If that video is correct and brutalism is making a comeback then I’m pretty excited. As mentioned in the video brutalism isn’t very popular today, but just this morning I walked past a couple of...
If that video is correct and brutalism is making a comeback then I’m pretty excited. As mentioned in the video brutalism isn’t very popular today, but just this morning I walked past a couple of brutalist buildings on my errands and they really stand out by being much more interesting than their neighbours despite being 50+ years older. I can’t say I really like the standard rectangle building in the brutalism style, but these have overhangs and slopes and interesting geometric sections that you can explore from afar.
I tend to prefer brutalist buildings over glass and steel “international style” buildings that always seemed built for somebody else’s eyes. Brutalist buildings show their bones and often come in...
I tend to prefer brutalist buildings over glass and steel “international style” buildings that always seemed built for somebody else’s eyes. Brutalist buildings show their bones and often come in drab colors that are representative of local rock.
I’m one of those who don’t like brutalism. I find it usually makes the spaces around them feel very inhospitable. In some cases, it just makes the exteriors feel downright alien. A few years ago...
I’m one of those who don’t like brutalism. I find it usually makes the spaces around them feel very inhospitable. In some cases, it just makes the exteriors feel downright alien.
A few years ago my local community college completed construction on buildings with exteriors that are in what I would consider to be neo-brutalist in nature. They are mostly concrete but have accents of steel and wood veneer. The spaces between them are enriched with greenery. I think it’s a pretty good look overall, especially because it uses aesthetic complications sparingly enough that it still has character but doesn’t overdo it like I saw in many of those example photos. The only thing I really didn’t like about it is the concrete benches outside. They are cold and uncomfortable, and in the morning they are wet in a way you can’t just brush off because it soaks into the pores of the material. I can’t imagine why anyone would design something you are supposed to sit on out of an abrasive substance.
There is a whole branch of design that strives to make a space inviting to visit but not linger. A bench that is comfortable to rest for 5 minutes but starts getting uncomfortable after 10 is...
There is a whole branch of design that strives to make a space inviting to visit but not linger. A bench that is comfortable to rest for 5 minutes but starts getting uncomfortable after 10 is probably exactly what they wanted. It also goes along with keeping homeless folks from sleeping there too.
It's in a college campus with security patrols walking around, so I really doubt that's what they were going for in this particular application. Though I wouldn't entirely rule it out either.
It's in a college campus with security patrols walking around, so I really doubt that's what they were going for in this particular application. Though I wouldn't entirely rule it out either.
I always felt Brutalism works better in the tropics. Our public housing estates in Singapore draw a lot from Le Corbusier, especially the ones built in the 70s though the newer ones look more elegant.
I always felt Brutalism works better in the tropics. Our public housing estates in Singapore draw a lot from Le Corbusier, especially the ones built in the 70s though the newer ones look more elegant.
When designers in non-tropical climates use greenery to make an otherwise ugly brutalist structure look palatable, they're dooming locals to a wintertime of depressing architecture. Evergreens are...
When designers in non-tropical climates use greenery to make an otherwise ugly brutalist structure look palatable, they're dooming locals to a wintertime of depressing architecture. Evergreens are nice but not suited to all soils, and trees cannot be right next to a foundation. Upper floors are even harder to greenify, so it doesn't happen. Pretty much the only alternative is a mural, which I've very rarely seen because it's an additional expense and brutalism seems to take pride in its overbearing starkness. Not all brutalist facades are particularly suited to conventionally decipherable murals anyway due to their excessive corners and occult outcroppings. Half the reason brutalism and minimalist or post-minimalist designs are popular among institutions is to reduce expense. It's a broadly utilitarian, socialistic structure. That's fine and all, but we can't really expect such work to be beautiful. If you want a beautiful building then surely there are better options: ones that are not intentionally jarring, which do not need to be covered up to be acceptable.
My biggest complaint about brutalism is that, with very few exceptions, it is not designed on a human scale. These buildings are meant to be looked at from a distance. The closer you get, the more unpleasant they become: concrete monstrosities, symbols of austere modernity, with little to notice except horrid, uncolorful bricks and dull texture which I do not care for. Almost no brutalist structures contain details that I consider elegant as someone walking on foot. The superstructure may be interesting, but when I walk along the street, I would also like for it to speak to me as an equal. It is physically impossible to see the big picture when you're right next to a structure, so the aesthetic purpose of such a singularly minded design is limited. It's not surprising to me that the architecture became popular in the 1950s, when automobiles became widespread, and the accepted sense of scale went from "human-sized" to "looking at a building from a freeway-sized."
I have always valued stonecarving, complex brickwork, ornate wrought iron, woodworking, and the unpredictable patterns of materials like marble, especially when any of those details have symbolic value. It gives the place you live in more character, more life, and more reality. Brutalism employes quite a lot of concrete and rarely bothers with such trivialities. Certainly an artisan can work concrete into something interesting, but they almost never do. These buildings have much artistic merit but they are just not something I like to see on a regular basis. Designs like the Pinnacle in Singapore posted above are a major improvement over the Soviet-era gargantuans I tend to see, mostly because they have more and better placed windows, and feel more finished. If more brutalism must be ahead, I'll take that and some paint, thanks.
Wow, painting brutalist style buildings makes such a remarkable difference. I really like that! TBH, I like brutalist architecture anyways, but seeing the buildings painted all vibrantly like that...
Wow, painting brutalist style buildings makes such a remarkable difference. I really like that! TBH, I like brutalist architecture anyways, but seeing the buildings painted all vibrantly like that is really something special.
It's super easy to do "big rectangular slab" brutalism which is kind of ugly. There are some really good brutalist buildings around though. The real masters of brutalism are (of course) the Swiss,...
It's super easy to do "big rectangular slab" brutalism which is kind of ugly. There are some really good brutalist buildings around though. The real masters of brutalism are (of course) the Swiss, who love concrete. I am semi-convinced that the building regulations requiring all buildings to resist up to a magnitude 7 earthquake are there to encourage more concrete construction. Interestingly, Swiss universities are generally built in a Swiss classical style (and not brutalist).
There is also e.g. the Barbican (which served as Coruscant housing estate in Star Wars Andor) in the UK which is well worth a visit. It has a great theatre as well. And of course also the Trellick Tower
A lot of glass and steel modern buildings tend to look like boring, ugly, shitty wastes of material to me, but brutalist architecture is something far worse. Anyone who's been to London and...
A lot of glass and steel modern buildings tend to look like boring, ugly, shitty wastes of material to me, but brutalist architecture is something far worse. Anyone who's been to London and personally witnessed the legacy of brutalist architecture can agree that the people responsible for birthing and erecting those monuments to misery shouldn't be walking free. I haven't seen many examples that I wouldn't support locking the architects away for, or worse.
If you're going to build something that's meant to last for decades, then the least you can do is make it pleasant to look at and live in rather than something that makes people desperately seek the sweet release of heroin or death.
If that video is correct and brutalism is making a comeback then I’m pretty excited. As mentioned in the video brutalism isn’t very popular today, but just this morning I walked past a couple of brutalist buildings on my errands and they really stand out by being much more interesting than their neighbours despite being 50+ years older. I can’t say I really like the standard rectangle building in the brutalism style, but these have overhangs and slopes and interesting geometric sections that you can explore from afar.
I tend to prefer brutalist buildings over glass and steel “international style” buildings that always seemed built for somebody else’s eyes. Brutalist buildings show their bones and often come in drab colors that are representative of local rock.
I’m one of those who don’t like brutalism. I find it usually makes the spaces around them feel very inhospitable. In some cases, it just makes the exteriors feel downright alien.
A few years ago my local community college completed construction on buildings with exteriors that are in what I would consider to be neo-brutalist in nature. They are mostly concrete but have accents of steel and wood veneer. The spaces between them are enriched with greenery. I think it’s a pretty good look overall, especially because it uses aesthetic complications sparingly enough that it still has character but doesn’t overdo it like I saw in many of those example photos. The only thing I really didn’t like about it is the concrete benches outside. They are cold and uncomfortable, and in the morning they are wet in a way you can’t just brush off because it soaks into the pores of the material. I can’t imagine why anyone would design something you are supposed to sit on out of an abrasive substance.
There is a whole branch of design that strives to make a space inviting to visit but not linger. A bench that is comfortable to rest for 5 minutes but starts getting uncomfortable after 10 is probably exactly what they wanted. It also goes along with keeping homeless folks from sleeping there too.
It's in a college campus with security patrols walking around, so I really doubt that's what they were going for in this particular application. Though I wouldn't entirely rule it out either.
I always felt Brutalism works better in the tropics. Our public housing estates in Singapore draw a lot from Le Corbusier, especially the ones built in the 70s though the newer ones look more elegant.
Brutalism needs the lush greenery to balance it. Surround that big concrete building with a forest.
When designers in non-tropical climates use greenery to make an otherwise ugly brutalist structure look palatable, they're dooming locals to a wintertime of depressing architecture. Evergreens are nice but not suited to all soils, and trees cannot be right next to a foundation. Upper floors are even harder to greenify, so it doesn't happen. Pretty much the only alternative is a mural, which I've very rarely seen because it's an additional expense and brutalism seems to take pride in its overbearing starkness. Not all brutalist facades are particularly suited to conventionally decipherable murals anyway due to their excessive corners and occult outcroppings. Half the reason brutalism and minimalist or post-minimalist designs are popular among institutions is to reduce expense. It's a broadly utilitarian, socialistic structure. That's fine and all, but we can't really expect such work to be beautiful. If you want a beautiful building then surely there are better options: ones that are not intentionally jarring, which do not need to be covered up to be acceptable.
My biggest complaint about brutalism is that, with very few exceptions, it is not designed on a human scale. These buildings are meant to be looked at from a distance. The closer you get, the more unpleasant they become: concrete monstrosities, symbols of austere modernity, with little to notice except horrid, uncolorful bricks and dull texture which I do not care for. Almost no brutalist structures contain details that I consider elegant as someone walking on foot. The superstructure may be interesting, but when I walk along the street, I would also like for it to speak to me as an equal. It is physically impossible to see the big picture when you're right next to a structure, so the aesthetic purpose of such a singularly minded design is limited. It's not surprising to me that the architecture became popular in the 1950s, when automobiles became widespread, and the accepted sense of scale went from "human-sized" to "looking at a building from a freeway-sized."
I have always valued stonecarving, complex brickwork, ornate wrought iron, woodworking, and the unpredictable patterns of materials like marble, especially when any of those details have symbolic value. It gives the place you live in more character, more life, and more reality. Brutalism employes quite a lot of concrete and rarely bothers with such trivialities. Certainly an artisan can work concrete into something interesting, but they almost never do. These buildings have much artistic merit but they are just not something I like to see on a regular basis. Designs like the Pinnacle in Singapore posted above are a major improvement over the Soviet-era gargantuans I tend to see, mostly because they have more and better placed windows, and feel more finished. If more brutalism must be ahead, I'll take that and some paint, thanks.
Yeah, they planted lots of trees around most of the buildings.
Wow, painting brutalist style buildings makes such a remarkable difference. I really like that! TBH, I like brutalist architecture anyways, but seeing the buildings painted all vibrantly like that is really something special.
It's super easy to do "big rectangular slab" brutalism which is kind of ugly. There are some really good brutalist buildings around though. The real masters of brutalism are (of course) the Swiss, who love concrete. I am semi-convinced that the building regulations requiring all buildings to resist up to a magnitude 7 earthquake are there to encourage more concrete construction. Interestingly, Swiss universities are generally built in a Swiss classical style (and not brutalist).
There is also e.g. the Barbican (which served as Coruscant housing estate in Star Wars Andor) in the UK which is well worth a visit. It has a great theatre as well. And of course also the Trellick Tower
A lot of glass and steel modern buildings tend to look like boring, ugly, shitty wastes of material to me, but brutalist architecture is something far worse. Anyone who's been to London and personally witnessed the legacy of brutalist architecture can agree that the people responsible for birthing and erecting those monuments to misery shouldn't be walking free. I haven't seen many examples that I wouldn't support locking the architects away for, or worse.
If you're going to build something that's meant to last for decades, then the least you can do is make it pleasant to look at and live in rather than something that makes people desperately seek the sweet release of heroin or death.