Bad British architecture named and shamed

31 August 2009 | by Gemma Battenbough

The ugly, the shameful and the downright hideous in British building has been named and shamed in a competition devoted to taking the ego out of architecture. Building Design’s Carbuncle Cup, named after Prince Charles’ famous 1984 “carbuncle” speech, is the country’s only competition for shining examples of bad architecture nominated by readers.

This year’s winner is the Liverpool Ferry Terminal (pictured above) by Belfast-based Hamilton Architects, “building so ugly it can turn human flesh to stone or at the very least make grown men cry,” says Building Design.

Readers nominated buildings with the final decision made by three judges, BD’s buildings editor Ellis Woodman, architecture critic Owen Hatherley and architect Sean Griffiths of Fat.

Above: Liverpool Ferry Terminal by Belfast-based Hamilton Architects, Below: Make’s Amenity building for Nottingham University; Queen Margaret University campus, Lothian, by Dyer Associates.

Just in:

Add a comment2 Comments

Steffan Barnes | 20 November, 2009 at 11:02 PM
You might be interested in learning that we have a controversial building plan that is set to destroy one of the most protected areas in our district. The building works has been pushed through and despite record objections is set to go ahead. The ferry port is set to destroy the only remaining full length promenade, an art Deco swimming pool (again unique and one of one a handful left) an 18th century peer (they intend to extend it to almost twice the length but use concrete) and their not going to relocate the 18th century lighthouse... so it will be stuck in the middle of the pier. All this controversy and I bet you wouldn't expect to find out that Prince Charles has an interest in this. Yes it goes against all of his principles.... So far thousands of local residents have objected against the building work but the council have ignored the objections. Our local MP has objected and every.... yes every councillor for our town has objected.... but still it goes ahead.
Ivan | 1 September, 2009 at 04:01 PM
Hopefully a critical minority will not be permitted to demolish something that actually presents a real example of a human generation, regardless if it was famous or not. Many builidngs can appear ugly as result of location, immediate surroundings, site detailing lack of landscaping. Many buildings if removed from surroundings & landscape would fail the test of beauty in the eye of the beholder! Landscape is oftent the answer to a so called eyesore! Look carefully & you will find built into them inspiration from sculpture, fashion, industry, nature etc. All a link in human activity that occours in every generation. The new ugly & dangerous has arrived with buildings that look about to fall, are hanging over like some cliff about to break off. Some new designs that encourage disaster by removing natural balance & centre of gravity etc. Others with forms, detailing & materials that are ugly as well as dangerous in composition to human use, especially in situations of emergency & impact. Some call it "constructivism"