Ugly Buildings

[+Tharandter]

I think it would be funny to create a category for showing ugly buildings in the world.

I'm very interested in real sins of architecture.

 

What do you think?

 

Regards

Tharandter

[+fi67]

I once had this idea myself and then I thought I should have gone to bed much earlier that day.

 

Categories like this with a high level of subjectivity are always difficult. I doubt it would pass peer review, as well. But if you have a really clear definition and can tell me a good reason why I should want to visit such a place except for the icon, maybe...

[+Tharandter]

I once had this idea myself and then I thought I should have gone to bed much earlier that day.

 

Categories like this with a high level of subjectivity are always difficult. I doubt it would pass peer review, as well. But if you have a really clear definition and can tell me a good reason why I should want to visit such a place except for the icon, maybe...

 

I've seen a lot of cities where many opportunities for building harmonious were missed. I'm very interested in a collection of so-called sins of architecture from all cities in the world. Maybe I could set the conditions for the group in more detail.

[+Torgut]

I will definitely vote against. Aesthetics are of subjective nature. Can't see a logic on this one.

[+Tharandter]

Therefore, there is an approval process in order to distinguish which buildings would fall in this category.

Edited July 17, 2012 by Tharandter

[+Torgut]

Therefore, there is an approval process in order to distinguish which buildings would fall in this category.

 

And so...? It's like a jury condemning someone to death penalty because he looks guilty.

[+Tharandter]

Therefore, there is an approval process in order to distinguish which buildings would fall in this category.

 

And so...? It's like a jury condemning someone to death penalty because he looks guilty.

 

What a pointless comparison!

[+Torgut]

Therefore, there is an approval process in order to distinguish which buildings would fall in this category.

 

And so...? It's like a jury condemning someone to death penalty because he looks guilty.

 

What a pointless comparison!

 

Well, in your opinion. In mine, it's as pointless as an approval process to define what is ugly.

[+BruceS]

I think you will find defining Ugly to be very difficult. Once being in the group that manages "Odd Shaped" buildings it was very difficult to define Odd Shaped when reviewing waymarks. What seemed odd at first didn't seem so odd when 10 of the same were submitted. There is a saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" I think "Ugliness" follows the same rule. I find certain architectural styles to be ugly however these same styles have a lot of followers who are advocates for the style.

[+Max and 99]

Therefore, there is an approval process in order to distinguish which buildings would fall in this category.

 

You have the right idea with an approval process, but....

the problem is that waymarkers need a clearly defined criteria of what will and will not be accepted into a category. Who wants to do all the work to write-up a waymark, take pics of the building, only to have the waymark declined because the officer felt the building wasn't "ugly enough"?

[+Ddraig Ddu]

define: ugly.

 

i like the idea, but very hard to define.

[+silverquill]

Ugly.

 

1). As many have pointed out this is almost impossible to define in any meaningful way so that we would know what qualifies.

 

While some degree of subjectivity is often present in categories, this is totally subjective. This is so much the case that one person might actually think a particular building is beautiful while another person regards the same building as ugly. There just is no universally accepted definition. Even if a definition were created, it would still have to be stated in largely subjective terms.

 

2). Prevalence. Let's face it, the world is full of ugly buildings, however one might define it. One could conceivably waymark entire streets or neighborhoods or area where there are ugly buildings. These would be difficult to describe in any meaningful way, too.

 

So, this category idea is a just a passing thought.

Let it pass on into oblivion.

[+saopaulo1]

What are some examples of ugly?

[+lumbricus]

What are some examples of ugly?

 

This is the result of what google image search understand under "Ugly Buildings":

 

Ugly buildings

[+Max and 99]

 

This is the result of what google image search understand under "Ugly Buildings":

 

Ugly buildings

 

That's very interesting! I thought some of those buildings were really cool.

[+lumbricus]

Funny, i just reviewed a 'ugly' (google pictures definiton) building.

 

http://www.Waymarking.com/waymarks/WMEXN7_Royal_Ontario_Museum_Toronto_Ontario

[+3l diesel]

I think it would be funny to create a category for showing ugly buildings in the world. I'm very interested in real sins of architecture.What do you think?RegardsTharandter

Most respondents have indicate their lack of favour for "ugly buildings" based on concerns of subjectivity.

 

I am not getting terribly excited about the proposal as such, but I do think there is some room to "cut some slack", in other words, can't the original suggestion be taken and a more viable suggestion be put forward? At the end of the day, Waymarking has to be something to enjoy, something that is maybe "fun". It is about marking the coords, usually via GPS, of the location of interesting things around the globe. "Ugly Buildings", as such, are perhaps an excellent subject for Waymarking.

 

Can we "cut some slack" (maybe) and see if there is a way around somewhat "subjective" category suggestions? Would an "unusual building" category be an appropriate entry point with a category submission requirement being that the submitter point out an unusual feature that might not be common. So, while beauty is in the eye of the beholder, that unusual building that has been inspired by a dead cat might be pointed out without treading on "ugly" sensitivities. I suppose if I had thought of it at the time, then a hotel in Tay Ninh, Vietnam would have been a classic. There was a gap of about 50mm in the building between columns and verandah rails which suggested that the building was seriously unstable and moving! Yet other sections nearby were neatly finished off. Quite bemusing!

 

I would suggest that the OP reconsider and refine their proposal and outline how they might achieve a satisfactory category description. It is the unusual that needs Waymarking, and I don't think that the "unusual" in its many guises should be stifled.

[+fi67]

Ugly seems to be too subjective and the proposed approval process is not a good idea; it is essential for Waymarking to know in advance if a submission fits into the category.

 

Changing to "Unusual" creates a huge overlap wit the existing category Odd-Shaped Buildings on one side, the other ones - as the mentioned hotel in Vietnam - could maybe go into the Human Error category.

 

For the moment I do not see a justification for a new category in between them.

[+DougK]

I think this category is too subjective and in opposition to other existing categories. I look at the Google images and (IMO) don't see "Ugly" building. Some of them are already waymarked in Great buildings of the World and other fine architecture categories. It is just two different opinions as too whether it's ugly (different, modern, whatever) to some people or a great building (or great architect) to other people. I'd prefer not to see two waymarks for a building, one in Great Buildings of the World/Architecture Prizes and another in Ugly Buildings of the World. Maybe beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I side with the experts who would tell you it's a great building than the naysayers who would try to denigrate it.

[+silverquill]

I think it would be funny to create a category for showing ugly buildings in the world. I'm very interested in real sins of architecture.What do you think?RegardsTharandter

Most respondents have indicate their lack of favour for "ugly buildings" based on concerns of subjectivity.

 

I am not getting terribly excited about the proposal as such, but I do think there is some room to "cut some slack", in other words, can't the original suggestion be taken and a more viable suggestion be put forward? At the end of the day, Waymarking has to be something to enjoy, something that is maybe "fun". It is about marking the coords, usually via GPS, of the location of interesting things around the globe. "Ugly Buildings", as such, are perhaps an excellent subject for Waymarking."

Sure, Waymarking should be enjoyable and maybe even fun, but rambling subjective categories are often not fun - not fun for reviewers and not fun for those trying to figure out what might get approved and what might be declined and both feeling bad when there is a disagreement. I think that "ugly" as a general description is beyond any helpful definition, just as "beautiful" is beyond quantification, unless one wants to appeal to the Fibonacci sequence and the golden mean as a mathematical definition of beauty, and therefore lack of adherence to this defaulting to the term "ugly."

 

 

Can we "cut some slack" (maybe) and see if there is a way around somewhat "subjective" category suggestions? Would an "unusual building" category be an appropriate entry point . . . .

 

I would suggest that the OP reconsider and refine their proposal and outline how they might achieve a satisfactory category description. It is the unusual that needs Waymarking, and I don't think that the "unusual" in its many guises should be stifled.

 

 

I think "unusual" is likewise a term beyond redemption. The only hope is to define it in some objective terms such as, "A, B and C are usual, but the lack of A, B, C and the presence of X, Y or Z constitute something that is unusual." So, to define "ugly buildings" in any meaningful way, one would have to come up with a list of objective architectural features that would have to be absent or present in order for the ugly building to qualify. I just don't think it can be done. Anyone is welcome to try, though.

 

Unfortunately, we have some subjective categories that were created early on and continue to be problematic. BruceS mentioned "Odd Buildings." To fill a gap, I'm now an officer, and I can tell you that it is a headache! The originator of the category offered a few criteria, but it still really falls to us to make a judgment call. And, the problem with that is that if a marginally odd building is approved, then the envelope keeps getting bigger and bigger until "odd" has lost its meaning. If an overly strict policy is adopted, then people get mad or sad and the category withers away. Finding that middle ground is difficult.

 

Some categories try to define subjective term such as "unique" or "artistic" with varying degrees of success. I have done this myself. And, some categories, like "Unique Mailboxes" got a complete makeover.

 

So, I'm in favor of fun categories and cutting people slack, but sometimes an idea just isn't going to fly, and I think we need to be realistic about that and realize that not everything can be a Waymarking category and not everything can or should be waymarked.