News   Jul 15, 2024
Sculptural Pre-Cast Panels Now Adorning ANX near Dupont Station
 374     1 
News   Jul 15, 2024
Resubmitted Agincourt Condo Proposal Bumps Height, Reduces Parking
 542     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
News Roundup for July 15, 2024
 560     0 

Ugliest building in the world

jks said:
Holy...Do all Sheratons look alike?!? lol, No but it's in the same style as the Downtown Toronto Sheraton.
Click to expand...

The Sheraton Centre? Naw; ours is too skinny and not as smoothed-out in its Brutalism. Actually, ours is *less* stylistically generic than Nashville's, the Nashville atrium and revolving restaurant notwithstanding...
 
adma said:
Huh? "Refined"? "Appropriate"? It may be your opinion and you're sticking by it, but it sounds to me like you're redefining well-meaning Sunday-painter amateur architectural judgment on behalf of (as opposed to, er, "opposed to") 60s/70s modernism. Look: at least in symbolic terms, we're talking about boring here. We're at the cusp of when Brutalist-hotels-with-revolving-restaurants-and-perhaps-big-atriums became a banal 70s cliche (cf. Harbour Castle, et al--though Harbour Castle hasn't the atrium). Give me that so-called blue-domed hideousness anyday. I mean, I can appreciate the Sheraton Nashville as a local landmark and in general revisionist terms re 70s "hotel modernism" (and if anyone's prone to spearheading such revisionism, it's myself). But not in your bass-ackward terms. Next to your dreaded blue dome, this is but a formulaic footnote--"refined" to a fault (thus my corporate-rock metaphor). I may be open to an architectural big tent, but in terms of historical posterity, I'm a realist. (Though on behalf of the Sheraton Nashville, at least its architectural vocabulary doesn't have that dumb-yokels-grappling-with-this-here-Modern-style quality of Memphis' UP Bank, or New Orleans' Plaza Tower, i.e. it'd be "credible" virtually anywhere else in the US or Canada. Though one whose prone to decrying architectural faceless/placelessness might argue that's its *problem*--and that of 70s modernism in general--as well.)

To return to the Eaton Centre metaphor, that's like saying that the busy 70s high-tech array of Zeidler's Galleria roof (incidentally, the antithesis of a "formulaic footnote") is "hideous" and should be replaced with something "much more refined, appropriate". Yeah, sure, and invite horselaughs and ridicule among Toronto's modern-heritage buffs.

Yeah, I know I may be treading the "insulting" line as per usual: but only to set you straight. Oh, and re Atlanta: if you can scoop up this chestnut, do so. A good architectural guide can work a long way toward soothing many a savage and alienating urban beast. (NB: don't mind the lukewarm Amazon reviews.)
Click to expand...

LOL, I love how serious you are taking all this. I seriously get a smile out of it. Its quite interesting how you over-analyze someone's opinion. I simply think Portman's Hyatt Atlanta is butt-crazy-ugly. Period. End of discussion.

I didn't say I LOVE Nashville's Sheraton, I just said its better and more refined than the steaming pile of dung down in Atlanta. And really its irrelevant because Nashville overall has a boring skyline and Atlanta has a far more modern selection of buildings, although they tend to be north of downtown. That and metro Atlanta is considerably larger than Nashville.

Enough already... Can we move on?

I do find it interesting you tie in words like New South and Yokel with your tastes and visions in architecture. To me New South means something totally different, having grown up in a "new south" era.

To me the most interesting parts of the south are New Orleans (or what was of it in the past), the latin culture in south Florida and Miami, some of the touristy parts of Florida (who doesn't enjoy going to Universal Studios or Disney World?) and some of the coastal towns like Charleston and Savannah.

Other than that, the south is almost an entirely cultural void where most local museums focus on the civil war and what could have been if these brave soldiers would have won the most bloody battle in the Americas and new world. Or its new south Walmart culture, which isn't something I like.

For example, just south of downtown Nashville is an overlook called Ft. Negley. You can read the plaque of the tens of thousands of soldiers that became casualties, and the eerie history of death all around where you stand while looking at the skyline. You can also learn that Nashville, along with Washington DC, were the two fortified cities at the time. The only city in North America still with a wall around it is Quebec City, just to enjoy a Canadian reference. :) Anyway, Ft Negley is a great contrast between old and new, reading about the civil war and where people died and then looking at the modern skyline. But that still doesn't explain "new south" in my opinion.

New South, to me, is a marketing term. Has nothing to do with some of the individual buildings that have went up that aren't too bad. SunTrust Plaza in Atlanta is nice, but its ground level is crap (as expected from a southern city downtown).

Yawn...

Remind you that you're talking to someone raised in rural Tennessee, an hour out of downtown Nashville, and I've toured everything from the Atlantic coast to the Gulf Coast to southern Appalachia to where the south meets the midwest just 100 miles northwest of Nashville. I have been to more civil war museums and history lessons than you most likely have. From Shiloh battlefield to Nashville's Ft Negley to Lookout Mountain in Chattanooga, I've seen where the hundreds of thousands of people died back in the day.

I think I know how to contrast old south with new south and the fact that the south never was industrialized. It went from an agrigarian society to a service based economy after the 1950's and 60's.

My friend, don't lecture me on being an ignoramus. I know enough about new south vs old south culture. New south is a marketing term used to represent the south's transition from agrigarian society to a service based economy. Nothing more.

At the end of the day, in my opinion, Portman's Hyatt Atlanta is STILL a steaming pile of dung. If you want a better representation of what Portman is capable of, look at Peachtree Westin across the street. That's a nicer structure. Hyatt is still a pile of dung.

I'm fine if you disagree, but don't take someone's opinion so hard. Lighten up, buddy.
 
Last edited:
BrandonTO416 said:
At the end of the day, in my opinion, Portman's Hyatt Atlanta is STILL a steaming pile of dung. If you want a better representation of what Portman is capable of, look at Peachtree Westin across the street. That's a nicer structure. Hyatt is still a pile of dung.

I'm fine if you disagree, but don't take someone's opinion so hard. Lighten up, buddy.
Click to expand...

Ever consider how sophomoric a judgment like "steaming pile of dung" sounds?
Ah well, so goeth the Sunday painter judges...

And besides, re

I have been to more civil war museums and history lessons than you most likely have. From Shiloh battlefield to Nashville's Ft Negley to Lookout Mountain in Chattanooga, I've seen where the hundreds of thousands of people died back in the day.
Click to expand...

...sure, but that doesn't guarantee one automatically cognizant of or competent at judging *modern* heritage in tandem with that historical legacy, as this (perhaps extreme?) case proves.

http://www.mission66.com/cyclorama/history/index.html
 
Last edited:
Anyway, I did some google image searching, and here was a suggested ugly building. Not sure I think its particularly "ugly" just peculiar.

elephant-building.jpg
 
Gonna have to go with...


University Plaza, Toronto

university_plaza_2.jpg


It looks like King Koopa's castle from Mario 3.
 
Not to knock that choice, necessarily; but using a picture of its backside (which'll surely be concealed by whatever development pops up on that parking lot) is cheating, no? (Then again, when it comes to something like Toronto Life Square, various backside views are essential to the "ugliest" case.)
 
That Ryerson building is disgusting. It reminds me so much of 304 the east mall (my old work) except for some reason the windows 1/5th as high. How does something like this ever get approved?

vecbuilding.jpg
 
ShonTron said:
There's a surprising number of brutalism fans who will defend Jorgenson and the Library building. It's not even that great as far as brutalism goes.
Click to expand...

Though getting aside from such judgment, I'm wondering if re that and University Plaza, we're unnecessarily conflating "ugliest in the world" and "ugliest in Toronto". Like, neither are of much consequence in the ugliness sweepstakes on a *worldwide* basis.

One thing which might merit mention in this thread is NYC's Socony-Mobil Building (across 42nd Street from the Chrysler): mid-50s Harrison & Abramowitz patterned steel curtain wall shenanigans that looks like it could use a good Clearasil scrubdown
345112443_ec591eb3ac.jpg
 
wonderboy416 said:
vecbuilding.jpg
Click to expand...

I have a soft-spot for these buildings. They're so graphic and simple. I just wish they weren't all so gross inside.

Probably my fav (Library Building is 2nd):
BellDataCentre2.jpg

Bell Data Centre, 100 Wynford Drive 1969, Webb Zerifa Menkes (edit: apprently WZM also designed Jorgenson, the Library Building, the Toronto Star building, and other much-loathed works :p)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top