Ugliest building in BRIGHTON

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

These are pretty bad

St Thomas More looks like a Kung Fu School tho which is pretty cool.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Embassy Court was just neglected not ugly. It was home to some of Brighton's rich and famous in the sixties.

The management company let it go to ruin in the 1990's . Now it has had a lick or two of paint it is on its way back to its former glory.

 

[Easy 10]

And what about this abortion in Church Road.
Blends in nicely dunnit.

 

[edna krabappel]

Embassy Court was pretty horrific. I think they've given it a lick of paint since this pic, but still...

Have you ever been inside? It's all been painted up so it doesn't look as bad as it used to, but it's still an odd combination of decline and aspiration. You can see from the hallways and communal areas what it was supposed to be, all art deco and glamour, but the flats themselves are still showing signs of their age.

 

[The Large One]

Embassy Court was pretty horrific. I think they've given it a lick of paint since this pic, but still...

This is the point I was making earlier.

Embassy Court is an excellent example of Art Deco design. The tragedy for that particular building is that it sits in a sea of Georgian architecture like a bit of a sore thumb. Thankfully, it has now been restored, inside and out.

Still, if Herbert Carden had had his way in the 1930s, the entire Georgian and Victorian facade along Brighton seafront would have been torn down (including Brunswick Town, Adelaide Crescent, Lewes Crescent, Sussex Square etc.) and replaced by modernist buildings, specifically along the lines of Art Deco and Bauhaus. Not necessarily a bad thing in retrospect, but it would have taken 75 years for any real appreciation to be considered, and think of the fabulous buildings you would have lost.

 

[edna krabappel]

I think that's a very good philosophy. The one thing I HATE more than bad buildings is the way, especially in Brighton, sites are left empty for decades whilst everybody argues about what should go there, and of course no one agrees. When I hear of any proposed new development my initial view now, especially after the stadium battle, is to be in favour - and then I might bother to find out what it is and what impact it will have. Yes mistakes will be made, but the worst buildings can be knocked down (Churchill Square again) until you're left with hopefully the best of each era.

The important thing to remember is that Brighton isn't a museum, it's a living, evolving city.

Brighton & Hove must be one of the worst cities in the whole country when it comes to regenerating itself. How many times have we seen grand schemes mooted in the Argus, or on the local news, and almost without fail, they end up in the circular file, for exactly the reasons that some people have already cited on here: if it's new, it must be bad. The likes of Selma Montford and the Brighton Society (what do they DO, exactly?) crawl out of the woodwork and complain about "unacceptable impact on the Regency skyline". What, the Regency skyline that includes the aforementioned Embassy Court, Thistle Hotel, Kingswest, Brighton Centre, Sussex Heights, several of Kemp Town's finest tower blocks, and the King Alfred? It doesn't help that the city is hemmed in by the Downs to one side and the sea to the other, meaning there is little space for expansion- the Albion know that more than most- but I still find it depressing that every time someone comes up with an architectural idea that might just add something new, something different, it gets shouted down.

It's not necessarily a Brighton thing, to a certain extent it applies everywhere, and I'm not suggesting that all new architecture has merit, but our city does seem to be worse than most.

Out of interest: has anyone found themselves at Wembley in recent years and thought "Nice game, but it would be so much better if the Twin Towers were still here>"? I haven't for one second, I just wondered if, given all the fuss made by the media at the time it was being considered, anyone actually cared now the stadium is so much improved.

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Brighton & Hove must be one of the worst cities in the whole country when it comes to regenerating itself. How many times have we seen grand schemes mooted in the Argus, or on the local news, and almost without fail, they end up in the circular file, for exactly the reasons that some people have already cited on here: if it's new, it must be bad. The likes of Selma Montford and the Brighton Society (what do they DO, exactly?) crawl out of the woodwork and complain about "unacceptable impact on the Regency skyline". What, the Regency skyline that includes the aforementioned Embassy Court, Thistle Hotel, Kingswest, Brighton Centre, Sussex Heights, several of Kemp Town's finest tower blocks, and the King Alfred? It doesn't help that the city is hemmed in by the Downs to one side and the sea to the other, meaning there is little space for expansion- the Albion know that more than most- but I still find it depressing that every time someone comes up with an architectural idea that might just add something new, something different, it gets shouted down.

It's not necessarily a Brighton thing, to a certain extent it applies everywhere, and I'm not suggesting that all new architecture has merit, but our city does seem to be worse than most.

Out of interest: has anyone found themselves at Wembley in recent years and thought "Nice game, but it would be so much better if the Twin Towers were still here>"? I haven't for one second, I just wondered if, given all the fuss made by the media at the time it was being considered, anyone actually cared now the stadium is so much improved.

I like the fact that the Regency Society try and maintain The Regency aspect and heritage of Brighton & Hove. I find it quite comforting someone actually cares

Brighton and Hove needs to hang on to its historical skyline , so much had changed within the city in recent years.

 

[34064 Fighter Command]

Surely if you need an example of a building that is totally out of place with the rest of it's surroundings you just have to look at the Pavilion.

To be fair to Prince Charles I quite like his Poundsbury village near Dorchester, but it is at best a pastiche of a Cotswold village.

 

[fork me]

Not a building as such, but the original Churchill Square was pretty ugly

Yes, but it was ours! HGow many times did I nearly kill myself trying to climb up that "sculpture" pissed out of my head?

 

[Bold Seagull]

Brighton & Hove must be one of the worst cities in the whole country when it comes to regenerating itself. How many times have we seen grand schemes mooted in the Argus, or on the local news, and almost without fail, they end up in the circular file, for exactly the reasons that some people have already cited on here: if it's new, it must be bad. The likes of Selma Montford and the Brighton Society (what do they DO, exactly?) crawl out of the woodwork and complain about "unacceptable impact on the Regency skyline". What, the Regency skyline that includes the aforementioned Embassy Court, Thistle Hotel, Kingswest, Brighton Centre, Sussex Heights, several of Kemp Town's finest tower blocks, and the King Alfred? It doesn't help that the city is hemmed in by the Downs to one side and the sea to the other, meaning there is little space for expansion- the Albion know that more than most- but I still find it depressing that every time someone comes up with an architectural idea that might just add something new, something different, it gets shouted down.

It's not necessarily a Brighton thing, to a certain extent it applies everywhere, and I'm not suggesting that all new architecture has merit, but our city does seem to be worse than most.

Out of interest: has anyone found themselves at Wembley in recent years and thought "Nice game, but it would be so much better if the Twin Towers were still here>"? I haven't for one second, I just wondered if, given all the fuss made by the media at the time it was being considered, anyone actually cared now the stadium is so much improved.

Brighton & Hove has been victim to some pretty narrow minded council leaders and councillors that sit at planning committee. Progressive councils such as Manchester and Birmingham have set out grand visions for their cities leading to developers and their architects to have confidence that good design and architecture will be supported by the city. Go to Manchester now, and while there are some not so great examples, there are plenty of great buildings old and brand new to admire.

Brighton & Hove has a planning committee with an average age of approaching 60 odd I would imagine. There is little vision from them, so there is little incentive for a developer to take the risk of commissioning a creative contemporary project.

People think that their local council elections have little impact and often vote for their 'party' affiliation, however a planning committee is a prime example of how these people do have a massive impact on our lives, and these major decisions for our city are left with members who can't read an elevation from a plan.

The city needs a visionary council leader that would in turn appoint a Head of Planning that would hold the same aspirations. Whether it be holding sites up for international competition (what should have happened with the Marina and King Alfred) or looking at creative opportunities to encourage developers to have the confidence that good architecture will be supported, which in turn enhances the city etc.

It can happen, and New England Quarter is a good example of high quality design fitting in seamlessly with the urban fabric, and having a real regenerative impact on it's specific location.

 

[edna krabappel]

I like the fact that the Regency Society try and maintain The Regency aspect and heritage of Brighton & Hove. I find it quite comforting someone actually cares

Brighton and Hove needs to hang on to its historical skyline , so much had changed within the city in recent years.

But in the main, nobody is suggesting it gets destroyed in any case. And they cannot seem to see beyond that: they have no interest in jobs or regeneration or housing needs.

The BS seem to exist solely to object to the construction of anything new, anywhere within the city. If new projects are continually knocked back because of Ms Montford and her chums, then the city will, like anywhere, stagnate and decay.

 

[Brighton M]

 

[The Large One]

Surely if you need an example of a building that is totally out of place with the rest of it's surroundings you just have to look at the Pavilion.

Not so when it was built, being built pretty much in fields on the edge of a fishing village.

Are you saying it should be torn down because of the subsequent development?

 

[Pat McCrotch]

horrible looking place.

 

[brunswick]

 

[ali jenkins]

In all fairness that is a very old photo. It look so much better now

 

[KNC]

In all fairness that is a very old photo. It look so much better now

No it does not!!!! Another example of 'lazy' design. Rip the carbuncle down.

How, in the past, some of this shite has been allowed, is a disgrace. When I think about the problems over the building of Falmer, and some of the shit this town has put up, makes me laugh.
Just walk down from Powis Square. Beautiful Victorian terraced houses, descending towards the seafront. Now look towards the sea. The concrete pile of shit, obscuring your view of the channel. How was that ever allowed to happen? Bedford Towers?
Sussex Heights. The original Churchill Sq.
I do think, the Amex buildings have always worked.
The Kings West! How did they get away with that?

 

[glasfryn]

New England House has to be in with a shout, why it's not been demolished I don't know.

this

Not a building as such, but the original Churchill Square was pretty ugly

this

and most definitely this

 

[My Name Is Gully]

I remember it as a good place to practice climbing skills.

 

[Paxton Dazo]

People mocking old school buildings . Have to agree with that building opposite Preston Park though.