Ugly skyscrapers

[KillerFrenchFry]

Originally Posted by redstone

Looks like some parasitic growths

The balconies are a great idea. But poor execution of design and even worse colour scheme.

The balconies are a terrible idea - they'd probably look better lined up, but it would still be ugly. The windows seem to be simply thrown around, also.

[Taller, Better]

Originally Posted by Galro

What so futuristic about it? Seems quite old fashioned actually with the ornamental entrance.

I think it will look quite good when renovated though.

This is PRE-WW2, and basically before the influence of the Bauhaus School. For 1936 it is very restrained, very minimalistic and quite different than what was built before it. Seems "old fashioned" in 2011, but it was not old fashioned back then.
A good clean up and removal of the crap on top would go a long way to restoring its former lustre.

[Galro]

Seems very old fashioned for 1936 too. This building was already 7 years old at the time (built in 1929):


http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fil:Ovre_Slottsgate_21.jpg


I think most people find it ugly too so it fits here.

[Taller, Better]

The one you chose is an EXCELLENT and very early example, but its existence as 7 years earlier in another corner of the world in no way makes the other one "old fashioned" looking for 1936, in my opinion. Yes there are slightly earlier examples of pared back simplistic architecture, but that doesn't make the one in 1936 look "old fashioned" simply because it was not the very first on the planet.

[kaligraffi]

The last two buildings are quite poor indeed. Just because they were different for their time doesn't mean they aren't ugly.

[Taller, Better]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

But I think you are right in that I guess there is no point here trying to justify giving credit to early examples of a design movement, or admiring their thought process as being before their time. I suppose this thread just boils down to simple ugly/not ugly

[JiarY2j]

Originally Posted by Concrete Stereo

New shipping containers actually. Mostly for student housing on temporary locations. Reason for the containers is the moveability.

The houses are quite nice, but - given the standard height of shipping containers (2,59) - I've always wondered whether they are lower than the official minimum height of 2,60

These ones too are in fact containers (temporary student housing, Westerpark, Amsterdam)
image hosted on flickr

Please make sure what ur saying isnt just random sh*t, this is based on one of the most famous architectural styles derived in holland by Piet Mondrian "de stijl" its based on it! It isnt random!

[primus20]

433m

[Concrete Stereo]

Originally Posted by JiarY2j

Please make sure what ur saying isnt just random sh*t, this is based on one of the most famous architectural styles derived in holland by Piet Mondrian "de stijl" its based on it! It isnt random!

Are you reacting on what I wrote about this project or on someone else his reaction?

[redstone]

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat...singapore.html



Yes, this is actually being built, currently in construction. Looks like some socialist dream.

[kaligraffi]

It looks more like a badly-constructed "Jenga!" set... No vision, no composition. At least the Tbilisi Roads Ministry building had a bit of scale, congruency and originality.

[redstone]

Originally Posted by kaligraffi

It looks more like a badly-constructed "Jenga!" set... No vision, no composition. At least the Tbilisi Roads Ministry building had a bit of scale, congruency and originality.

It's based on the idea of a few huge hexagonal courtyards. But bad idea, can imagine looking out of of the units, and there is a giant roof over the windows where you cannot see the sky.

[Mike____]

Originally Posted by redstone

http://www.designboom.com/weblog/cat...singapore.html



Yes, this is actually being built, currently in construction. Looks like some socialist dream.

this is actually awesome

[arzaranh]

Originally Posted by Mike____

this is actually awesome

i concur

[redstone]

Originally Posted by Mike____

this is actually awesome

The giant roof gardens are private roof gardens of the units below. Great idea

[Suburbanist]

Originally Posted by redstone

The giant roof gardens are private roof gardens of the units below. Great idea

I disagree. Common gardens detached from the units are far less convenient than a real private garden you can access without having to go through common areas. Same goes for private garages x underground communal parking lots. The more privacy the dweller can have, the better.

[redstone]

Originally Posted by Suburbanist

I disagree. Common gardens detached from the units are far less convenient than a real private garden you can access without having to go through common areas. Same goes for private garages x underground communal parking lots. The more privacy the dweller can have, the better.

Yup, there are staircases leading from the units below into their private roof gardens above. But I have to say it is quite a selfish idea. Instead of having a communal rooftop gardens

[WasabiHoney]

What about this one in Beirut? It's the local ministry of telecommunications. It might not be a standout among some of the atrocities depicted here, but still probably the ugliest high-rise in the city.

[Mike____]

it sure is ugly... but this thread is about skyscrapers

[Leandro_lenz]

check this thing in buenos aires

dorrego tower



sometimes you see and is not ugly, just too agressive, but i think it's ugly