[scarberiankhatru]

And yet...the NY Towers are automatically disqualified from the ugliest tower race because real people actually like them, or are at least indifferent. There's literally hundreds of other buildings that both internet geeks and the public would both agree are actually ugly, not just ugly because of what they represent. Ugly ugly, not TV ugly. Almost every single building mentioned in this thread is TV ugly.

 

[Urban Shocker]

The North Yuck Towers are ugly in reality - a result of real people who work at an architectural firm that's generally considered less than stellar designing them, compounded by real people in the local NIMBY community imposing their squash-and-spread solution to the "problem" of height, and a City that enabled the process. Perhaps that indifference you talk of was also part of the process.

 

[Hipster Duck]

And yet...the NY Towers are automatically disqualified from the ugliest tower race because real people actually like them, or are at least indifferent. There's literally hundreds of other buildings that both internet geeks and the public would both agree are actually ugly, not just ugly because of what they represent. Ugly ugly, not TV ugly. Almost every single building mentioned in this thread is TV ugly.

Yeah, a lot of the stuff that's less than 3 storeys in this city is ugly, ugly; designed in boardrooms or by private contractors working out of the Home Depot catalog. However, highrises almost always have a professionally-trained architect doing the design, even if it's just to design a product that maximizes revenue-earning space. It's really a difference between amateurs and professionals; amateurs design stuff that's ugly, ugly while professionals design stuff that's TV ugly.

 

[ProjectEnd]

The North Yuck Towers are ugly in reality - a result of real people who work at an architectural firm that's generally considered less than stellar designing them, compounded by real people in the local NIMBY community imposing their squash-and-spread solution to the "problem" of height, and a City that enabled the process. Perhaps that indifference you talk of was also part of the process.

I've always had a hunch that it was that group of soulless yet particularly vociferous individuals. Was there a real battle over these ones? They really are terrible aren't they.

 

[TKTKTK]

Yeah, a lot of the stuff that's less than 3 storeys in this city is ugly, ugly; designed in boardrooms or by private contractors working out of the Home Depot catalog. However, highrises almost have a professionally-trained architect doing the design, even if it's just to design a product that maximizes revenue-earning space. It's really a difference between amateurs and professionals; amateurs design stuff that's ugly, ugly while professionals design stuff that's TV ugly.

I think I have a greater appetite for ugly, ugly than TV Ugly. Ugly, ugly can at least have character, TV Ugly is such a soulless ugly.

It's like the difference between a Monte Carlo and a Volkswagen Thing:

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I think I have a greater appetite for ugly, ugly than TV Ugly. Ugly, ugly can at least have character, TV Ugly is such a soulless ugly.

TV ugly has character, not ugly ugly.

 

[Strange Advance]

I find the main structures of the Chrysler Towers inoffensive, but the crowns are Vegas chintz at its worst. Those plastic half-moons, and then the ridiculously disproportionate faux antennas that bring the twins' height to a whopping 375 ft.

I drive past these things almost daily, and they are an embarrassment and an assault on the eyes every time. What makes it worse is their prominence. Every visitor driving through the city surely laughs and points and marvels at the tacky, slavish monstrosities deposited so proudly on a hill next to the 401.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I find the main structures of the Chrysler Towers inoffensive, but the crowns are Vegas chintz at its worst. Those plastic half-moons, and then the ridiculously disproportionate faux antennas that bring the twins' height to a whopping 375 ft.

I drive past these things almost daily, and they are an embarrassment and an assault on the eyes every time. What makes it worse is their prominence. Every visitor driving through the city surely laughs and points and marvels at the tacky, slavish monstrosities deposited so proudly on a hill next to the 401.

And Vegas = TV ugly, not ugly ugly.

 

[TKTKTK]

And Vegas = TV ugly, not ugly ugly.

I actually think of Vegas more as Ugly, Ugly while Dubai to me is TV Ugly.

Vegas isn't trying to be anything but stupid and ridiculous and entertaining. Want to build the Statue of Liberty next to a castle next to the Sphinx? Do it, then build Paris down the street.

Vegas is jolie laide, Dubai is just laide.

 

[urbandreamer]

Dundas and Bloor surely is filled with some beasts--Crossways, and especially, that tower across the street. Lansdowne and Dupont have yet more eyesores.

btw, neither the Monte Carlo nor the VW thing are attractive, although ironically, I'd give the nod to the VW.

 

[Strange Advance]

And Vegas = TV ugly, not ugly ugly.

I don't understand the distinction. Is it something that is ugly in an inanimate image but not in person? I haven't been to Vegas, but I'm sure I would find it just as tasteless in person as I find it in pictures.

 

[Hipster Duck]

TV ugly = ugliness despite aesthetic best intentions. For example, I think that the Sheraton Centre is ugly, but it was designed by an architect who took pride in his/her work and had his/her own notion of aesthetics that they intended to bring into the design.

Ugly, ugly = just ugliness due to a lack of thought. For example, a RioCan TM power centre isn't designed by an architect; aesthetic considerations are very low on the list of priorities.

 

[TKTKTK]

TV ugly = ugliness despite aesthetic best intentions. For example, I think that the Sheraton Centre is ugly, but it was designed by an architect who took pride in his/her work and had his/her own notion of aesthetics that they intended to bring into the design.

To me, that sounds kinda more like Jolie Laide, than TV Ugly (which conjures to mind a half-assed attempt at aesthetics; which to me is somehow worse than completely ignoring them)

 

[Urban Shocker]

The Sheraton is a boy building, surely? He's a beau laid brute. Kinda like John Malkovich.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

People that are TV ugly are ugly compared to the other celebrities in the cast (often, though, the only difference is that the TV ugly folk are pretty people in disguise, like how Ugly Betty is ugly because she wears glasses and weird sweaters) but real ugly ugly people are not seen on TV, except on newscasts, documentaries, or some talkshows...you see them on the street every day, though, and chances are your friends and family are filled with them, if you're not one yourself.

Translating to buildings, everything on the internet is black or white, and since one shade below perfect must, therefore, be ugly, you end up with people calling Pei's Commerce Court ugly which is, of course, ridiculous, unless you think all boxes are automatically ugly, in which case your opinion doesn't matter.

Saying RoCP or Sheraton or NY Towers or even the Holiday Inn is ugly is saying it's the ugliest celebrity building - TV ugly - but celebrity buildings are just about invariably better looking than other buildings. Archivist already posted a few pics of ugly ugly buildings...they don't represent intangible ugly ideas, they *are* ugly. Ugly ugly. We rarely know their names, though, so they don't make it to the top of the list like the Toronto Star building or the HBC tower does.