I'd go with 'distingtive' as it breaks some expectations. "Ugly" is not a usefull description as it's very individual. I wouldn't be surprised though if european sensubilites skew diffrently than, say american.
I'd argue this very firmly meets the expectations of a class of small cars where being distinctive matters (almost) as much as being compact, and certainly more than having it look the way bigger cars are expected to.
With the 2CV, Mini Cooper and the Smart cars as the most prominent early examples, but there are a bunch of other cars in this segment pushing down towards the 100"/2.5m length mark now, and a lot of the newer design aesthetics in this segment seems to involve intentionally signalling that it's part of this segment by an exaggerated "compressed" look (compare the Mini Cooper, that just looks like a small but relatively normal car, to e.g. the Smart ForTwo or the Ami, that both looks like they've been squashed).
This is intentional signalling to a customer segment that wants that type of car.
Yeah, it is distinctive but not in a good way, compare it to next cheapest model[1] it's way better and normal looking. Their other cars design are over top, specially that the parent company own Citroën, Peugeot, DS, Opel and Vauxhall.
The Tesla Model S was probably the first contemporary US car design that I actually thought looked nice (although my first reaction was "That new model of Ford Mondeo looks really nice").
I'd say infantile more than anything. It looks like a fisher-price preschool toy. Or like one of the little tikes children's pedal cars. Kind of fitting in a cynical sense, I guess.
