[Pyro7480]

Even my liberal friends when I was in college could tell the difference. We would always joke that if we ever became rich, we'd pay the University to tear down the building that were built from the 1960s until the early 1990s.

Contrast this:

With this:

[the invisib1e hand]

I’ve seen a lot worse. don’t get me started on architecture.

[Tax-chick]

bttt

[SoCal Pubbie]

Can you articulate why the second structure is less pleasing to you than the first, or is just a general rejection of anything that does not have easily recognizable architectural features such as a pediment, Doric columns, etc?

I am a designer and for the life of me I cannot understand why everyone wants to wear the latest fashions, drive the newest looking cars, show off the most high tech electronics, but still wants to live in structures straight out of the 1700's.

[Between the Lines]

I really can’t believe that you posted that first picture as an example of a beautiful building. That building is the definition of ugly.

Whoever designed that building knew how to make it symmetrical and that is all. The doors are out of proportion - much too tall, the stairs should not span the width of the portico, but should only be in front of the doors. It would be ok to have the stairs as they are if there were doors, windows or a decorative niche between the columns on either side. But as it is, the stairs draw ones eyes forward and upward into a blank wall. The sidewalk would look better if it were the same width as the stairs too. The pediment also has absolutely no adornment. Even a simple vent would have been an improvement there.

Sorry, but that does not come anywhere near to being a beautiful building.