Ugliest building in the world

[Ramako]

We're not going to get anywhere arguing over subjective superlatives.

Just change the name of the thread to "Ugliest buildings in the world" and be done with it.

 

[adma]

In the one star category you get buildings like Ryerson's Library. It wasn't original (if ever a concrete box was). The choice of concrete in Toronto's climate was questionable to begin with, I am unaware of a material that weathers worse, maybe cotton candy. It doesn't even use concrete to its' full potential, like Boston City Hall or even Robart's. That the building is justified because a quarter of it isn't meant to be seen is the architectural equivalent of calling a woman beautiful, with the prerequisite of putting a bag on her face. It's hardly unique in this category, probably thousands of buildings around the world could qualify, at least a dozen from around Toronto. They aren't original, they aren't appealing and they are usually built on the tail end of a more impressive building in the attempt to capitalize on other people's work

Actually, I don't find its concrete has aged that badly--in fact, the rugged finishes effectively cancel out a lot of that so-called "poor aging"*. And when it comes to "using concrete to its full potential": well if you really must insist upon that, then the only brutalism worth appreciating is the outrageously showboating stuff a la Robarts. And to overinsist upon "originality" and "uniqueness" reminds me of the kind of stunted heritage judgment that's been used to write off even distinctive-enough Edwardian school buildings and the like.

Which is a way of insisting, once again, that Ryerson's "Jorgenson block" is, indeed, not uninteresting as brutalism goes. In fact, if you want something in Toronto that more properly fulfils/fulfilled the framework of concrete brutalesque architectural banality, anonymity, dime-a-dozenness et al you're presenting here, try something ten years younger: the 80s additions to the ROM, the now-gone Terrace Galleries and the still-there administrative wing. Except that they weren't particularly "ugliest", more like ultra-blaaaaanddd. And for me, when it comes to "interest", brutal trumps bland.

Though you have a point (which has been the point w/grassroots Jorgencriticism all along) re "aren't appealing": better to think of it as an acquired taste. Nevertheless, there must be some mysterious reason why Ryerson's recent master planning hasn't yet explicitly called for the demolition/extreme makeover of this block...

*...and perhaps to the point of it being a paradoxical sticking point for Jorgenson haters: that this big brutal MF of a building actually, actively refuses to age as badly as its critics wish...

 

[Whoaccio]

Actually, I don't find its concrete has aged that badly--in fact, the rugged finishes effectively cancel out a lot of that so-called "poor aging"*. And when it comes to "using concrete to its full potential": well if you really must insist upon that, then the only brutalism worth appreciating is the outrageously showboating stuff a la Robarts. And to overinsist upon "originality" and "uniqueness" reminds me of the kind of stunted heritage judgment that's been used to write off even distinctive-enough Edwardian school buildings and the like.

That is the worst apology for schlock yet. It's not some unreasonable fatwa to value originality, creativity and practicality. Sure, not all buildings have to have each one, but if a building has none then it is a failure. I'm not a huge fan of buildings like Boston City Hall (voted ugliest in the world), but I can respect that the architects did put a lot of effort into redefining how civic buildings are conceived and was at the forefront of public buildings moving away from neoclassicist designs. Ryerson, not so much.

Which is a way of insisting, once again, that Ryerson's "Jorgenson block" is, indeed, not uninteresting as brutalism goes. In fact, if you want something in Toronto that more properly fulfils/fulfilled the framework of concrete brutalesque architectural banality, anonymity, dime-a-dozenness et al you're presenting here, try something ten years younger: the 80s additions to the ROM, the now-gone Terrace Galleries and the still-there administrative wing. Except that they weren't particularly "ugliest", more like ultra-blaaaaanddd. And for me, when it comes to "interest", brutal trumps bland.

Well, like I said, there are dozens more buildings in Toronto that would fall into this category. We just happened to be talking about this one. I'm even somewhat sympathetic to banality, if someone just has the goal of creating x feet of square footage and tries to economize, I can't blame them for failing. The lame kool-aid infused utopianism which runs through the Library, as if a Pripyat gray oxidized concrete cube would ever be looked at as more than flotsam, just reeks of incompetence and small mindedness though. Legless crackhoes are interesting, wouldn't wanna look at one and would under no circumstances call them a success though.

Nevertheless, there must be some mysterious reason why Ryerson's recent master planning hasn't yet explicitly called for the demolition/extreme makeover of this block...

Lack of money?

 

[scarberiankhatru]

*...and perhaps to the point of it being a paradoxical sticking point for Jorgenson haters: that this big brutal MF of a building actually, actively refuses to age as badly as its critics wish...

That just means it's remaining equally as ugly as it ever was.

 

[adma]

That is the worst apology for schlock yet. It's not some unreasonable fatwa to value originality, creativity and practicality. Sure, not all buildings have to have each one, but if a building has none then it is a failure. I'm not a huge fan of buildings like Boston City Hall (voted ugliest in the world), but I can respect that the architects did put a lot of effort into redefining how civic buildings are conceived and was at the forefront of public buildings moving away from neoclassicist designs. Ryerson, not so much.

Funny thing is, I'm arguing there's *more* in the way of so-called "originality and creativity" in Ryerson than you're bargaining on (I'm hedging on the "practicality" part; but even the need to hedge is arguable, in its way). Though, perhaps, as with the "aging all too well" point, maybe--as with so much of its stylistic ilk--it's to a fault. (Or, is it?)

Well, like I said, there are dozens more buildings in Toronto that would fall into this category. We just happened to be talking about this one. I'm even somewhat sympathetic to banality, if someone just has the goal of creating x feet of square footage and tries to economize, I can't blame them for failing. The lame kool-aid infused utopianism which runs through the Library, as if a Pripyat gray oxidized concrete cube would ever be looked at as more than flotsam, just reeks of incompetence and small mindedness though. Legless crackhoes are interesting, wouldn't wanna look at one and would under no circumstances call them a success though.

Maybe we're dealing with two different kinds of banality here--"no frills functiionalist" banality a la 80s ROM, or "pretentious prog-rock" banality a la Ryerson. Maybe that's how best to see it: Ryerson as an architectural version of Emerson, Lake & Palmer at their most bloated.

Which, in a way, makes it even better

 

[adma]

Oh, and re Ryerson's Jorgenson block: I reckon a cardinal reason why it gets such singling-out loathing here has something to do with UT's Ryerson student/alumni/user contingent; that is, a demo that's inordinately had to "live with the place".

In a way, it is to Ryerson and Brutalism what Sidney Smith Hall is to U of T and the International Style--another place that's inspired decades of loathing among its commonplace users. Yet, for all that I endured there as a student, I'm forgiving of SSH--to the point where I'm not so forgiving of a lot of its recent alterations...

 

[Archivist]

When I have travelled, I generally don't go about trying to snap the ugliest buildings possible, but here are a few nonetheless. I don't pretend these buildings are the world's ugliest by any means, but they are unpleasant in various ways.

Tel Aviv is a great city with some fabulous buildings, but no small number of really hideous things as well. The post-modern whatever it is on the waterfront, in my opinion, is so chaotic that it beats anything in Toronto hands down. I don't even hate it exactly, it's more like a joke than anything else.

These two monstrosities are among the tallest buildings in San Diego, and you can only pity them for it. It's not just that they are pretentious and ugly, but they're so very prominent in the downtown.

With this collection of apartment blocks in Seoul, the probably is not so much the banality of the individual buildings, but their endless repetition in an array that seems truly suburban. This photo is taken from one of the tallest buildings in the city.

Hong Kong was a surprise to me in that so many of its residential buildings, which collectively look dense and incredible against the mountains, are quite ugly close up. Massive blocks with their plumbing and utilities running up and down the outside of the building, even on very recently built structures, they make you weep to consider them. This one has maintenance problems to boot.

This massive abandoned structure on the right (part of two apartment buildings glued together) near the market in central Sao Paulo must have been sort of ugly even when built - each floor is marked by three horizontal concrete bands that really make it seem larger than it is. Currently, it's abandoned and covered in graffitti, which isn't helping any.

Istanbul's modern buildings have a distinctive style that I can only call "butch". They seem excessively concerned with being masculine in some way - so many of them felt heavy and cumbersome to me. I could have picked any example, but this one is particularly bad because it's relatively closer in to the historic part of the city, and because it is the only tall building in its neighbourhood, it is very prominent.

 

[unimaginative2]

That Bell building on Wynford is reminiscent of the Narkomfin building.

A problem I have with many Toronto buildings that often makes them ugly as a group if not necessarily individually is their colour. Toronto architects, especially in this recent condo boom, use the most breathtakingly banal colour palette. If I have to see another grey or beige precast concrete, pale green or pale blue glass special, I think I'll be sick.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Ooo, the Once-ler moves to Miami...no truffula trees, though, just palms and the golden arches. If Dr. Seuss retired, this is where he'd live. On beyond pomo!

 

[adma]

Actually, I find that one almost charming--the toylike scale helps (and I suppose such details as the round windows pay tribute to Tel Aviv's "Bauhaus" heritage). It just about takes the concept of Postmodernism back to its Charles Jencksian gee-whiz roots...

 

[Paleo]

I am not an architectural snob nor have I attended Ryerson and maybe I simply lack taste but I think the Ryerson library is ugly. As in whenever I look at pictures of it, I want to turn my head away ugly. Is it the ugliest building in the world? I don't know. Have fun reaching a consensus. Now cast me to hell if you must.

 

[condovo]

Palace of the Parliament, Bucharest

http://www.royalkarstours.ro/image%20eng/palatul_parlamentului.jpg


Constructing the Palace and Centrul Civic required demolishing much of Bucharest's historic district, including 19 Orthodox Christian churches, six Jewish synagogues, three Protestant churches (plus eight relocated churches), and 30,000 residences.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_of_the_Parliament


I find the building repulsive, the regime that built it repulsive, and the destruction it wrought on historic Bucharest repulsive.


Another contender:


The main gate of Auschwitz II-Birkenau

http://www.heart7.net/images/apg-gate-auschwitz.jpg


A building's ugliness is not necessarily about aesthetics alone. Kind of puts complaints about Jorgenson Hall in perspective, doesn't it?

 

[Archivist]

Condovo, absolutely. I find reactions that limit themselves to aesthetics to be of less interest than something that considers a building's role, history and context. You make a fine point.

Re: The Tel Aviv thing. I have to say, it makes me laugh, in very much the same way I laugh whenever I get close to the NY Towers. I certainly don't find it beautiful, but I could never really hate it either.

 

[adma]

Another contender:


The main gate of Auschwitz II-Birkenau

http://www.heart7.net/images/apg-gate-auschwitz.jpg


A building's ugliness is not necessarily about its aesthetics alone. Kind of puts complaints about Jorgenson Hall in perspective, doesn't it?

Probably, because if we disregard what it represents, the Birkenau gate can very easily be taken as not ugly; just another piece of c19-style red brick German military architecture that had the misfortune of being co-opted for you-know-what. Formally speaking, it's as ugly as Old Fort York or the Distillery District.

Of course, nothing like that happened at Jorgenson; though keep in mind my Sidney Smith Hall analogy re how the nature of usage and by whom may have some bearing on its negative reputation, too.

Though I just got out my copy of the second edition of Patricia McHugh's "Toronto Architecture: A City Guide" (1989), and it's interesting how unnegative she is t/w Ryerson's oft-loathed later facilities...

The various buildings put up by Ryerson since Kerr Hall are of a higher order. Including much older buildings in the area that the school has rehabillitated for its use, they form a dignified yet inviting inner-city college campus, the whole beautifully integrated by thoughtful landscaping, handsome signage, and pocket parks. Devonian Square, the skating rink/pond constructed in 1978 at the corner of Yonge and Gould, is one of Toronto's most sophisticated urban gestures.

Now, even if the only thing she singled out may have been Lake Devo, it's noteworthy that she didn't negatively single out Jorgenson et al--implied is, it was of a higher order than Kerr Hall. And McHugh was anything but a brutal-besotted modern apologist, and this was the PoMo mid-late 80s when Jorgenson-style architecture was out of fashion, so...all in all, something worth considering.

 

[condovo]

Re: Tel Aviv. I find the people there so stunning, it's kind of hard to concentrate on the architecture. That said, there's an amazing collection of gorgeous Eclectic and Bauhaus buildings, many of which are being brought back to life through careful restoration. The seaside stuff is pure drek though.