Architectural Digest is what people use to describe a beautifully designed home, as in the home is AD worthy. So the magazine has a certain authority when it comes to architecture.
Then they published an articled called 30 ugliest skyscrapers in the world and I started having doubts on their previously untenable position. First of all, the title and content are more Buzzfeed than Home & Garden. Some of those 30 supposed eyesores aren’t even skyscrapers–there are tv towers and low rise buildings.
The Belarus National Library for instance, is not a skyscraper.
Nor is the Longaberger Basket building in Ohio.
Some of the monsters I personally find rather charming and nothing approaching ugly, like that basket building. Or the Elephant building in Bangkok. Or the Lloyds building in London, which is one of the most distinguishing in the City.
There are buildings that reflect national characteristic, like the Belarus library above. Or they are examples of architecture in their respective era, like the MetLife building in NYC, completed in 1963. And what about the Palace of Culture and Science in Warsaw, completed in 1955. I think it looks suitably grand.
Admittedly there are a few duds. The horrible gold Trump Tower in Las Vegas, the Tour Montparnasse in Paris and the Russian Embassy in Havana all stray into eyesore territory.
The National Fisheries Development Board building in Hyderabad isn’t ugly as being too cute for its own good. There’s nothing wrong with it though, except it can never be used for another purpose. It’ll be the laughingstock of the architecture community if a fish-shaped building is used for, say, space research or a hospital.
And to tarnish the clickbait article even further, eagle eyed commenters on the mefi thread even found an error, that the Fernsehturm in Berlin they show is not, in fact, the right building. Ooops.