U.K. and Ireland - London's ugliest buildings

Telegraph: London's ugliest buildings (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/uk/london/9311987/Londons-ugliest-buildings.html)

Coming to London? How about an ugly building while you're at it!

The Serpentine Pavillion does not seem to fit Hyde Park and visitors always ask me what St George Wharf in Lambeth is!

:)

Without question St George Wharf, universally slated by the architecture establishment

Writing in the Times, Tom Dyckhoff called it “Britain’s finest exponent of bling brutalism”. Jonathan Glancey, the Guardian’s critic, wrote that its “madcap” roofs “resemble the rear ends of Chevrolet Impalas”. And for Rowan Moore of the Evening Standard, it is a “real monster”.

The Observer’s Dejan Sudjic described the development as “hundreds of flats in a procession of sawn-off ziggurats topped by ludicrous green vaults” with “the comic-opera quality of stage-set Stalinism”. In 2002, he awarded it his “turkey of the year”. For a number of years, it has also topped an annual poll by the Architects’ Journal of readers’ most hated buildings.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4136/4905348596_b7a204cf3d_b.jpg
flickr: Ben Christian Photos

The Serpentine Pavillion does not seem to fit Hyde Park
The Serpentive Pavilions are temporary buildings, there is a new one each year

http://www.serpentinegallery.org/architecture/

Without question St George Wharf, universally slated by the architecture establishment

Interesting.....I think it looks not too bad.

I wonder if all the angst is because it's in London? Maybe if it were in Vancouver, Sydney or Chicago a more positive opinion would prevail?

And here was me thinking that they would have been imaginative enough to have included such things as the front wing of Buckingham Palace in this list. Rather than simply ten modern buildings.

As they did - what's been said: 'very dull indeed, a kind of huge provincial Edwardian bank with the interior of a railway hotel blown out of proportion'.

Having a roofline which looks like it's been struck by a passing aircraft, as at St George's Wharf, is a recent fashion. The University of East London, which faces the London City runway, is the same

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.50499,0.079522&spn=0.000027,0.02105&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.504989,0.071338&panoid=CUvhyOmbbJFns4-GV0ZS-g&cbp=12,302.15,,2,-2.06

Hmmm, I obviously know nothing about architecture.

I'd have put Euston Station, The British Library, The Royal Festival Hall the Holiday Inn Regents Park ahead of any on that list

I'd have put Euston Station, The British Library, The Royal Festival Hall the Holiday Inn Regents Park ahead of any on that list
Euston station actually works quite well in many aspects, although some of what it was built and extensively used for nearly 50 years ago, such as parcels and newspaper traffic, has now left. Typically for railway projects of the 1960s, it was notably cheap for what was done. The concourse area, for example, is still way better than Kings Cross (or indeed, the confusing layout of the new St Pancras).

The new British Library next to St Pancras is a disgrace, and was a real pi$$-take by the architect for the vast money spent on it. It looks like a prison.

Here's a recent apartment block in Wapping which also looks like a prison (in fact even more so). I cannot believe people actually paid good money for such an incompetent design

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.510603,-0.042311&spn=0.000003,0.002631&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.510603,-0.042311&panoid=xgdaNcXxbD5J6VOi1fIbhw&cbp=12,181.9,,0,-16.24

Don't get me started on the recent West Ham Underground station, which won architectural awards :rolleyes:

Hmm, I actually really like that shot of St. George's Wharf.

What about the US Embassy? In context it is just awful.

Hmmm, I obviously know nothing about architecture.

I'd have put Euston Station, The British Library, The Royal Festival Hall the Holiday Inn Regents Park ahead of any on that list

Euston station actually works quite well in many aspects, although some of what it was built and extensively used for nearly 50 years ago, such as parcels and newspaper traffic, has now left. Typically for railway projects of the 1960s, it was notably cheap for what was done. The concourse area, for example, is still way better than Kings Cross (or indeed, the confusing layout of the new St Pancras).
I've got a bit of a soft spot for Euston, though perhaps that's based a little on the ideal, rather than the reality:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kzqg3ePMWe1qzus90o1_400.jpg
(from the 1968 publication the New Euston Station (http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/BRLM_Euston1968.pdf) [pdf])

Likewise, the Festival Hall is a great example of 1950s modernism and a really functional building.

If you want ugly, though, try looking around the Olympic Park, where it appears that structures have been flung up at great haste with no thought to aesthetics. Stratford High Street is now full of matchbox high-rise apartments, Westfield clashes with itself and comes with built-in wind tunnels (Rowan Moore says (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/may/20/olympic-park-rowan-moore-review) it "doesn't bother much about the faces, or backsides, it presents to its surroundings"); and even inside the park itself, the International Broadcast Centre is just a big warehouse that pays no heed to its residential neighbours across the canal.

I'd probably put them on a top ten above some of those on the list.

John Betjeman had it in for the new Euston station of the 1960s as it demolished two significant old structures, the Doric Arch and the Great Hall. Both were architecturally spectacular but operationally useless. A much better design could have been done had there not been a mid-project revision to cut back the station location, which was originally going to extend through to Euston Road, and instead sell the land in front to an office property developer to get some cash.

I'd go for Centrepoint.

And it probably doesn't count as a building as such, but that stupid tower in the Olympics site is just vile in my opinion.

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

What about the US Embassy? In context it is just awful.
Is it worse than the proposed Borg Cube (http://london.usembassy.gov/new_embassy.html)?

Euston station actually works quite well in many aspects, although some of what it was built and extensively used for nearly 50 years ago, such as parcels and newspaper traffic, has now left. Typically for railway projects of the 1960s, it was notably cheap for what was done. The concourse area, for example, is still way better than Kings Cross (or indeed, the confusing layout of the new St Pancras).

The new British Library next to St Pancras is a disgrace, and was a real pi$$-take by the architect for the vast money spent on it. It looks like a prison.

Here's a recent apartment block in Wapping which also looks like a prison (in fact even more so). I cannot believe people actually paid good money for such an incompetent design

http://maps.google.co.uk/?ll=51.510603,-0.042311&spn=0.000003,0.002631&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.510603,-0.042311&panoid=xgdaNcXxbD5J6VOi1fIbhw&cbp=12,181.9,,0,-16.24

Don't get me started on the recent West Ham Underground station, which won architectural awards :rolleyes:

But at Euston you can't even see a train!

1000s of people standing (there's little in the way of seating) staring blankly at that giant board waiting for "train being prepared" to change to "boarding", never knowing whether your train will be on 1 or 18(?) and usually they're so late announcing the boarding they go straight to "Would all passengers for the 1820 to Little Dorrit please board immediately as your train is about to depart", thus ensuring a mass stampede.

Maybe I just travel through there too much.

Much prefer the architecture of Paddington, Waterloo and Victoria (Kings X was awful for a while, doesn't seem too bad now)

Let' not forget the architectural hot potch that is Heathrow.

We had a street party this past weekend. Someone brought a giant jenga set. When it got stacked up really high, it looked just like one of the Barbican towers. They do nothing for me.

I worked in One Angel Court for a few years. I didn't mind it; our MD hated it. He called it the vertical turd.

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=235

Euston ....... 1000s of people standing (there's little in the way of seating) staring blankly at that giant board waiting for "train being prepared" to change to "boarding", never knowing whether your train will be on 1 or 18(?) and usually they're so late announcing the boarding they go straight to "Would all passengers for the 1820 to Little Dorrit please board immediately as your train is about to depart", thus ensuring a mass stampede.
This is just a feature of the privatised railway. Back before the 1990s the long distance trains to Liverpool, Manchester, etc had just the same turnround time as they do nowadays but were usually available for boarding 30 minutes or so before departure. Nowadays there's a new "target" that trains must be announced by 10 minutes before departure, which means that nobody bothers until 11 minutes before, marks up that they have met their target, and then actually announce the platform some minutes later. The only people exempt from this are the railway management staff who look at the internal systems to see which train it which, then let themselves in and take all the best forward-facing window seats before any of the fare paying public. This especially happens at 5.30 pm when they are going home from their railway offices.

I'd go for Centrepoint.

Centre Point was the first building that came to mind for me too, both the building itself and how poorly it seems to fit with the neighborhood.

I understand that base and surrounding plaza is being reworked as part of the Tottenham Court Road / Crossrail station redevelopment, so perhaps it won't seem so bad when that's all done. (though no amount of redevelopment in that area will make up for the lost of the Astoria)

I've said it before. The Tower Hotel on St Katherine's Way.

Actually, I don't mind ugly. It's what you do with it that counts - witness the Brunswick Centre, transformed with little more than a lick of paint.

What I do mind is blandness. Endless steel and glass low-rise blocks replacing far more attractive (but presumably more expensive to run) buildings. Modern buildings made to look as inoffensive as possible. Tower blocks with minimal visual innovation over the glass-and-steel look, seen the world over, forever draining London of its character. I'd much rather have a South Bank or a City Hall over one of these, any day.

Without question St George Wharf, universally slated by the architecture establishment

Writing in the Times, Tom Dyckhoff called it “Britain’s finest exponent of bling brutalism”. Jonathan Glancey, the Guardian’s critic, wrote that its “madcap” roofs “resemble the rear ends of Chevrolet Impalas”. And for Rowan Moore of the Evening Standard, it is a “real monster”.

The Observer’s Dejan Sudjic described the development as “hundreds of flats in a procession of sawn-off ziggurats topped by ludicrous green vaults” with “the comic-opera quality of stage-set Stalinism”. In 2002, he awarded it his “turkey of the year”. For a number of years, it has also topped an annual poll by the Architects’ Journal of readers’ most hated buildings.

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4136/4905348596_b7a204cf3d_b.jpg
flickr: Ben Christian Photos

^^^

Looks like a bunch of Owls staring at you. Gave my daughter(22) the creeps.

Had to endure this sight crossing Vauxhall Bridge everytime we go back to our accomodations.

For me it has to be the Strata tower. It looks like a HQ of the devil.

Interesting.....I think it looks not too bad.

I wonder if all the angst is because it's in London? Maybe if it were in Vancouver, Sydney or Chicago a more positive opinion would prevail?Judged on the following criteria, its a piss poor development. Location and context are important factors also.

Urban realm contribution : FAIL
An active frontage (life at grade level) : FAIL
Massing that provides lines of sight through the development : FAIL
Envelope that informs mass, scale or depth : FAIL
Quality of materials (cheap as chips) : FAIL
Internal layouts providing multi-aspect living : other than end of block units, a complete FAIL

You obviously know what you're talking about Prospero so I accept your opinion.
I suppose land cost in that part of the world has a big say in how you develop it in order to make it as profitable as possible. Looks as if they went for the squeeze as many in option.

Looks like a bunch of Owls staring at you.
What an extremely accurate description.

You obviously know what you're talking about Prospero so I accept your opinion.
I suppose land cost in that part of the world has a big say in how you develop it in order to make it as profitable as possible. Looks as if they went for the squeeze as many in option.

Not really. Land cost is a function of what you can put on it. If you knew you could build to five stories max, the land would have sold for a lot less.

My personal pet hate is No1 London Bridge - http://www.skyscrapernews.com/buildings.php?id=2365
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=398612
http://www.emporis.com/building/no1londonbridge-london-unitedkingdom

To be honest, those photos are flattering. It's boring, anonymous, dull, dull, dull, particularly the south and east elevations.

And in second place, the MI6 building - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIS_Building

Oddly enough, I was looking at the Blue Fin building (in second place in the Telegraph list) yesterday. I rather like it.....