I appreciate brutalist architecture for what it is, and I think that they are an absolutely valuable part of architectural history. In Japan, the raw concrete aesthetic is in vogue at the moment,...
I appreciate brutalist architecture for what it is, and I think that they are an absolutely valuable part of architectural history. In Japan, the raw concrete aesthetic is in vogue at the moment, along with bare wood, I think as a response to the pastel and plastic of the late Shōwa and early Heisei eras.
With that said, I hate it and I think it ages poorly if it isn't CONSTANTLY kept free of dirt and mold. Brand new, adorned with greenery and natural light, I think it can look quite nice, but being around brutalist architecture gets really depressing really fast for me. I spent this past winter in Moscow, and while there was a certain, sad sort of beauty to the old soviet era buildings in the snow against the warm glow of the streetlights, I can't say that I'd want to spend my life around them.
Exactly. When it gets old, which everything does, it gets particularly shit. Companies won't fork out the dough for these buildings to be cleaned often enough to prevent them becoming grimy...
Exactly. When it gets old, which everything does, it gets particularly shit. Companies won't fork out the dough for these buildings to be cleaned often enough to prevent them becoming grimy suicide fuel.
If more of these mastodons are going to be erected, I hope they at least employ some of that exciting coloured concrete. So many commercial buildings in the UK are built out of a mixture of grey concrete and red, brown or dyssentary-coloured brickwork. Then they plop down some flowerbeds composed of saplings in wood shavings, more to provide a litter buffer than anything else, and call it a day. I don't want to work there, I don't want to live there, I don't even want to look at it. It's shit.
I guess the bombed-out parts of post-war Europe needed replacement buildings up and quick and cheap. No idea what America's excuse was. That's all I can think of, because I struggle to understand...
I guess the bombed-out parts of post-war Europe needed replacement buildings up and quick and cheap. No idea what America's excuse was. That's all I can think of, because I struggle to understand anyone thinking they look good. To be honest, if it were my decision, I might have had a lot of architects jailed.
Ugly Brutalism in America came up mostly in the 60s and early 70s. It's not a coincidence that it became popular during the height of student protest culture, activism, and urban violence. The...
Ugly Brutalism in America came up mostly in the 60s and early 70s. It's not a coincidence that it became popular during the height of student protest culture, activism, and urban violence. The buildings were designed specifically to combat riot/crowd control. Their explicit design goals included discouraging loitering, disabling the ability to gather in large crowds, cut off side-paths and criss-crossing routes, minimize shade, etc. Basically, all the stuff that promotes urban vitality and character these buildings were designed to kneecap.
In places where this wasn't the explicit design detection the brutalist buildings look fine. The style is associated with the architectural goals of the time that don't have as much to do with anything inherent to the style itself.
Not that universities haven't made architectural choices to hamper student protests, but I'm pretty sure Brutalism being used to do so is something of a myth. I'm on mobile at the moment, so when...
It's not the brutalism was used to do it, it's that brutalism was ascendant as an aesthetic at the same time these pressures were being demanded of architects so a lot of the brutalism we see...
It's not the brutalism was used to do it, it's that brutalism was ascendant as an aesthetic at the same time these pressures were being demanded of architects so a lot of the brutalism we see reflects that sensibility and is responsible for a lot of the negative associations people have with it.
I'm relying pretty heavily on this one article, but it does mention that most of these buildings were planned or even completed before the rise in student protests in the 60s and 70s, mostly as a...
I'm relying pretty heavily on this one article, but it does mention that most of these buildings were planned or even completed before the rise in student protests in the 60s and 70s, mostly as a way of seeming more modern. I can completely understand students having negative associations with brutalism if they were what was present when protests were being cracked down on, but kind of doubt that architects intentionally designed their buildings to oppress student populations.
I might be a tad biased though: I'm far too young to have ever participated in any of these protests, and I do quite like brutalism :P
Edit: Although, my first link is to an article talking about design choices that were intentionally for the handicapping of protests. Maybe the convoluted pathways, lack of shade, etc. that you mention were later additions that got unfortunately associated with brutalism, merely because brutalist buildings were what was already there?
I think brutalism does well as an answer to the complex facades of the 19th century, which was after all, what it was developed for. But I can't imagine that living in a city full of such...
I think brutalism does well as an answer to the complex facades of the 19th century, which was after all, what it was developed for. But I can't imagine that living in a city full of such buildings is good for the head. I'd certainly not have a good effect on me, and at least in the Czech Republic much work has been done to reclaim former brutalist buildings into something better, even if that means just splattering paint on them, and it does really make a difference.
I think that there is a healthy middle ground to be found here, something like the buildings you find in Prague or Vienna. The buildings there aren't over complicated but not depressive.
It's nice to hear what other people see in Brutalism (I've never really understood it), thanks for sharing this! Though I still don't see the beauty in these buildings - they can look fine when...
It's nice to hear what other people see in Brutalism (I've never really understood it), thanks for sharing this!
Though I still don't see the beauty in these buildings - they can look fine when new, but are utterly depressing with age.
I appreciate brutalist architecture for what it is, and I think that they are an absolutely valuable part of architectural history. In Japan, the raw concrete aesthetic is in vogue at the moment, along with bare wood, I think as a response to the pastel and plastic of the late Shōwa and early Heisei eras.
With that said, I hate it and I think it ages poorly if it isn't CONSTANTLY kept free of dirt and mold. Brand new, adorned with greenery and natural light, I think it can look quite nice, but being around brutalist architecture gets really depressing really fast for me. I spent this past winter in Moscow, and while there was a certain, sad sort of beauty to the old soviet era buildings in the snow against the warm glow of the streetlights, I can't say that I'd want to spend my life around them.
Exactly. When it gets old, which everything does, it gets particularly shit. Companies won't fork out the dough for these buildings to be cleaned often enough to prevent them becoming grimy suicide fuel.
If more of these mastodons are going to be erected, I hope they at least employ some of that exciting coloured concrete. So many commercial buildings in the UK are built out of a mixture of grey concrete and red, brown or dyssentary-coloured brickwork. Then they plop down some flowerbeds composed of saplings in wood shavings, more to provide a litter buffer than anything else, and call it a day. I don't want to work there, I don't want to live there, I don't even want to look at it. It's shit.
I guess the bombed-out parts of post-war Europe needed replacement buildings up and quick and cheap. No idea what America's excuse was. That's all I can think of, because I struggle to understand anyone thinking they look good. To be honest, if it were my decision, I might have had a lot of architects jailed.
Ugly Brutalism in America came up mostly in the 60s and early 70s. It's not a coincidence that it became popular during the height of student protest culture, activism, and urban violence. The buildings were designed specifically to combat riot/crowd control. Their explicit design goals included discouraging loitering, disabling the ability to gather in large crowds, cut off side-paths and criss-crossing routes, minimize shade, etc. Basically, all the stuff that promotes urban vitality and character these buildings were designed to kneecap.
In places where this wasn't the explicit design detection the brutalist buildings look fine. The style is associated with the architectural goals of the time that don't have as much to do with anything inherent to the style itself.
Not that universities haven't made architectural choices to hamper student protests, but I'm pretty sure Brutalism being used to do so is something of a myth. I'm on mobile at the moment, so when I get back to my computer I'll see if I can find more/better sources.
It's not the brutalism was used to do it, it's that brutalism was ascendant as an aesthetic at the same time these pressures were being demanded of architects so a lot of the brutalism we see reflects that sensibility and is responsible for a lot of the negative associations people have with it.
I'm relying pretty heavily on this one article, but it does mention that most of these buildings were planned or even completed before the rise in student protests in the 60s and 70s, mostly as a way of seeming more modern. I can completely understand students having negative associations with brutalism if they were what was present when protests were being cracked down on, but kind of doubt that architects intentionally designed their buildings to oppress student populations.
I might be a tad biased though: I'm far too young to have ever participated in any of these protests, and I do quite like brutalism :P
Edit: Although, my first link is to an article talking about design choices that were intentionally for the handicapping of protests. Maybe the convoluted pathways, lack of shade, etc. that you mention were later additions that got unfortunately associated with brutalism, merely because brutalist buildings were what was already there?
I think brutalism does well as an answer to the complex facades of the 19th century, which was after all, what it was developed for. But I can't imagine that living in a city full of such buildings is good for the head. I'd certainly not have a good effect on me, and at least in the Czech Republic much work has been done to reclaim former brutalist buildings into something better, even if that means just splattering paint on them, and it does really make a difference.
I think that there is a healthy middle ground to be found here, something like the buildings you find in Prague or Vienna. The buildings there aren't over complicated but not depressive.
It's nice to hear what other people see in Brutalism (I've never really understood it), thanks for sharing this!
Though I still don't see the beauty in these buildings - they can look fine when new, but are utterly depressing with age.
Similar article in the same vein: Why Brutalism and Instagram don't mix