I agree that this building needs some natural light, but I don’t think it’s lack of fenestration makes it ugly. This white monolith sports a very rigorous, classic modernist composition; it is strongly expressive of structure and volume, and has a nice, clean, unspoiled surface. While I would never, ever want to work inside this building, I think it’s an interesting piece of 70’s late modernism, but is unfortunately characteristic of the type of architecture that postmodernism revolted against. Thank you, John, for so beautifully documenting this building; as it will undoubtedly be altered or replaced in the years to come.

Ugliest buildings in Raleigh? Easy: all the Wal-Marts.

mark – thank you for your thoughtful and insightful response. I agree it is quite expressive of its structure and volume, but sometimes less is more. It seems to shout out “look at how large and geometric I am!” I also agree it is an interesting artifact of that era of modernism.
While I may think it ugly, it is nonetheless a part of Raleigh–much like a sibling or child who may not be much to look at.

m. lail – I can share your sentiment somewhat with Harrelson Hall, but much of its ugliness lies on the inside rather than the outside.

raleighrob – yes, you got me. In posing the question I certainly was not factoring in the structures built by corporations/chain stores located outside of Raleigh. I also was vague about “Raleigh” and not specifically mentioning the downtown area.

So, if you had to chose the ugliest building in downtown Raleigh, what would it be?

John, it definitely does shout “look at how large and geometric I am!” I Stumbled! this blog post, a good read which may be relevant to this discussion. Perhaps some day this building could be rehabilitated. I think it would be nice to perforate the surface and reskin it with glass. Makes me think of that Duda/Paine project on Glenwood Ave or Cameron Village Library — both great adaptive reuse projects, while I’m sure this building would be much more difficult to rehabilitate than the others, it could yield much more interesting results.

An old UNC English professor, describing Greenlaw, the English Department building, called it a “waffle ice cream cone,” and that’s what this building looks like to me. ( I live 3 blocks away).

While I don’t love the Bath Building, it is easily surpassed in ugliness by thousands of stores and houses across Wake County made of cinder blocks and fake stucco and vinyl and styrofoam.

The Bath Building is worthy of preservation as perhaps Raleigh’s best example of the Brutalist style of architecture. This style was founded by Le Corbusier, and became popular in the 1950s and 1960s. The term “brutalist” derives from the French word for raw, as in raw concrete, a material favored by Le Corbusier and other architects of the style. Many of the buildings in the style do have a brutal aspect, so the term stuck.

I don’t like the Bath building’s unfriendly relationship with the finely detailed historic houses facing Blount St. But it is actually a much better building than the plain white box across Lane St. The Bath Building is ugly in its own handsome way.

I have to agree with Matt Brown about the redeeming features of the Brutalist design. The empty lots next to it just need some infill to give it better context. A number of government buildings near it look worse.

The windowless AT&T box beats everything downtown by a mile.

I agree that the Bath building isn’t very attractive but it does have a simple form of charm . The main thing that bugs me about this building (I wonder if anyone has noticed this as well) but those rows off blocks that make up the to portion of the facade is a huge dust and dirt collector. I just want to go up to that and power wash it. It’s almost like those “waffle” squares suck in all dust and dirt particles from the air.

You should see this baby on the inside…

The building houses labs, exclusively DHHS labs I believe. A wonderfully scaled piece of brutalism.

I won’t be sorry to see the Garland Jones Building crumble, but “thrilled” would be overstating it. The expense of replacing it alone would take the thrill out of that.

And there are certainly enough examples of bland and ugly to go around. The Archdale Building, and the Albemarle Building would have to be included in the former category. Those two are about as institutional as they get. Beside either of them, the Bath Building is a work of art. And aside from the cost, I can’t say I was sorry to see the old Civic Center go. Though the new one doesn’t thrill me all that much either.

The Pink Palace had to have been designed by the same firm that built the Forum I, II, III, IV, and V buildings out in North Raleigh. Probably several others too. Not attractive, but not the top of the ugly tree exactly.

i dunno, john, i think i like this building, especially after hearing mr. mcdowell’s statements! ugliest? hmm those new mcdonald’s restaurants on peace/boylan and western come to mind

I would call this one of the 3 decent looking buildings in the state government complex. The Archdale and the Legislative building are the other two, and you might notice that all 3 work in the context of each other. It’s those other buildings that need to go.

Don’t they store viruses like Ebola and Smallpox in this building? I don’t mind the lack of windows if that is the case.