The bizarre porous exterior of MIT’s Simmons Hall student house was not to the liking of a group of Swedish architects from the organisation Architectural Uprising. Created in 2014, the organisation has been criticising the ugly and impractical architecture of our time for years. The anti-modernists believe that the ideal of architecture is that which is classical, uplifting and stunningly beautiful. However, is Simmons Hall really the ugliest building in the United States?
Aesthetic cruelty
Recently, the profiles of anti-modern movements have been gathering large followings. The wave of opposition to modern architecture by a few architects has given rise to organisations such as Architectural Uprising, which has declared war against the ugliness of modern buildings. Urban planning of cities created for cars and environmentally damaging practices are also on the movement’s target. The organisation itself has more than a dozen branches in various countries in Europe, Asia and the Americas. In turn, the voice of praise for classical architecture is becoming more and more audible, and the thoughts of the anti-modernists are finding sympathisers among ordinary people.
Although the Architectural Uprising awards for the ugliest building have been given for several years, it was not until 2025 that the title ‘Aesthetic Atrocity’ was created for buildings in the United States. The first ‘winner’ of this infamous competition was the Simmons Hall student residence in the neighbouring city of Boston, Cambridge. The building is part of the newer developments at the prestigious MIT technical college. It is worth mentioning that the Architectural Uprising awards are inspired by the British Carbuncle Cup competition, which you can read about HERE and HERE.
Metal sponge
Built in 2002, the ten-storey building is a design by American architect Steven Holl, who was inspired by the porous structure of a sponge. The shape of the building was computer-generated, and the arrangement of rows of small windows allows for adequate light into the rooms. Interestingly, the faults in the base of the building correspond to the location of the main entrances. The grey aluminium façade was varied with coloured panels inserted around the windows.
The interior of the building also sticks to the perforated grilles and panels. Irregular holes have even been carved into the furniture. The walls, ceilings and floors, on the other hand, are dominated by concrete of varying textures. Additional sunlight is let in through large skylights mounted above the concrete canyons. The porosity also applies to the ceilings, which, according to the architect, completes the whole and alludes to natural forms. Inside, there are 350 rooms, a canteen, a night café and a theatre.
A barbaric perspective?
Anti-Modernists believe that Simmons Hall identifies all the negative features of modern architecture. The building ‘stings the eye’ with its twisted façade and is an example of colossal, inhuman architecture. In addition to this, attention has been drawn to the clumsy massing of the building and the careless arrangement of windows. Furthermore, the layout of the building is said to be impractical and depressing. The experts’ verdict on the architecture of the student house came at this year’s ‘Beauty and Ugliness in Architecture’ conference in Oslo.
Steven Holl referred to the award received by his project. The architect believes that the MIT students like the building and are all happy to live in the Simmons Hall student residence. Finally, he added that the perspective of Architectural Uprising coincides with that presented by the “barbaric president (Donald Trump)”.
It can be done differently
There are bound to be even newer and even uglier buildings in the United States than Simmons Hall. However, it must be acknowledged that while the usability of the student residence may not be as big a problem as assumed, the inhuman scale and lack of flair in the facade design make the building simply ugly. For this reason, the building represents many of the flaws of contemporary architecture, which can sometimes disfigure a space. However, would a return to classical patterns fix all the problems? If we assume that classical styles are to return as the default architectural order, then the answer to the question is ‘no’ due to cost and practicality. Nevertheless, the anti-modernists defend their position with studies talking about the harmful effects of post-war urbanism and depressed buildings.
In recent days, supporters of classical architecture have mourned the death of Léon Krier, one of the most prominent architects and urbanists of conservative architecture. He was a man who showed builders and even the King of Britain that it was still possible to build pleasant, functional and pretty cities without erecting colossal blocks of flats. Krier was an advocate of human-scale buildings, sensible housing prices and pedestrianised streets. While it is difficult to see his ideas as universal, successful urban projects such as Poundbury and Cayala show that the anti-modernists may have a bit of a point.
Source: Architectural Uprising
Also read: Architecture | Curiosities | Block | United States | whiteMAD on Instagram
