from: Shrunk on October 09, 2007, 07:19:28 AM
Sharp Centre for Design, at the Ontario College of Art and Design

Well, I think it's bad environmental design. It's a waste of space; the public space underneath is 'compromised' because the building hangs over.  I have a tough time believing that Torunnans feel that they get too much sun.  I should think, too, that the cost of heating the interior in winter will be significantly more than if the base of the building rested on earth.

And one does hope that the supports are designed for the additional weight of snow on the roof.

greg

i don't know about you guys, but i think most of the buildings on this thread are pretty cool. The only buildings i find ugly are the old, run-down dirty looking buildings in Orlando and nearby towns that are just really boring to look at

Quote from: Shrunk on October 09, 2007, 07:19:28 AM
A couple of controversial new buildings from my city (Toronto).  I actually like both of them, but I can understand why others might disagree.



Michael Lee-Chin Crystal, at the Royal Ontario Museum.
Architect:  Daniel Libeskind

that is just sweeeeeeeet  0:)



Quote from: Shrunk on October 09, 2007, 07:19:28 AM


Sharp Centre for Design, at the Ontario College of Art and Design


now that, i can't say if i like or dislike, but it just looks like it might end up falling on someone...
i'd be scared to walk under that thing

Renfield

Quote from: Lethe on October 09, 2007, 06:24:02 AM

The buildings in my country which I HATE are new-build houses. [...]

They are generally poorly made, they never use architects to design them, are visually and conceptually unchallenging to the point of insanity that we are supposedly living in a progressive society and would be downright fraudulent if their attempts to look "old" weren't so ham-fisted as to make them look ridiculous. They are over-priced, cramped, STUPID looking pieces of crap made by cynical conglomerates who claim that people want to live in housing like this, while not giving people any other choice, thus "proving" themselves correct, as nobody can live in alternate housing which does not exist. If a potential owner is tricked into this "dream" of "fake old looking" houses and "cosy" neighbourhoods with weird winding paths through the street deliberately intended to look "natural", and yet at the same time looking as unnatural as they can be, being made of cement or tar, then they are in for a disappointment. The nice field view over the other side of the street will be gone within a few years, as these estates spread like viruses, and once the paintwork fades a little and the bricks become less crisp due to rain and weathering, these houses look every inch the total mistake that 60s tower blocks were as well, and that these things are supposed to be the "cure" to.

I progressively smirked, smiled, and grinned while reading this paragraph. Plaudits are in order, here! 8)

BachQ

Quote from: greg on October 09, 2007, 09:36:37 AM
now that, i can't say if i like or dislike, but it just looks like it might end up falling on someone...
i'd be scared to walk under that thing

I have a feeling that the architects thought about that in their designing process ........

lukeottevanger

Quote from: D Minor on October 09, 2007, 11:29:33 AM
I have a feeling that the architects thought about that in their designing process ........

You say that....but you'd also have thought that people who design musical clip-art such as that in your signature would check to see that it makes musical sense before inflicting it on the world. They never do. I find the whole thing very worrying.

BachQ

Quote from: lukeottevanger on October 09, 2007, 11:35:58 AM
You say that....but you'd also have thought that people who design musical clip-art such as that in your signature would check to see that it makes musical sense before inflicting it on the world. They never do. I find the whole thing very worrying.

It's ART ........ Art doesn't need to be logical or functional .......

greg

Quote from: D Minor on October 09, 2007, 12:01:38 PM
It's ART ........ Art doesn't need to be logical or functional .......
but still, it's terrifying and disturbing!
reading it is like trying to solve a math problem without an answer, or having a fever dream, with building blocks that go all over the place and try to connect but never do
(ok, fine, it's not AS bad as a fever dream, but scary anyways)  >:D

Maciek

I already wanted to say I love this thread before the last 4 posts appeared. But now I simply adore it! ;D

I'd add a few suggestions of my own but don't have the time to search out pictures at the moment... ::)

orbital

Quote from: bhodges on October 09, 2007, 08:18:53 AM
I like both of these, especially the Liebeskind which is quite striking.  His original design for the 9/11 site here in New York was great, too, I thought, but quickly got watered down and ultimately, abandoned.  :(

--Bruce
isn't Liebeskind's the one that I posted (they all look alike) ?

AFAIK, it is still the leading contender and from all the posters I see around I was under the impression that his plan was going to be the one to be finally erected. It is all a big mess though, and 2013 seems highly unlikely for the completion

Siedler

I hate brutalist architechture and basically anything with gray concrete. These infamous buildings are from Helsinki (where I live):

'

EmpNapoleon

don't know why it's red