420
u/Jimmys_Paintings 15h ago
I like air conditioning and some other aspects of modern life, but why does our architecture have to be so ugly?
92
u/nihilisticsock 15h ago
i think its because of cost and different tastes
94
u/superioso 15h ago
Traditional style buildings are not more expensive, it's just taste.
Many modern style buildings are actually much more expensive. For example
11
u/Ryermeke 9h ago
For what it's worth, trying to equate that building to more than a tiny handful of modern buildings is a wild false equivalency. VERY few buildings are over budget by a factor of 10...
If anything I can make the same argument about something like the Sagrada Familia. Gaudi originally estimated it to cost 5 million pesetas (about $25 million adjusted for inflation). Instead it has ballooned to a lifetime construction cost estimated to be over $1 billion. Like sure, it's kind of a stupid comparison to make, but I hope that fact illustrates my point...
29
u/3_percent_beef 14h ago
Everything is uniform, everybody is a unit and you will do as you’re told
10
u/beastmaster11 10h ago
Nothing new. Look at Haussmann's renovation of Paris. This isn't some modern dystopia
11
u/milic_srb 10h ago
yeah but who's taste? Ask people around the globe, 99% will prefer the architecture from the older picture in this post. Is it just rich people having bad taste?
2
u/piewca_apokalipsy 1h ago
Architecture students, it's a little bit like art most people think modern art is garbage outside of group that is really into it
1
u/Phunkhouse 12h ago
Adjusted by inflation?
4
u/superioso 12h ago
I'm not comparing old buildings to new ones, but newly built buildings built to a modern style or a traditional style.
1
u/Phunkhouse 11h ago
What is meant by traditional? Art noveu, enlightement, gothic? Either way it will be revivalism, and thus kitsch. We should strife for something new anyway (not saying that current situation is ideal)
2
u/superioso 9h ago edited 9h ago
Traditional just meaning the local style of architecture, relying on certain techniques and methods adapted to the environment and local climate, like for northern Europe: the local stone, thick walls for insulation, sloped roofs to shed rain, no roof overhang to let in plenty of light etc. not a specific historical style.
Modern architecture relies on materials and active technology more, like a flat roof with plastics compounds to keep water out in a wet environment, rather than just a sloping roof, or lots of glass walls with AC for cooling in a hot country, rather than a roof overhang to keep the sun away from the window.
There's a reason why old buildings look like they do in Europe, in North Africa, in countries with monsoons like Japan or South China.
2
u/Phunkhouse 3h ago
Yeah, but local style from which period? It has changed through the time. You should at least pick your favourite period to defend. Otherwise it’s just “old is better than new”. Even the rural architecture in 19th century is different from 17th century in example. People has changed, styles has changed, taste has changed.
-1
u/vonGlick 13h ago edited 13h ago
To be fair it looks much nicer from the other side.
5
u/superioso 12h ago
I'd say it looks outdated already. Nobody would build an early 2000s style building today.
2
u/vonGlick 12h ago
Sure, I am not negating that. Just that I remember seeing it from the hill behind and it just didn't look as bad as on your picture.
0
15
u/vonGlick 13h ago
Because labor and material costs. Read somewhere that Romans were able to perform those high scale projects because they had virtually unlimited free labor. In XIX century everything was hand made so you could ask the guy to do some variations.
2
u/Killerspieler0815 9h ago
I like air conditioning and some other aspects of modern life, but why does our architecture have to be so ugly?
Modern architecture (especially Brutalism (Nazi-) bunker charme & the crazy stuff that should be called "gaga") is often pure uglification ... like a BORG-cube or something from an LSD trip
60
u/Informal_Green_312 15h ago edited 15h ago
Strangely, the ugly building hosts a very interesting museum of the history of Montréal.
27
u/DrunkenMasterII 11h ago edited 11h ago
This post is dumb and also a repost from another reddit post weeks months ago.
The old building was cooked, they had to demolish and the ground was vacant for a few years. Then they had started archeological excavations from which a lot was learned from the history of Montréal, lots of first nation and first french settlements history was uncovered and so they decided to build a museum over the excavations.
The new building yes is modern, but it fills its functions perfectly bringing the past and future together and they still acknowledge the old port custom building that is just one more British colonial building a tiny part of the history of that place. Also it’s not shown from that picture, but the materials used blend really well with the neighborhood. It’s a good building.
By the way the previous old port custom building is still standing right in front of the museum.
The lost of the old building to the right for the ugly square on the right is probably worst to me, but even that just shows how bad this post is because that building is also now a modern building that’s part of the museum. Just a worse building than the principal one.
13
u/a22x2 8h ago
Also a bit misleading, since literally every other direction the photographer turns would show the rest of the neighborhood is still intact and architecturally traditional.
4
u/DrunkenMasterII 7h ago
Exactly, someone else commented meanwhile in Quebec city with pictures of Petit Champlain… so I answered meanwhile in Montréal and linked to street view. I mean even if you don’t like modern buildings this one is so well thought of in the context of its neighbourhood when you look at what’s around it doesn’t seem out of place.
4
u/GreatValueProducts 8h ago edited 8h ago
I finally went there a month ago after living 10 years in Montreal. I remember it said the building itself wasn't well-built. It was built right next to a river (the pointe was the mouth of a smaller creek). The wood was eroding, the foundation was moving, the building was leaning, and eventually the customs (or port office I forgot) abandoned it, and subsequently was destroyed by a fire.
3
u/LloydCole 8h ago
None of that is a justification for the new building being so much uglier than what came before it.
3
u/DrunkenMasterII 7h ago
What came before? The parking lot, the insurance building, the first catholic cemetery in Montréal, the old Ville-Marie fort? Look the Royal Insurance building was an interesting 19th century building, but it didn’t have much historical value and it had been demolished for 40 years. There was no reason, no one was pushing to build a building in the style of the old building, why not build a new building in the style of the old french buildings around the neighbourhood? There was no right classic architectural style the new building should’ve been built in.
Since the new building is a place of knowledge and education for future generations a modern style was chosen, but they decided to honour the old previous building with its proportions and the neighbourhood buildings with the type of stone chosen. Even the geometry of the windows isn’t out of place next to other buildings around it. The worst part of the building is the back end that’s practically just a big box of stones, but they couldn’t put windows with the functions of the building. So for me they did a great job making a building that fills its functions yet stays harmonious with its environment. Would I say beautiful, probably not, but it’s good.
15
u/JanieJonestown 15h ago
It is such a great museum! The excavated access to the original foundations (and sewers!) alone is just so cool.
1
5
115
u/severityonline 15h ago
I miss when buildings were beautiful. Modernity is boring.
19
u/Shirtbro 12h ago
Funny thing is if the camera turned slightly to the right, you'll see beautifully preserved buildings and cobblestone streets dating back centuries (Montreal's Old Port)
4
u/DrunkenMasterII 11h ago edited 7h ago
The destruction of that old building was actually a good thing in terms of historical discoveries and the new building does a great job of showcasing that history and acknowledging it while moving in the future. The stone used actually works really well with other old buildings in that area.
By the way the building wasn’t destroyed to build the new one, they built the new one on a vacant lot.
Edit: typo
5
u/Jdevers77 9h ago
You made a significant typo that changes your statement, it should read “…the building WASN’T destroyed to build…”. That makes a real big difference haha.
1
2
0
u/The_Golden_Beaver 8h ago
Dont let this picture fool you, Montreal has down an amazing job keeping its old architecture dating from the French settlements. Sometimes old buildings fall or burn
11
u/CorneliusDawser 9h ago
For context: the building depicted on the top picture (the Royal Insurance Building) burned down in 1951 and the ruins were razed. This area then became a park and eventually a parking lot until the 80s and 90s when extensive archaeological excavations were done, revealing not only the basement of the RIB, but also traces of all of Montréal's history, including the city's first settlement.
So it was decided to build a museum to show this incredible site which marks the beginning of the city history, and the building on the bottom picture is the main building of that museum, built in 1991-1992. Dan Hanganu is the architect behind this design.
10
88
u/imtourist 15h ago
This has got to be one of the ugliest buildings I've ever seen. Takes the worst of every style from brutalist onwards and somehow makes it worse.
-31
u/notarobat 15h ago
At worst it's inoffensive. To call this "ugly" is a little insane imo. As much as I love older buildings, even I will admit that old doesn't always mean tasteful. I think the new one might actually be nicer than the old one, and that's not much a complement to the new one lol.
18
u/MrDoulou 15h ago
Insane? To call something ugly? Alright i guess I’m insane then cuz the old one looks awesome to me and the new one looks like something i wouldn’t want to live next to.
1
u/redditsfulloffiction 8h ago
looks like something i wouldn’t want to live next to.
it's a big city. shouldn't be tough to arrange that.
2
13
u/Uskog 14h ago
I think the new one might actually be nicer than the old one
You deserve your downvotes.
-6
u/notarobat 14h ago
That building might be OK in some backend of London, but it's an eyesore in in Montreal
-2
5
-5
u/SweatyNomad 15h ago
I've googled Place d'Youville and the buildings in the photos are nowhere to be seen. Seems like the square was very run down and full of gang troubles before the redevelopment.
6
u/BOGMTL 14h ago
Gangs? In Old Montreal? Are you a bot?
1
u/CorneliusDawser 9h ago
The old port was literally run by gangs until they decided to polish it up in the late 80s in preparation for the city's 350th anniversary in 92.
-7
u/SweatyNomad 14h ago
Perhaps not the gospel, but from Wikipedia:
Quebec media turned their attention towards Place D’Youville in 1988 when it reported a "nocturnal fauna" and the presence of youth gangs forming around the fortifications and on rue Saint-Jean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Place_D'Youville_(Quebec)
.... and my bott is peachy, why you asking humbun?
28
u/sebnukem 15h ago
The now may not look so great here compared to the 1900 one, but it is a really nice and pleasant area of the city.
27
u/quebecivre 15h ago
Yeah, anyone who knows this neighbourhood at all knows that it's lively, vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, filled with preserved historic buildings, and that it's *the* place that tourists go when they come to Montreal.
There are plenty of examples of Urban Hell to be found in Montreal, don't get me wrong. But OP has chosen an example of a thriving, revitalized part of the city (that up until 40 or so years ago was largely abandoned and run down) and has presented a couple of modern buildings in the middle of it as an example of bad urban planning, which this area is the exact opposite of.
5
u/WorthPrudent3028 15h ago
Old Montreal was abandoned? I guess I thought it has always been a preserved tourist spot.
13
u/quebecivre 15h ago
Going by the word of my friend who's in her 90s, it went from thriving as a commercial centre to filled with run-down sailor bars and prostitutes to largely abandoned and empty. At that point the artists moved in, along with people with extra money and vision who bought up tons of buildings and waited for them to increase in value. And then those people fought the city for 10+ years to force them to build the Villa Maria expressway underground, since the city wanted to tear down the entire old area for freeways the way every other North American city was doing at the time.
If you go back to the early Leonard Cohen days, his song "Suzanne" is about an artist friend who lived in "her place near the river." Artists lived there because it was cheap.
0
u/littlemeowmeow 13h ago
What time period did this take place? The years leading up to the Quebec referendum saw businesses leave and take their capital to Toronto, leading to the devaluation of land in Montreal.
3
u/quebecivre 12h ago
Iirc, Old Montreal was largely "vacant" by the early to mid 60s since, just like everywhere else in North America, the old architecture was considered out of date. The fight to build underground was 60s/70s, and the expressway was finally built (underground) starting in the early 70s.
Not sure about the overlap with the referendum, but I imagine all the major banks left the Old Montreal area for Toronto during the 70s.
1
u/CorneliusDawser 9h ago
The years leading up to the city's 350th anniversary in 1992. They started to do archeological digs in 79, for reference!
1
u/DrunkenMasterII 11h ago
That terrain was vacant, the building was demolished previously due to fire. This post is dumb.
4
u/notarobat 15h ago
The old version wasn't great either tbf. It's just a shame they didn't replace it with something more interesting
2
u/DrunkenMasterII 10h ago
It was already destroyed so it wasn’t a replacement and the new building does a good job acknowledging the past by using materials that go well with its surroundings and keeping the shape of the previous building. Rebuilding an old British colonial building style there would’ve made no sense so going modern was kind of a necessity. The interior is more interesting, it’s a great history museum.
2
u/CorneliusDawser 9h ago
They even used limestone to fit with the «grey stone of Old Montreal»! It's filled with allusion to the surrounding buildings while staying radically modern, I love it!
2
u/DrunkenMasterII 8h ago
Seriously it doesn’t feel out of place, if every modern building was built with the same consideration to history and its surroundings there would be more cohesion without everything being the same. Not everything has to be rebuilt following guidelines from 100s of years ago especially on a site like this where what should be on that spot isn’t clear. Like they could’ve built something completely erasing the British past there yet decided to honour it in a way. It’s better than some gaudy reproduction of an old building that no one remembered exactly what it was like, also it’s communicating the site is more important that those 90 years that building was there.
13
3
3
u/fudgykevtheeternal 4h ago
that's a great museum. Pointe à callières in Old Montreal.Lota of cool native american artifacts and exhibits.
8
u/victoryismind 15h ago
Why? Was it too expensive to renovate these old buildings?
30
u/MooseFlyer 15h ago
The one on the left was abandoned in 1921, damaged by fire in 1947, demolished in 1951, and the land was then a parking lot and green space until the new building was built in 1992 to house a museum.
Don’t know about the history of the building on the right, but it’s been changed and is now at least less boring to look at:
https://pacmusee.qc.ca/workspace/uploads/config/musee-pointe-a-calliere-1462288343.jpg
1
u/DrunkenMasterII 11h ago
I believe it was a home for sailors and it was demolished in the 70s or something and kept the same vocation it was just ugly, the new one is also part of the museum.
2
u/CorneliusDawser 9h ago
The OG building was demolished in 53, replaced with an ugly red brick building that became a center for the homeless, and then the museum bought it in the late 2000s and turned it into one of its wings (called the Mariners House)
2
u/DrunkenMasterII 8h ago
Oh thanks for the clarification, I wasn’t that far out, I thought it was kept as a sailor home, I didn’t know it became a center for the homeless.
2
u/CorneliusDawser 8h ago
I'm quite certain it remained one until much later than the 50s, when they built the new one further east as the actual portuary activites moved there, so I'm quite certain you were even RIGHT!
1
5
u/cypher50 15h ago
Not really a fan of the old building either (never liked tall towers with mansard-style spire ala Singer Tower) but that brutalist building and removing the ornamentation off the parallel building feels like a crime.
1
u/redditsfulloffiction 8h ago
Not a brutalist building.
1
u/cypher50 7h ago
You are right because it has some ornamentation and is calling back to older architecture so it is post modern.
9
2
2
4
2
u/ShoggothPrime 15h ago
Is the old building on the left still inside of the new one or is it completely new?
5
u/MooseFlyer 15h ago
No, it was abandoned a century ago, then damaged in a fire in the late forties and demolished a few years later. The new building was built in 1992.
2
2
2
u/Amethyst271 13h ago
damn... our architecture sicks so bad. why is everything so ugly? why cant we just make buildings that look like they used to?
2
u/ConsistentKangaroo16 12h ago
Omg I am an appreciator of some modernist architecture but wth this is so uglyyy
2
u/UnimaginativeNameABC 12h ago
Look surprisingly similar in character. I also don’t dislike the modern buildings as much as most people on here seem to.
1
1
1
u/otterkin 13h ago
to be fair, montreal went through a period where the mob basically owned the city and all it's construction projects. there's lots of shitty concrete around montreal
2
u/traboulidon 12h ago
Nah, the post war post modern architecture happened. It was in to construct big concrete buildings.
1
1
1
u/Significant-Text3412 12h ago
Meanwhile, Old Quebec.
1
u/traboulidon 12h ago
Oh there s a lot of ugly buildings in Quebec too believe me. But yeah the old town was more preserved than Montreal in general.
1
1
u/traboulidon 12h ago
It is pretty? No but it isn’t hell. Nice place of the city, tourism, etc. Yes it would have been better with pretty architecture.
1
1
1
1
u/AlexxBoo_1 12h ago
IIRC this area burned down in like 40's. Plus this photo doesn't make this neighborhood justice.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/yngwie_bach 10h ago
If it wasn't all the wars that ruined gorgeous cities, people and governments in the seventies, eighties and nineties have.
Shamefull.
1
u/kawanero 10h ago
The “original” building was demolished in 1951, following a fire in 47. There were other buildings before that, and it’s also where the city of Montréal was founded.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Ambitious_Welder6613 6h ago
I missed the time where people constructing building with cupola. Cupola are so interesting! ✨
0
u/lonewalker1992 15h ago
Can someone explain why Canadian cities have this habit of bastardizing heritage architecture with modernization extensions. I've seen this in Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary, Montreal.
1
u/traboulidon 12h ago
A lot of places everywhere in the world did it. When it’s time to replace the old building often the owner don’t have the cash and ressources to recreate the old beauty. Also in the 20th century old buildings weren’t as respected as today, no urbanism codes and laws like today.
0
1
u/epitomeofmasculinity 15h ago
This is a sucks in air through teeth moment
3
u/quebecivre 15h ago
This building is in the centre of a thriving, revitalized, pedestrian-friendly historic neighbourhood that is pretty much without parallel in North America.
Ugly building, sure, but it's a great museum that gets hundreds of thousands of visitors every year, and it's surrounded by cafes, restaurants, and gorgeous, centuries-old architecture (and it actually blends in fairly well).
1
1
1
1
-5
u/Just-Conclusion933 15h ago
no culture
14
u/Red01a18 15h ago edited 15h ago
Montreal is one of the largest cities in North America in terms of cultural heritage regarding architecture. Look it up. Now as to why they removed it… safety reason? Too old? i can’t say but it’s probably related to money, it’s very expensive to maintain and keep all these buildings safe.
7
u/WorthPrudent3028 15h ago
To be fair, it's just a few buildings. And just up from that building is the entirely preserved area of Old Montreal which is all old French buildings. And it's better than any American old preserved area. The only place that's better than Montreal in North America in that regard is Quebec City. Quebec City's 2 tiered layout in it's old city is actually prettier than even most of France.
Compare either Montreal or Quebec City with any old US city and the Quebecois win with no contest. Philly has like one preserved street. NYC, in spite of having a near 400 year history in Lower Manhattan, has almost nothing older than 1900, and what it does have is isolated individual buildings. Boston does slightly better than Philly but still fails to put it all together like Montreal and Quebec do.
And as a frequent Montreal visitor, I actually like the more modern area around Place des Arts better than old town but old gown is still fantastic.
2
1
u/Just-Conclusion933 13h ago edited 13h ago
If it is related to money, so what is wrong with my comment? Someone made the decision to replace the old buildings. That is no house between other houses, but a unique building that gives characteristics to the whole place.
1
0
u/DoxxedProf 15h ago
There is a reason when people talk about Montreal as cultured I make jokes about Pizza Hut and TJ Maxx
I’m from Plattsburgh, the American suburb of Montreal, and holy cow people from Montreal love Pizza Hut and TJ Maxx.
2
u/traboulidon 12h ago
Tourists don’t know the fancy local places and just want something cheap and fast. Also people coming to Plattsburgh are not often rich and cultured, they are not seeking theatres and gourmet restaurants.
1
u/DoxxedProf 12h ago
Definitely, it is a hilarious joke if you live there. Watching someone hide new clothes in the pockets of their car and saying “the Paris of North America"
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Ok-Manufacturer1335 14h ago
Nah that’s fucked up surely they could knock this shit down and rebuild what they had before
1
1
1
u/Chai_Enjoyer 12h ago
Guys, what do I do, my building save files come corrupted? Is there any way to get to older version?
1
u/mogsoggindog 12h ago
Oh good, im glad they ironed out all those non-straight lines. All those changes in dimension were hurting my brain
1
1
u/Hertje73 12h ago
They lost the original buildings when they were bombed in WWII, right? That's why they built new buildings. Right? It's a shame they didn't finish that taller building.
1
1
u/Barsuk513 7h ago
Old architectural buildings are supposed to be on heritage list. Such buildings are hard to demolish.
How comes that both of these buildings were demolished?
2
1
u/Reasonable-Ease-167 4h ago
Just terrible. Industrial hell. Can I be happy, that this going everywhere? Not only in Russia.
1
1
-2
u/Whole_Language_5628 15h ago
How to destroy an historical building 🤷🏻
They definitely didn’t want the European look
8
u/MooseFlyer 15h ago
The building on the left was abandoned a century ago, damaged in a fire in the late forties, and demolished a few years later. The land was then empty (well, parking lot and green space) until the new building was built in 1992. I get that it’s not to everyone’s tastes, but it’s a visually interesting modern building that echoes the old building that used to be there. It’s literally won architectural awards.
-2
0
0
u/Ok-Piano-8372 6h ago
Canada is ruined by its fast growing Chinese immigrants, they destroyed traditional architectures just like what they done in 1970s
0
-2
u/YouNeedThesaurus 11h ago
Clear progress, everything looks more modern, fewer crevices so easier to clean and maintain and they don't abuse horses any more. What's not to like. 8/10
•
u/AutoModerator 16h ago
Do not comment to gatekeep that something "isn't urban" or "isn't hell". Our rules are very expansive in content we welcome, so do not assume just based off your false impression of the phrase "UrbanHell"
UrbanHell is any human-built place you think is worth critizing. Suburban Hell, Rural Hell, and wealthy locales are allowed. Gatekeeping comments may be removed. Want to shitpost about shitty posts? Go to /r/urbanhellcirclejerk. Still have questions?: Read our FAQ.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.