50 Massive Eyesore Buildings That Prove Architects Lost Sight Of Design And Aesthetics

Ugliness is subjective. What may be visually unappealing for one person may not be the case for another. However, in terms of architecture, there appears to be a consensus on aesthetic standards. 

Take, for example, the Boston City Hall building. Built in 1968, the structure has garnered controversy for its brutalist architecture, which many people have not been fond of.

The Boston City Hall was so poorly received due to its appearance that Buildworld ranked it second on its list of the world's ugliest buildings. It sat behind Washington D.C.’s J. Edgar Hoover Building in the top spot and the Verizon Building in New York City at number three. 

However, in the strangest turn of events, the Boston City Hall building received landmark designation at the start of the year. Mayor Michelle Yu described it as a symbol of the city’s resilience, innovation, and commitment to their constituents.

The doomed World Trade Center twin towers were once a symbol of New York City. However, upon their completion in the mid-1970s, New Yorkers were not pleased with the design. 

''Architectural historians and art critics were mostly unimpressed,' Rutgers University professor Dr. Angus Gillespie told the New York Times in a March 20o1 interview. ''They called it banal, boring, unimaginative.''

Many “unattractive” buildings fall under the category of brutalist architecture. It’s a design style that emerged in the 1950s, characterized by massive, block-like structures typically made of raw concrete. Functionality is the primary goal over aesthetics. 

This style of architecture had become so unappealing that it saw a decline in the 1970s and 1980s. According to Designing Buildings, people criticized it for being “unwelcoming and inhuman.” 

However, brutalist architecture is making a slow comeback in 2025. It has become a popular hashtag on social media, showcasing various structures of this particular style worldwide. GQ journalist Brad Dunning likened it to techno music, describing it as “stark and menacing.” 

“Maybe the movement has come roaring back into style because permanence is particularly attractive in our chaotic and crumbling world,” he wrote.