Help support TMP

"Britain's ugliest building" Topic

11 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Housing and Home Improvement Plus Board

821 hits since 1 Sep 2013
©1994-2018 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

GarrisonMiniatures Inactive Member02 Sep 2013 7:04 a.m. PST

Mainly included because of this gem from 'planning inspectorate'!

'She added that the building was originally refused planning consent by Islington Council but was approved on appeal by the planning inspectorate on the grounds that students don't require the same quality of accommodation as the rest of society.'



It seems that the front facade doesn't match the floor plan, so the windows aren't aligned to the actual rooms…

'One of the worst facade retention schemes that I have seen,' wrote one nominator of this student housing block on London's historic Caledonian Road. 'The lack of any meaningful relationship between the retained facade and the new build behind is embarrassing.'

altfritz02 Sep 2013 9:29 a.m. PST

Just read the Appeal Decision – complete Bleeped text! Not only is the facade messed up, but also the inside design.

Personal logo Parzival Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2013 9:40 a.m. PST

Progress marches forward… except when it doesn't.

Personal logo John the OFM Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2013 10:41 a.m. PST

It beats out the Paul Kanjorski Federal Office Building in Nanticoke, but just barely.

Look at the bright side. A good earthquake should shake it right down. Get many earthquakes in Islington?

Personal logo x42brown Supporting Member of TMP02 Sep 2013 10:47 a.m. PST

Although I agree that it's ugly and should not have got planing permission it still does not match the real uglies like Cumbernauld Shopping Centre which I have to pass regularly when visiting descendants.
This view actually compliments the building.


Maddaz111 Inactive Member02 Sep 2013 11:00 a.m. PST

There are many truly ugly buildings in the UK.

Lots of Government Buildings, constructed from Concrete in the 60s and 70s.

A couple of Horrific Cathedrals – made from concrete and steel.

Lots of Shopping Centres – Brick facades without any attempt at style.

Its a shame that some historic buildings were torn down post war, lots of lunatic planning decisions decimated what would now be rated as culturally significant structures.

And no – we do not get many earthquakes in the UK, and when we do, they are so slight normally that people do not realise that they have had an earthquake.
(actually there are Hundreds of very minor quakes in the UK every month, but ones sufficient to be felt by us are so rare that they cause news stories on national news!)

Ron W DuBray Inactive Member02 Sep 2013 3:05 p.m. PST

well nothing a good fire would not fix.

Whatisitgood4atwork Inactive Member02 Sep 2013 4:18 p.m. PST

That's a stuff up all right, but the facade is actually quite nice. I can see why they wanted it retained, especially compared to the glass blocks either side.

The good news is, when the no-doubt shoddily-built student accommodation is torn down, the facade can remain and have another chance of relevance.

I agree with x42. His example is much uglier.

But for really ugly buildings, try visiting Auckland one day.

The Central Police Station, with all the grace and style of a cheese grater.


Our 'arts centre' (Oh the irony).


Brian Bronson Inactive Member02 Sep 2013 5:42 p.m. PST

The Central Police Station, with all the grace and style of a cheese grater.

Looks like they modeled it after a German WW2 flak tower.

Personal logo 20thmaine Supporting Member of TMP03 Sep 2013 2:54 a.m. PST

Its a shame that some historic buildings were torn down post war, lots of lunatic planning decisions decimated what would now be rated as culturally significant structures.

And now we're starting to pull down significant buildings of the '60s and '70's.

A lot of the large high rise developments were planned to have caretakers and permenant building maintenance staff – and the people who first moved into them often praised them.

Then it was found convenient to cut staffing levels to save money…and the inevitable happened.

Places like this : link . Which is being redeveloped as luxury flats (and will have the necessary ground crew to keep it up and provide security).

It's not always the building's fault.

Whatisitgood4atwork Inactive Member03 Sep 2013 4:11 p.m. PST

True 20th Marine.

Look at Singapore's Housing Development Board flats. Ironically, they were based on Britain's public housing parks.

LKY however quickly realised that the difference between well-maintained and slum-in-waiting was the percentage of private ownership.

So the govt built them, then sold them to occupiers, who took pride in them. But they also had permanent staff, and regular maintenance.

In a further irony, Britain followed Singapore's lead under Maggie Thatcher, but still tried to penny-pinch the maintenance.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.