Report comment

JA I'm inclined to agree that the question of whether a building is ugly or not cannot be given a conclusive answer, only more or less considered opinions for which a plethora of conflicting reasons will be given.

But perhaps that is only true if the modern definition of beauty, as a superficial aesthetic determined by subjective opinion, is used. Before the industrial revolution architecture was considered beautiful, at one level, not if it conformed to a pre-conceived notion of what the building as an object should look like, but if it added richness to the experience of the city and improved the public realm (I hope somebody more informed can correct or add to that).

To conclude the response to this year's Carbuncle Cup in some way, perhaps it would work better if the award had been given to the building which, at all scales, caused most damage to the public realm. My vote would still be with Strata.