Most Disappointing High Profile Buildings in Your City

[Marty_Mcfly]

Originally Posted by savevp

I’ve been to Saint John’s four times and genuinely didn’t realise Mix was a new build. I’d always thought, until just now, it was a redevelopment of an older industrial building. That grey wall just looms over everything; that building makes The Rooms look like an architectural gem.

It is a redevelopment of the old Newfoundland Telephone building, which was vacant and rotting away for many years. In that regard what the MIX currently is today is a vast improvement over what was there before. However that black wall overlooking Water Street could have, and should have, been so much more. The rest of the building is perfectly fine, in my opinion.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I feel very torn on that one because I always hated the Simpsons Tower, not because of the design which was perfectly decent, but because of the sort of dull, beige-brown colour which always struck me as so tired and dingy looking. Almost like a tower in an rough industrial city that's etched by pollution. I feel the same way about the two smaller buildings across from it. But the new cladding... yes it looks a bit confused.

I have this gut feeling the ones across the street will be reclad. I'm not sure why. I have a vague memory of the glass being replaced and the panels didn't appear deteriorated the last time I paid attention to the towers (which was some time ago) Perhaps it's because the Victory Building is getting a lot of love right now. They are connected. I can't comment if the ownership is the same.

Anyways, your post reminds when someone compares a disappointing new build to something built in the modernist era without considering 45 years of being out in the elements and pollution. Will thin panels or several layers of applied acyclic stucco adhered to gypsum board even last 45 years?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Marty_Mcfly

It is a redevelopment of the old Newfoundland Telephone building, which was vacant and rotting away for many years. In that regard what the MIX currently is today is a vast improvement over what was there before. However that black wall overlooking Water Street could have, and should have, been so much more. The rest of the building is perfectly fine, in my opinion.

It's fair to consider a new building to the one(s) it replaced. I don't think that extends to vacant/surface parking and derelict buildings. Those are meant to be redeveloped. It often takes decades so a few more years/ decade for something possibly better is worth it.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

I have this gut feeling the ones across the street will be reclad. I'm not sure why. I have a vague memory of the glass being replaced and the panels didn't appear deteriorated the last time I paid attention to the towers (which was some time ago) Perhaps it's because the Victory Building is getting a lot of love right now. They are connected. I can't comment if the ownership is the same.

Anyways, your post reminds when someone compares a disappointing new build to something built in the modernist era without considering 45 years of being out in the elements and pollution. Will thin panels or several layers of applied acyclic stucco adhered to gypsum board even last 45 years?

I think it's pretty common for people's view of modernist-era buildings to be influenced by how poorly some of them have held up. I find it's worse with Brutalism than with international-style offices blocks since concrete tends to get stained and etched over the years, and of course there are cracks and patches that can look unsightly. When it comes to new builds it's sometimes hard to predict exactly how well they'll age so people can assign too many points for newness. But at the same time, how much should we judge something based on how it's supposed to look or used to look compared to how it currently looks? I tend to be a fan of Brutalism and have debated with people who talk about how ugly certain buildings are, with my argument being that the neglect the buildings have experienced shouldn't be held against the fundamentals of the design. On the other hand one can counter that how well a building holds up aesthetically is of fundamental importance to the design. Dunno...

[samne]

Mid century/Modernism is a very important architectural era for Toronto. Hope we keep much of it unlike the way we replaced so much the city’s Victorian stock in the name of progress…

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's pretty common for people's view of modernist-era buildings to be influenced by how poorly some of them have held up. I find it's worse with Brutalism than with international-style offices blocks since concrete tends to get stained and etched over the years, and of course there are cracks and patches that can look unsightly. When it comes to new builds it's sometimes hard to predict exactly how well they'll age so people can assign too many points for newness. But at the same time, how much should we judge something based on how it's supposed to look or used to look compared to how it currently looks? I tend to be a fan of Brutalism and have debated with people who talk about how ugly certain buildings are, with my argument being that the neglect the buildings have experienced shouldn't be held against the fundamentals of the design. On the other hand one can counter that how well a building holds up aesthetically is of fundamental importance to the design. Dunno...

I think it matters . More prewar building (which are so overappreciated today) may have been saved during the 1960 and 1970s if the details weren't completely hidden under layers of soot from industry and car exhaust.

I almost get that someone actually considered replacing it and it passing
https://torontoguardian.com/2021/04/...city-hall-196/

today
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6526...7i16384!8i8192

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

l'Edifice Assomption Vie in downtown Moncton:



The great brutalist phallus of downtown Moncton, fully turgid and erect, proudly displaying itself for all to see.

I hate brutalism; and with no surrounding high-rises (currently) to temper this monstrosity, there is nowhere to avert your gaze or shield your eyes.

That's not really brutalism, though. It's just an international style building that happens to be concrete. The smaller building on the right is a better example of brutalism.

Brutalism is based around an honest expression of materials (most often raw concrete, but it could also be wood, stone or brick), exposed structural elements and (arguably) a flamboyant, eye-catching form. Boston City Hall, the Barbican Estate, Habitat 67, the UofT Robarts Library – these are all examples of brutalism. A generic concrete box is just a generic concrete box.

Sorry to be a pendant but brutalism is a very misrepresented and misunderstood architectural style!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I think it's pretty common for people's view of modernist-era buildings to be influenced by how poorly some of them have held up. I find it's worse with Brutalism than with international-style offices blocks since concrete tends to get stained and etched over the years, and of course there are cracks and patches that can look unsightly. When it comes to new builds it's sometimes hard to predict exactly how well they'll age so people can assign too many points for newness. But at the same time, how much should we judge something based on how it's supposed to look or used to look compared to how it currently looks? I tend to be a fan of Brutalism and have debated with people who talk about how ugly certain buildings are, with my argument being that the neglect the buildings have experienced shouldn't be held against the fundamentals of the design. On the other hand one can counter that how well a building holds up aesthetically is of fundamental importance to the design. Dunno...

This is an important point. All the Victorian buildings we love today were run down, disfigured by dubious alterations, and covered in layers of pollution back in the 1950s and 60s. It's the same today for a lot of the modern blocks built in the 60s and 70s. The average person seems to have a really hard time looking beyond the surface of things to see the real value underneath.

There's also the fashion cycle to consider. It seemed like brutalism was discounted in architectural circles and loathed among the public until five or six years ago when suddenly there was a surge of interest. Now it's become quite trendy and a number of brutalist landmarks have been given heritage protection. The exact same process is underway right now for postmodernism. 15 years ago, po-mo was seen as unbearably kitschy, but now that enough time has passed, it's being seriously reconsidered.

[Martin Mtl]

My Montreal candidate would be the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). It costed more than 1.3 billion and it's just atrocious. The fact that it is so huge makes it even worst. It's Université de Montréal equivalent (the CHUM) is also a disappointment on many levels, but it has some nice design touches, especially the gorgeous auditorium.

The MUHC:


SOURCE


SOURCE

[ue]

Originally Posted by TheGreatestX

https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digi...3286845951.jpg

When this thread opened with the Bow, I was just thinking "wow the bar is really high, what are they going to think of actual shit architectural buildings?"

Like sure, you can nitpick how the Bow came to be...it could have been taller and what ended up happening to the Phase II is egregious, but it's still a beautiful skyscraper. Far more distinctive than 90% of what Toronto and Vancouver have built in the last 20 years.

Sasso/Vetro are extremely prominent from certain angles of the Calgary skyline and 1000% more hideous.

The Bow looks exquisite when you compare it to the above image. Along with a lot of contemporary landmarks in Edmonton - Grant MacEwan, Manchester Square, the Pearl, Talus Domes, Venetian, Fuzion on Whyte, the ICONs, Fox Towers, and on and on. Even Stantec Tower, a relatively "nice" new tower for Edmonton, is quite mediocre when you compare it to the Calgary equivalent (Brookfield).

Winnipeg also doesn't have quite an eclectic roster of shitty new architecture. Edmonton IMO is probably the winner of this thread, if not at least Western Canada.

[WhipperSnapper]

I like the colours and their use better than any of Infrastructure's Ontario's mega hospitals in the GTA.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by ue

Winnipeg also doesn't have quite an eclectic roster of shitty new architecture.

The Millennium Library was a letdown relative to the initial concepts. They originally wanted to go bigger with a block-long development but eventually budgetary reality won out and they just ended up schlepping another floor on top of the Centennial Library and calling it a day. They did add that nice curtain wall section facing southeast so at least there was that.

Manitoba Hydro Place is nice but it is so wide that its stumpy proportions ended up being a bit of a disappointment. It was a bit of a letdown considering that it was the first major tower built downtown in almost 20 years.

I remember when True North Centre (aka Canada Life Centre) was built, I found it a bit disappointing given that it was no bigger than the old place and it had very spartan decor when it first opened. I can't complain too much as it did the job and was eventually spruced up when the NHL returned to town.

Those are a few examples off the top of my head.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by ue

When this thread opened with the Bow, I was just thinking "wow the bar is really high, what are they going to think of actual shit architectural buildings?"

Like sure, you can nitpick how the Bow came to be...it could have been taller and what ended up happening to the Phase II is egregious, but it's still a beautiful skyscraper. Far more distinctive than 90% of what Toronto and Vancouver have built in the last 20 years.

Sasso/Vetro are extremely prominent from certain angles of the Calgary skyline and 1000% more hideous.

The Bow looks exquisite when you compare it to the above image. Along with a lot of contemporary landmarks in Edmonton - Grant MacEwan, Manchester Square, the Pearl, Talus Domes, Venetian, Fuzion on Whyte, the ICONs, Fox Towers, and on and on. Even Stantec Tower, a relatively "nice" new tower for Edmonton, is quite mediocre when you compare it to the Calgary equivalent (Brookfield).

Winnipeg also doesn't have quite an eclectic roster of shitty new architecture. Edmonton IMO is probably the winner of this thread, if not at least Western Canada.

There’s a reason I chose The Bow. This isn’t the Ugly Architecture thread (though there can be some overlap). It’s for buildings that are prominent and had potential to be great but were VE’d or butchered along the way. Sasso / Vetro and the Venetian in Edmonton were never going to be standout architectural masterpieces. The Milner library on the other hand had the potential which makes it so much more soul crushing.

[Kilgore Trout]

Originally Posted by Martin Mtl

My Montreal candidate would be the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC). It costed more than 1.3 billion and it's just atrocious. The fact that it is so huge makes it even worst. It's Université de Montréal equivalent (the CHUM) is also a disappointment on many levels, but it has some nice design touches, especially the gorgeous auditorium.

Good call. There are enough nice things about the CHUM that I don't mind it, even if it's massive and overbearing in its location. But the MUHC is just abysmal. Hard to believe they were designed at the same time.

To make matters worse, the MUHC has a direct correction to the metro... that requires you to walk through an underground parking garage, with dim lighting and poor signage.

Given that the project was led by the notoriously corrupt Arthur Porter, however, it shouldn't be a surprise that it turned out so badly. Imagine what the $22.5 million he stole could have paid for.

[RoshanMcG]

The Halifax Tower Hotel.

Original renderings showed a ~28 floor tower:



But actually turned out like this with a massive blank wall:







The best part is the original renderings stayed posted alongside the development through out much of the construction process:

Originally Posted by j.graham

spot the differences?

To be fair, this building is way out in Bayers Lake, a business park on the mainland, and even if it was built as originally rendered, would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Kilgore Trout

Imagine what the $22.5 million he stole could have paid for.

On $1.3B, it's peanuts...

I don't have a problem with the MUHC, it's a hospital. Function over form. Most of my industrial customers' buildings are even "worse", when you think about it.

This is worse than the MUHC architecturally and it's closer to being in downtown Trois-Rivières than the MUHC is to being in downtown Mtl:

https://www.google.com/maps/@46.3284...7i16384!8i8192

[ue]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

There’s a reason I chose The Bow. This isn’t the Ugly Arcitecture thread (though there can be some overlap). It’s for buildings that are prominent and had potential to be great but were VE’d or butchered along the way. Sasso / Vetro and the Venetian in Edmonton were never going to be standout architectural masterpieces. The Milner library on the other hand had the potential which makes it so much more soul crushing.

Considering the hype of a lot of the "Stampitecture" condos of the 2000s as a new wave of urban living for Calgary, they definitely had the potential to be something more. Also, the thread's title is literally "most disappointing high profile buildings in your city" which can be taken numerous ways. The Venetian is still disappointing even if it had no potential to be redeemable in any way, shape, or form. However I see your point, but the Bow is not a disappointment overall. The Stanley Milner is, though, and probably the most egregious recent example. Therefore Edmonton still wins this thread.

[ue]

Originally Posted by esquire

The Millennium Library was a letdown relative to the initial concepts. They originally wanted to go bigger with a block-long development but eventually budgetary reality won out and they just ended up schlepping another floor on top of the Centennial Library and calling it a day. They did add that nice curtain wall section facing southeast so at least there was that.

Manitoba Hydro Place is nice but it is so wide that its stumpy proportions ended up being a bit of a disappointment. It was a bit of a letdown considering that it was the first major tower built downtown in almost 20 years.

I remember when True North Centre (aka Canada Life Centre) was built, I found it a bit disappointing given that it was no bigger than the old place and it had very spartan decor when it first opened. I can't complain too much as it did the job and was eventually spruced up when the NHL returned to town.

Those are a few examples off the top of my head.

Both Edmonton and Winnipeg went for unusually wide towers for their first commercial high-rise in 20 years. EPCOR Tower for Edmonton, Manitoba Hydro Tower for Winnipeg.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by RoshanMcG

The Halifax Tower Hotel.

Original renderings showed a ~28 floor tower:



But actually turned out like this with a massive blank wall:







The best part is the original renderings stayed posted alongside the development through out much of the construction process:



To be fair, this building is way out in Bayers Lake, a business park on the mainland, and even if it was built as originally rendered, would have stuck out like a sore thumb.

The insane part is the blank wall side has the most visual interest. Frankly the original proposal was pretty garish. Like a modern condo building with Vancouver’s revolving restaurant tower on top.

[logan5]

Originally Posted by dleung

Burrard Place in Vancouver, though I guess it wasn't exactly a disappointment since I knew it'll be shit from the renders. But it's big by Vancouver standards and the first building around 500' without any semblance of architectural clarity

If you are going to shit all over a building, at least post a picture so we know which building you're talking about.

For me, Vancouver's 2 tallest towers, which are suppose to be our signature towers, are huge disappointments. That's Shangri-La and the former Trump tower. Looking at them in skyline shots, they just blend in with the rest of the green glob of towers. That's the problem with tower architecture these days. It's been whittled down to one basic formula, whether it's office or condo. Imagine how great the bow would look if they used copper glass or gold. It's the dark ages for architecture.