Quote:
Originally Posted by NewIreland
I genuinely wonder how this thing stacks up against the ugliest buildings currently under construction globally. It has to be up there. I mean, it's a completely uninspired faux brutalist (imagine... FAUX brutalist) box with a cheap glue-on brick fauxdium. The cheap generic white frame windows are the icing on the slop. THANKS PERCY!
|
I uploaded various photos of it into AI for a deep dive, and here is what it spit out
First impression (honest)
This is a very typical mid-budget developer building — not offensively bad, but clearly driven by cost efficiency over architectural ambition. It leans toward what people often call “bland-to-ugly”, and there are specific reasons why.
1) Massing & overall form
The building is basically a flat slab with minimal articulation.
No strong base–middle–top hierarchy
No setbacks, projections, or depth
Roofline is completely flat and unresolved
������ Result: it reads as bulky and monotonous, especially compared to the older, more articulated brick buildings around it.
From a distance (your second photo), it almost looks like a hotel or dorm block, not something integrated into a historic downtown.
2) Facade composition (this is where it struggles most)
Window pattern
Very rigid grid — which can be good
But here it’s too repetitive with no variation or rhythm breaks
������ It creates a “spreadsheet effect” — lots of identical squares with no focal point.
The two-tone split (red bottom + gray top)
This is a classic developer move, but here it’s not handled well:
The color/material transition feels arbitrary
No strong cornice line or architectural detail marking the change
The gray upper portion looks like fiber cement panels or EIFS
������ It reads as: “we switched materials because of budget, not design.”
3) Materials & detailing (big red flag)
The gray upper facade
Visible streaking and staining already — and the building isn’t even finished
Panel joints are visible but not celebrated (so they look accidental, not intentional)
������ This suggests:
Either cheap cladding
Or poor water management / detailing
And this is important:
If it looks weathered before completion, it will age badly.
The brick base
This is actually the strongest part
It relates somewhat to the surrounding historic buildings
But:
Window detailing is flat and shallow
Ground floor lacks richness or human-scale detail
������ It feels like a token nod to context, not a fully integrated design.
4) Relationship to surroundings (your third photo is key)
This is where the building really gets exposed.
Compared to older buildings:
Older brick structures have:
Depth (recessed windows, sills, lintels)
Variation
Craftsmanship
This building:
Flat facade
Minimal shadows
No ornament or texture
������ Result: it feels out of place and slightly cheap next to its neighbors.
Not because it’s modern — but because it lacks intentionality.
5) Proportions & scale
Height is borderline for the area — not terrible, but noticeable
The uniform window sizing across all floors makes it feel institutional
������ That’s why people subconsciously read it as:
Dorm
Budget hotel
Or “generic apartment block”
6) Why people might call it “ugly”
Not because it’s bold or controversial — but because:
It’s visually monotonous
Materials look cheap and already aging poorly
No strong architectural identity
Weak relationship to its surroundings
Feels value-engineered to the bone
������ In other words:
It’s not ugly in an expressive way — it’s ugly in a “nothing was fully thought through” way.
7) To be fair (what it does okay)
Window alignment is consistent (no chaos)
Brick base at least محاولة to relate to context
Massing is simple (not awkwardly complex)
This keeps it from being a total disaster — just… underwhelming.
Final verdict
Design quality: 4.5 / 10
Longevity (visual aging): probably poor
Effort level: clearly budget-driven
������ The core issue:
It’s not trying to be great architecture — it’s trying to be efficient real estate
Prev
.
that posting was a joke, for those who get it from the original renderings
Linear Mode
