editor Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Travel and Leisure Magazine has a new list of what it finds to be the world's ugliest buildings. It's probably no surprise that the 105-story Ryugyong Hotel in North Korea made the list: But I think we've all seen worse buildings than most of the ones mentioned in the list. One that made the list is my local library, the Harold Washington Library Center, which I don't think is all that bad. Most people think it's an old building, but it's from 1991. The giant gargoyles on the roof are owls clutching books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Ryugyong would be less ugly if they could just finish the thing. It is a unique building and I can't think of any close peer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Highway6 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The gargoyles are too much, and obviously copying past styles is no way to advance architecture... but that library looks like your typical Chicago, Louis Sullivan type building. It doesn't deserve to be on list of ugliest buildings. Number 8 is ugly but awesome... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtticaFlinch Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Want to see ugly buildings? Look at the neon monstrosity in the middle of this photo and the goofy ball building on the far right. That's ugly. The ones in the article are different for sure, but they're still interesting, not ugly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The gargoyles are too much, and obviously copying past styles is no way to advance architecture... but that library looks like your typical Chicago, Louis Sullivan type building. It doesn't deserve to be on list of ugliest buildings. Number 8 is ugly but awesome... I think this is a nice looking building. Too bad we dont have such masterpieces here. Ugh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumapayam Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Where is the Menil . . . I don't see it on the list . . .. . . runs and hides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tac0meat Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I guess everyone has a different definition of "ugly." To me, The Ol Days Inn is ugly (graffiti covered, dirty, commie block style building) whereas many of the buildings on this list are just pushing the envelope a bit on architectural design. How can you call the basket building ugly? its the headquarters of a basket company! How cool is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crunchtastic Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 That new/old red brick on the library in Chicago reminds of a little of the Federal Reserve here. It's such an ugly building, we could at least have fun with it--add some gargoyles holding bags of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 Want to see ugly buildings? Look at the neon monstrosity in the middle of this photo and the goofy ball building on the far right. That's ugly. The ones in the article are different for sure, but they're still interesting, not ugly. The neon wouldn't bother me if the whole city was lit up like that. In San Francisco there's a whole big section of buildings outlined at night. I think it's the Embarcadero Center, but I'm not sure. It's like six or seven neighboring buildings and it looks good. But when only one does it, then it's kind of gauche. The ball on the Reunion Tower doesn't bother me when it's lit up at night. But I think during the day it's an ugly tower: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 That new/old red brick on the library in Chicago reminds of a little of the Federal Reserve here. It's such an ugly building, we could at least have fun with it--add some gargoyles holding bags of money. I don't know what it is, but for some reason a lot of Chicago buildings like to pretend they're older than they are. The NBC Tower is my favorite example: 1920's? Nope. 1989. It seems like a lot of the buildings on the list got nailed simply for being geometric or colorful. I'm sure we could go on forever about strip malls and check cashing joints being awful. But what are the worst significant buildings in Houston? I'm not a big fan of the Lanier Public Works Building, or the ExxonMobil building, but I accept them as artifacts of their age. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I have to disagree with including the SIS building in London. It shows up in every James Bond movie, so it gets points from me. Plus London has so many other truly ugly buildings this one hardly sets the mark. The basket building is kind of cute if you ask me, but I have a weakness for buildings shaped like other things, like the famous hot dog stand in LA shaped like a hot dog. You have to keep some humor about these things. In its defense, the Portland Building doesn't look quite so hideous in real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLWM8609 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Want to see ugly buildings? Look at the neon monstrosity in the middle of this photo and the goofy ball building on the far right. That's ugly. The ones in the article are different for sure, but they're still interesting, not ugly. It wouldn't look so gaudy if all of that neon wasn't turned on. I came to appreciate Houston's skyline even more when I passed through Dallas last week. Dallas's skyline seems pretty compact and small for a city of its size. Meanwhile, you can be 10-20 miles out of Houston and the skyline looks full and broad, even from that distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fringe Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Want to see ugly buildings? Look at the neon monstrosity in the middle of this photo and the goofy ball building on the far right. That's ugly. The ones in the article are different for sure, but they're still interesting, not ugly. I never knew Dallas was on the coast. I agree with tac0meat. Most of those building are not what I would label as ugly. Just different and maybe a little tacky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LTAWACS Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The comments on the article on travel and leazure are hilarious... LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 One of Roy Morales' goals, if he is elected mayor, is to repeal the signage restrictions for buildings downtown. Urgh, it looks like he has no chance in hell anyway. That's all we need is to trash out our lovely skyline. My ugly building vote goes to the Federal Building downtown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 One of Roy Morales' goals, if he is elected mayor, is to repeal the signage restrictions for buildings downtown.Why? I live in a city where signs are allowed on buildings, and it's not great. Looking out my window right now I see Unitrin, Marriott, United, Conrad, Peninsula, Saks Fifth Avenue, UBS, Chase, and Boeing logos on the buildings.If a company wants to use a building to promote its identity, then let it build a signature building like Transco Tower, or Wells Fargo Plaza. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan the Man Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 This building looks worse in person. The "heavy" masonry walls aren't thick enough to pass as load-bearing. Although this design feature helps identify the style as Post-Modern, I just find it irritating. Can we make our own Houston nominations? I nominate this pile of crap: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barracuda Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Why? I live in a city where signs are allowed on buildings, and it's not great. Looking out my window right now I see Unitrin, Marriott, United, Conrad, Peninsula, Saks Fifth Avenue, UBS, Chase, and Boeing logos on the buildings.If a company wants to use a building to promote its identity, then let it build a signature building like Transco Tower, or Wells Fargo Plaza.I've gotta agree. We already have enough billboards and outdoor advertisements. I appreciate the fact that the CBD skyline looks clean and free of tacky signage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 My nomination for Houston's ugliest: I don't have a problem with signs on buildings. Their contribution to ugliness and tackiness pales in comparison to the gazillion overhead power lines in Houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosmic08 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 This building looks worse in person. The "heavy" masonry walls aren't thick enough to pass as load-bearing. Although this design feature helps identify the style as Post-Modern, I just find it irritating. Can we make our own Houston nominations? I nominate this pile of crap: Right on about that pile of crap! What is the deal with all that jazz on the top...too sassy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kylejack Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Aw I like Hermann's evil tower. Makes me feel like I'm in Mordor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ndwjhawk Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 The memorial Herman bldg leads to all kinds of good conversation. Is it a pineapple...a chess piece...a transformer.. Yes definately gets my vote for ugliest bldg! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 Right on about that pile of crap! What is the deal with all that jazz on the top...too sassy. Reminds me of the Qwest Building in Minneapolis: Except, of course, that on the Qwest building the crown serves a function. I don't think the Houston crown is a microwave horn array. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ISMDAVID Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 I agree about the Memorial Herman cake topper! - What on earth was the architect thinking when they decided to place this atop this building. If he had the budget to build it, certainly he had the budget to create a 3d model that would have enlightened him of its inappropriateness. The central design relationship of that octagonal cake topper is only apparent when viewed from a head on vantagepoint and one gets that view only for a split second while driving 70mph on I-10. From the remaining angles as you approach the building, I have always thought that the topper looked disconnected from the rectangular body of the building. It seems obvious to me that there is too much money in health care if they could afford to spend it on this control tower appendange and it not be looked at as a frivolous expenditure that could be better spent elsewhere. Now we will have to look at this for future generations to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.