16 ms·

Brutalism is Back

170 points by tintinnabula 10y ago

microcolonel 10y ago
>When the Smithsons called their work Brutalist or part of a New Brutalism, the brutality to which they referred had less to do with materials and more to do with honesty: an uncompromising desire to tell it like it is, architecturally speaking. What crock. If it were about telling it how it is, there wouldn't be a bunch of superfluous, structurally challenging lumps coming out of the buildings.
afterburner 10y ago
Brutalist architecture is objectively wrong. It's terrible. Building design review boards, take note. It's not back, it died a quick death and we still see its ugly tombstones littering the landscape. Brutalist concept models must have looked super cool in miniature form though. Blown up to life size? Just a lot of flat, ugly, oppressive, senselessly artless concrete slabs.
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  Compared to what followed, I think I'd pick brutalism. Downtown buildings in cities that mostly grew up in the 80s and 90s are just boring. When I google brutalist building images, I'm struck by how wildly they vary. I don't love them all. But, they've got real personality and originality. Sure, sometimes it is overblown...big shapes in weird places just for the sake of showing off. I find architecture that slaps old forms onto new buildings to be...gross. There's a couple of skyscrapers just outside of Houston, for example, with fucking red shingles on it, like it's an adobe house in the desert or or something. So much architecture glues on a bunch of columns, ornamental lintels, fancy molding, etc. When placed on a structure that is huge, particularly one that is much taller than it is wide, they look ridiculous. I think there are good buildings that were built in almost every era; but, some eras are less ambitious than others. Brutalism was, at least, ambitious. I think there's a reason so much scifi and futurist imaginings feature brutalist architecture. It is an architecture that screams "there are no limits to what we can build!" I think that's pretty cool. It's all subjective, of course, and we all have our preferences. But, calling it "objectively wrong" seems hard to defend. It is only objectively wrong if it fails to function as a building for people to live or work in. If it leaks, if it falls down, if it is difficult to heat and cool, if it inaccessible to the people who need to use the building. Those are ways to measure architectural wrongness objectively. It's safe to say that some brutalist buildings failed to live up to their purpose, but that's true of many architectural projects. Having the style fall out of fashion, due to a reactionary response to the new and very different, and the buildings fall into disrepair because of it, is not really the fault of the architecture. Old buildings get renovated every 20-30 years, or they stop being relevant. This is true of even iconic buildings like the Empire State building. Anyway, I quite like brutalist architecture; I don't mean I like it with no discrimination. I still just buildings on their own merit and being in the right style doesn't mean I'll like it, any more than me saying I really love punk rock means I would ever listen to Green Day or Bad Religion. But, there are brutalist buildings that I find beautiful. And, a lot of stuff that followed that I find horrible.
  - afterburner 10y ago
    Saying "objectively" is strong language, yes. But I think that if a building fails in its aesthetic, or at least at blending in if it's not going to be aesthetically pleasing, then no matter how functionally fine it is, it's a failure. If all we cared about was function, we'd build ugly boxes everywhere. Oh wait, that's practically brutalism anyways. Every brutalist building I've had the displeasure to walk around or be in has been oppressive, and ugly. The buildings we use shouldn't be oppressive and ugly, because we have to use them. If it was only a piece of art, then I can see the worth in evoking those emotions. But I have to live with the damn thing day in and day out, inside it, not just check it out in a gallery in miniature. And there is no reason at all to restrict yourself to architecture after brutalism. The Romans figured it out. The architects of the art deco era figured it out. Those ideas are still valid, they still make for beautiful buildings, and we should reuse good ideas because, again, we have to live with the damn things, day in and day out. We can pick and choose what few ideas were good since then and also include them. Prevailing construction techniques might not always allow for it, but we should try. But some ideas, like brutalist architecture, are a failure, and should never be re-used. I'd rather get a bland design in almost any other style than a brutalist design. That said, feel free to post some examples of your favourite brutalist architecture, maybe I overlooked something. I'll only be judging them from pictures, which is entirely different than actually seeing the thing in person and having to deal with it; the utter bland enormity and lack of detail gets much reduced when shrunk down to a screen, or student model. But it's something. You could probably save most brutalist structures by covering them in beautiful murals. Then at least the vast expanses of no detail at all works to your advantage as a convenient canvas. The Bierpinsel in Berlin is not a bad effort in this regard: http://berlin.citysegwaytours.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BP-CyclingSeries2.jpg http://berlin.citysegwaytours.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/20...
    - taejavu 10y ago
      Saying "objective" isn't just strong language, it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make. You're objectively wrong. Personally, I adore the brutalist aesthetic, for example, everything in this photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg Now I'm sure you'll hate it, and that's not because you've overlooked something, but because we have different tastes, ie, it's subjective.
- maxsilver 10y ago
  > Brutalist architecture is objectively wrong. You may not appreciate it, and that's a fine opinion to hold. But Brutalist architecture can't be "objectively" wrong, for the same reason that the color red can't be "objectively" wrong.
- mrtree 10y ago
  Exactly. Brutalist buildings are in their large majority giant pieces of shit. Please no more of that.
bogomipz 10y ago
Its easy to look at examples from master architects like Khan and Corbusier and extol the virtues of Brutalist Architecture. But for every Khan there are a dozen insipid and unwelcoming municipal courthouses and depressing tower blocks. This presents some good contrasts between the two in New York City alone: https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/iconic-addresses/new-yorks-brutalism-batch-the-good-bad/3003 https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/iconi...
- hilop 10y ago
  I can't see any different between the GOOD and the BAD sections. Some buildings look OK, some look unpleasant or awful.
ProudMexican 10y ago
Brutalism is just ugly, intended or not. It is actually a scandal that public funds were deliberately used to drop these things into cities where they continue to violate the eye to this very day.
carsongross 10y ago
Alienated architects and cheap capitalists make for a pretty awful built environment, don't they? https://www.amazon.com/Bauhaus-Our-House-Tom-Wolfe/dp/0312429142 https://www.amazon.com/Bauhaus-Our-House-Tom-Wolfe/dp/031242...
Pxtl 10y ago
Quake 2 was a really good videogame. Let's leave Brutalist architecture in there where it belongs.
wycx 10y ago
Anyone here worked at the Salk Institute? Are the buildings as good to work in as they are to look at? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salk_Institute_for_Biological_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salk_Institute_for_Biological_...
- et-al 10y ago
  I'm personally hesitant to call Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Brutalist. I know many define Brutalism simply as buildings with large swaths of raw concrete, which probably qualifies 95% of modernist architecture. For me, I consider concrete oppressiveness, a certain level of heaviness, to be involved in Brutalism. The Salk Institute, in contrast, has lightness and openness. I never got a chance to go inside, or work there, but when I visited a few years ago, and it seemed like the offices had generous windows; however the wood frames were definitely weathered and could have used more care. It's was gorgeous to walk around and I recommend somehow scheduling a tour if you happen to be in La Jolla (San Diego). http://www.salk.edu/events/tour-information/ http://www.salk.edu/events/tour-information/
  - PhasmaFelis 10y ago
    > I'm personally hesitant to call Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Brutalist. I know many define Brutalism simply as buildings with large swaths of raw concrete, which probably qualifies 95% of modernist architecture. For me, I consider concrete oppressiveness, a certain level of heaviness, to be involved in Brutalism. The Salk Institute, in contrast, has lightness and openness. It sounds like you're saying "it can't be Brutalist, because it's good." A bit No True Scotsman, perhaps?
    - et-al 10y ago
      Ha, I can see that interpretation. I just think the "raw concrete" definition for Brutalism is too general. If one designs a Deconstructivist building with raw concrete, does it all of a sudden make it Brutalist? Of course the terms aren't mutually exclusive, and we'd probably stroke our chins and mutter "hmmmm.. deconstructivist with brutalist tendencies, eeehhh?" (And personally, I've always enjoyed Brutalist buildings; having studied in a few.)
JonnieCache 10y ago
If you're interested in brutalism I can reccommend these superb documentaries by Jonathan Meades: https://meadesshrine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/bunkers.html https://meadesshrine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/bunkers.html That site has all of his films on there and they're all amazing tbh.
hood_syntax 10y ago
What I like most about architecture like this is the lack of noise. The intention comes through, my senses can focus on the substance rather than its dressing. I only hope that, contrary to what the article says, the revival will not mean losing its soul.
devilsavocado 10y ago
Brutalism came and went fairly quickly as an architectural trend. I feel like it never had much opportunity to develop. As a result, for every great example of brutalist architecture today you can point to 10 others that really are eye-sores. Many Canadian University campuses provide good examples of this: one or two magnificent buildings alongside many others that most people wouldn't mind tearing down.
- pavel_lishin 10y ago
  > As a result, for every great example of brutalist architecture today you can point to 10 others that really are eye-sores. Isn't that just sort of an application of Sturgeon's law? Although I suppose that given how expensive a building is to put up, there's a lot more push back against ugly things.
  - herge 10y ago
    And also, old buildings are prettier on average because the old ugly buildings get torn down and replaced.
    - user5994461 10y ago
      Not sure whether it can apply to this context. The concretes building are fairly recent. Not sure there was enough time to have a sort of "return on investment". And breaking down something of that scale is quite an undertaking.
  - at-fates-hands 10y ago
    Not to mention most of these were made mostly of concrete and steel and built to last a lifetime. Trying to justify tearing down a perfectly fine structure just because its an eye sore becomes a much harder argument to make.
    - throwanem 10y ago
      Concrete has a very hard time lasting more than a few decades anywhere that gets rain, and especially anywhere that gets snow.
nealrs 10y ago
The article totally skips over the fact that brutalism comes from French - Béton brut means concrete. There is nothing 'brutal' or 'brutalizing' about brutalist architecture. I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but words matter. Right?
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  Not sure how they did that tbh. You'd think they'd take five minutes and do a Google search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture The term originates from the French word for "raw" in the term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material béton brut (raw concrete).[1][2] British architectural critic Reyner Banham adapted the term into "brutalism" (originally "New Brutalism") to identify the emerging style. The very first paragraph of the article is completely wrong: it was a term of abuse for the work of architects whose buildings confronted their users — brutalized them — with hulking, piled-up slabs of raw, unfinished concrete. These same architects, centered on the British couple Alison and Peter Smithson, enthusiastically took up Brutalism as the name for their movement with a kind of pride, as if to say: That’s right, we are brutal. We do want to shove your face in cement. This is depressing to think about this revisionist history. This was apart of the modern architectural movement of the 20th century, not some sort of audacious idea of an your face art movement. Just. . .so. . .wrong on so many levels
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Fricken 10y ago
    I'm not seeing the conflict. Brutalism is an english term, embraced by British architects who were fully aware of what it suggested. If they didn't want the term for their brand of architecture to imply brutality, they would have gone with something different. Concretism or Rawchitecture or something, I don't know.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    And yet I find brutalist architecture to be, if not brutal, at least dehumanizing. It's a place that is cold, inhuman (in the sense of being a place where humans don't really fit). Forcing people to live in that environment may not be brutal, but it's kind of cruel, or at least uncaring.
rayiner 10y ago
There was never anything particularly functional or honest about brutalist architecture. A Mies van der Rohe skyscraper is functional and honest: not much more than the structural steel necessary to keep the thing upright and the glass windows necessary to let in light for the humans inside. Compare with monstrosities like the old Prentice hospital in Chicago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prentice_Women%27s_Hospital_Building#/media/File:Prentice_Hospital_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prentice_Women%27s_Hospital_Bu.... Nothing functional about the tiny windows, or weirdly-shaped circular interior spaces, or wrapping the whole thing in a material (concrete) that doesn't hold up well to a snowy climate. Just architectural wankery.
- appleiigs 10y ago
  Flat roofs are also architectural wankery here in Canada, but they are more and more popular these days. My friend built a contemporary and modern house with the flat roof. Thought they were having troubles with leaks, but then learnt it was condensation because of a lack of an attic.
  - varjag 10y ago
    This is a design defect, not a flat roof problem per se. It is entirely possible to build a house with no attic and no condensation problem.
    - honkhonkpants 10y ago
      But that requires the architect to have a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics, or to actually listen when the engineer tells them what is possible and what is not.
    - lmm 10y ago
      If flat roofs make condensation problems more likely and require more design work to avoid them, that's absolutely a flat roof problem.
      - 10y ago
nickbauman 10y ago
When it works, it's awesome: https://architecturestyles.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/p4040042web.jpg https://architecturestyles.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/p4040... When it doesn't it's horrid: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3752/13117856815_fdfa002c60_b.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3752/13117856815_fdfa002c60_b....
- user5994461 10y ago
  The first picture with both building next to each other just made me realize how MUCH MORE I prefer the glass building.
- lmm 10y ago
  The first isn't really brutalist is it? It's full of curves!
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    Brutalism is defined by concrete, not by the absence of curves.
    - SwellJoe 10y ago
      Undisguised concrete. All modern architecture on a large scale is defined by concrete (though apparently that's changing), but the difference is in how much it is on display.
- nickbauman 10y ago
  Wow you guys are breaking my heart! The "works" one is Mies Van Der Rohe. Notice how it actually "works" as in "functions" as a building. OK you have to admit this really nifty. It's a watertower!! https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1353/829390995_36add7f54d_b.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1353/829390995_36add7f54d_b.jp...
  - klaasvakie 10y ago
    Hey, didn't expect to see South Africa on here. Is this the tower close to Grand Central Airport in Midrand? Another great (to me at least) looking brutalist building in Johannesburg is UJ (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/University_of_Johannesburg.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Universi...)
lets-tryagain 10y ago
"THERE’S NO QUESTION that Brutalism looks exceedingly cool." actually...
seccess 10y ago
UC Davis has the Social Sciences building (aka the "Death Star"): http://www.predock.com/SocialSciences/UC%20Davis.html http://www.predock.com/SocialSciences/UC%20Davis.html While visually striking, it is a labyrinthine nightmare on the inside and almost impossible to navigate if you have to get to a class.
- diggernet 10y ago
  Nightmare? I love that building! Of course, I never had any classes in it. And I always imagined that an exact model of it and its surroundings would make the best Quake level ever. So...yeah...nightmare... :)
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  The University of Minnesota has a good mix of both good and bad brutalism - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SXHJA8qATF8/TmmME0iDt_I/AAAAAAAADRw/VPXbD6wMqQM/s1600/DSCN3170.JPG.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SXHJA8qATF8/TmmME0iDt_I/AAAAAAAADR... This is juxtaposed when set next to the Frederick Weisman Museum which was designed by Frank Gehry: https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/minnesota/minneapolis/gehry/034.jpg https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/minnes... Overall, the whole campus is a pretty good study in architecture.
- sanswork 10y ago
  University of Toronto has Robarts which I think looks like an Evil Wizard Castle. Or a turkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robarts_Library#/media/File:Robarts_Library.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robarts_Library#/media/File:Ro...
  - sgift 10y ago
    Perfect headquarter for a secret government authority. I really like the style, at least from the outside.
- Amorymeltzer 10y ago
  UC Davis also has Briggs (https://localwiki.org/davis/Briggs_Hall https://localwiki.org/davis/Briggs_Hall) and Tupper (https://localwiki.org/davis/Tupper_Hall https://localwiki.org/davis/Tupper_Hall) Halls, two catastrophically ugly buildings that, not coincidentally, are two of the most internally poorly laid out buildings on campus.
tehchromic 10y ago
I couldn't be happier in the context of permacultural revolution, it make sense. Art povera will make a comeback next mark these words!
niftich 10y ago
I have a few issues with this article. Most notably, it doesn't prove that brutalism is back at all; it just admits that the style is no longer universally disliked by the public -- perhaps (I'm speculating) out of nostalgia, perhaps out of wistful remorse for having judged it too harshly, or perhaps by the fact that it's no longer the style associated with government intervention, with homogeneity, with willful disregard for social convention. I also disagree with the notion expressed midway through the article that brutalism was about "an uncompromising desire to tell it like it is". In fact, most brutalism that I'm familiar with deliberately provokes by its unnatural (or even top-heavy) massing, sheer vertical lines, and dominance of concrete over other materials as a deliberate choice. The claim reads as disingenuous since Le Corbusier used structures featuring beton brut -- raw, exposed concrete -- which is where the term brutalism originates. It was very much an aesthetic choice, intentionally designed to be provocative. As an aside, to me, the Washington DC Metro [1] represents the best of brutalism -- a functional design that, albeit stark, is pleasing to the eye solely as an accident of its function. It expresses the sheer human grandeur -- in this case, tunneling through the earth -- without being visually offensive. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/12-07-12-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-010.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/12-07-12...
- tvanantwerp 10y ago
  Go I hate riding the DC Metro everyday. Maybe it's brutalism at its best, but it's simply a poor design for a metro system. Contrast with something like Hong Kong's MTR [1]: brightly lit, different colored walls so you can visually distinguish stations, and a glass wall between passengers and trains to prevent falls/suicides. DC Metro may be grand, but it's just not smart. As for the rest of DC's brutalist architecture, this piece sums up a lot of my feelings: https://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-7-most-heinously-ugly-government-buildings-in-washington https://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-7-most-heinously-u... [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/MTR_North_Point_Station_Platform.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/MTR_Nort...
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    On the other hand, compared to the NYC subway, the DC metro is like stepping into the future. (Roomy! Quiet! Escalators! Handicap-accessible! It's a modern marvel, I say.) I'd take the brutalism of the DC metro over NYC any day.
mdasen 10y ago
Part of the problem is that concrete doesn't age well. The building might start as looking ok, but quickly becomes discolored. It's worsened by the fact that many of the buildings made no accommodation for how they wouldn't allow water to just drip and discolor them even worse. The article talks about them belonging to "an era of muscular, public-minded development". Later, it says, "Brutalism wasn’t fully popular with a broad public, whose members were never convinced that awe-inspiring concrete dourness was what society was truly missing, and it ultimately depended on the good will of sympathetic planners". So, actually, it harkens back to an era when politicians and planners felt that they didn't need to be accountable. The worst part of the article is when it argues, "THERE’S NO QUESTION that Brutalism looks exceedingly cool. [author's emphasis]". I think most of the broad public would disagree - and the article basically says that. Brutalism is just gross and dirty to me. There's nothing interesting or cool about it for me. Brutalism means putting a lot of money into something that's crappy. As rayiner points out (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688217), it isn't honest like the article portrays it as. The buildings are often needlessly complicated or purposely ugly.
- pimeys 10y ago
  > Part of the problem is that concrete doesn't age well. The building might start as looking ok, but quickly becomes discolored. It's worsened by the fact that many of the buildings made no accommodation for how they wouldn't allow water to just drip and discolor them even worse. Funny how people see things differently. For my eye the discolored old concrete buildings look very inspiring and I guess it was the original idea that the buildings show their age...
  - mike_ivanov 10y ago
    > old concrete buildings look very inspiring especially those with a touch of moss, mold and climbing vegetation here and there.
  - rtpg 10y ago
    Definitely sounds intended. Brutalism is about enforcing the artificial nature of things. Trying to keep it nice and clean goes against the core idea. Though I think brutalism is a blight on our cities....
wtvanhest 10y ago
The best modernization of brutalism I have seen is at UCF: http://rwc.sdes.ucf.edu/image/809 http://rwc.sdes.ucf.edu/image/809 http://centric.cos.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cropblimp6.jpg http://centric.cos.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cropbl... Basically the campus started with a bunch of kind of interesting brutalist buildings and build around it to house its growth from 15,000 to 60,000 students. They mixed huge modern glass with brick and the campus is spectacular.
- afterburner 10y ago
  At least they didn't go gray. Brick brown is a huge step up. And glass improves it.
pimeys 10y ago
We have our share of brutalism in Berlin, especially in the west side of the wall. I really love how some of these buildings look so scary and menacing, so raw and so rough. Fits to the techno culture. http://www.shlur.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fem_2.jpg http://www.shlur.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fem_2.jpg
- icebraining 10y ago
  What's with the tubes?
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    They make it look like a battleship. I can't imagine they have function...which makes them ugly, to me.
  - pimeys 10y ago
    I guess it has something to do with air conditioning. The building is the Research Institute for Experimental Medicine, where they test medicine with animals. The look kind of suits the purpose, don't you think?
ekianjo 10y ago
> no question that brutalism vis exceedingly cool All right, NYT is telling us what to think now?
mastazi 10y ago
Architecture of Doom is a good blog for those who are interested in brutalism: http://architectureofdoom.tumblr.com/ http://architectureofdoom.tumblr.com/
soyiuz 10y ago
Brutalism, like any architectural trend, surely had its eye sores. But let's not forget its beauty as well. Some of the buildings I enjoy are Harvard's Carpenter Center by Le Corbusier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_Center_for_the_Visual_Arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_Center_for_the_Visua...), Sert's Peabody Terrace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Terrace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Terrace), and the sculptural craziness of Forder and Wotruba (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0ar6wJQtbFQ/TghHUI6e8tI/AAAAAAAAMOs/ZSuLFCc6aS0/s1600/blog-walter-forderer-architect-9.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0ar6wJQtbFQ/TghHUI6e8tI/AAAAAAAAMO... and http://www.uncubemagazine.com/sixcms/media.php/1323/Wotrubakirche_4-(1-von-1).jpg http://www.uncubemagazine.com/sixcms/media.php/1323/Wotrubak...)
internaut 10y ago
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3641/3546348607_d60d612554_z.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3641/3546348607_d60d612554_z.j... The first thought that struck me when I saw it was "that is a visual expression of Orwellian thought". Deep down a majority of people prefer to live in houses that look like this: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/40/a4/2e40a4bf4e335a68f7c721cf622f7601.jpg http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/40/a4/2e40a4bf4e33... http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/74/71/2747107_896ab244.jpg http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/74/71/2747107_896ab24... Do you remember the Shire in the Lord of the Rings? That is a synopsis of what people feel when they think of 'home'. Honest, humble but well crafted dwellings affordable by the average hobbit. As master Bilbo is keen to tell us: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort." Brutalism is quite obviously something that came out of Minas Morghul. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/enbLZaUyr3s/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/enbLZaUyr3s/maxresdefault.jpg It is an architectural anti-thesis.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > The first thought that struck me when I saw it was "that is a visual expression of Orwellian thought". Yup, exactly. There is little more care for the inhabitants inside than there is for the ants, the ivy, the birds, the earthworms which could live on & around a homier structure. A Brutalist building spares no more thought for its inhabitants than does an abbatoir for those who enter its confines: they are a necessary nuisance, but mustn't be permitted to intrude upon the happiness of the architect anymore than absolutely required. The Brutalist Le Corbusier famously said that a house is a machine for living in, but what he really meant is that he thought a home is a machine for performing intellectual labour, consuming calories, excreting waste and engaging in other animal activities as required. In other words, he didn't really know what it means to live; if he did, then he would have known that a house is not a machine, but rather a fractally intricate ecosystem, itself contained within even more intricate interlocking ecosystems. I don't actually blame him: he lived through the collapse of civilisation that was the Great War, and then the complete nightmare of the Second World War. He had seen so much that was great and good ground up in destruction, so much that had seemed so permanent turned to ash, that I can understand why he didn't think permanence could be found in an organic, human scale of building (it's much the same sentiment which fuelled Hitlerism & Stalinism: the old order had fallen, and the only thing many people thought they could turn to for strength was raw totalitarianism). Brutalism is a kind of totalitarianism of architecture, a demand that those who build, those who inhabit and those who maintain must constantly bend their wills to the will of the Great Man (the architect), bend without love, without understanding, without hope, without fear, without joy, just mute, abject obedience to a cold and uncaring plan. No thanks. Give me ivy, give me bricks, give me marble, give me dirt and grass and trees; give me men and women and children; give me sheep and dogs and horses; give me colours and light and ornament; give me emotion and delight; give me, in short, life.
tzakrajs 10y ago
The soviets had some really awesome brutalist architecture. http://weirdrussia.com/2015/04/27/soviet-brutalist-architecture-photographed-by-frederic-chaubin/ http://weirdrussia.com/2015/04/27/soviet-brutalist-architect...
lucker 10y ago
I don't want it! I've never understood why an obscure modern art movement got so much traction in a field where much funding comes from the government. Wait... never mind, I guess it makes perfect sense. Consumers wouldn't buy brutalist soup cans, but the government can deliver architecture of almost any level of ugliness to people. Well, at least brutalism isn't as ugly or wasteful of money as the HTML/CSS combo, and unlike the latter at least brutalism is not fundamentally wrong, so there's that.
beat 10y ago
Interesting to see this after admiring a Brutalist building today. It's the Phillips-Wagensteen building on the University of Minnesota campus, filled with medical offices. It's really two buildings connected by a multi-story skyway. Pebbled concrete surface, strong vertical and horizontal lines. It's not pretty, but it is beautiful.
redwood 10y ago
I was happy to see the National Parliament in Dhaka prominently featured. Amazing building. Feels like you're inside the Death Star inside.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > Feels like you're inside the Death Star inside. Is feeling as though one is inside a soulless death-machine a desirable quality in a legislature?
Spooky23 10y ago
Brutalist buildings exist because they are cheap and allow for architects to differentiate themselves. It is almost the physical manifestation of enterprise software: ugly, minimally functional, uncomfortable to the hapless inhabitants, and impossible to maintain. The article references the lament of brutalist fans that the near-universal hatred of these buildings results in neglect. The reality is that the prioritizarion of hubris over function translates to buildings that aren't fit to purpose. Wacky sight lines usually translate to complex roof and gutter systems, which fail. Poor engineering practice makes HVAC difficult to deliver, resulting in high costs and poor occupant comfort.
yc-kraln 10y ago
Reminder that Brutalism isn't related to the English word Brutal, but rather from the French meaning "naked".
- wtbob 10y ago
  They do share a common root in the Latin brūt, meaning heavy, animal, raw.
ktRolster 10y ago
Brick buildings are the purist form of brutalism. They're all over the place.
verisimilitude 10y ago
I spent four awful, expensive years becoming a dentist in a brutalist building that began its life with the name "Health Sciences Unit A". Christ, what a mess that building was. The ugliness goes away after a while, the ugliness you get used to, the ugliness is a matter of opinion. What didn't go away, what wasn't a matter of opinion, though, was the utter disregard for what James Howard Kunstler calls "human scale". The walls of this building ran, STRAIGHT UP without interruption for 15 stories from the plaza outside of it. You couldn't sit next to it, get in it, see inside of it, or shelter under it. You COULD walk a half block away and sit in a nice park. But the building stood in disregard of and negligence to the humans attempting to use it. Of course, I'm only just parroting the ideas of Kunstler, which you can read or watch here: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia/transcript?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_subu...
walrus01 10y ago
The brutalist MacMillan Blodel building in Vancouver served as a (CGI-enhanced) Nazi party HQ in Amazon's adaptation of The Man in the High Castle. https://www.google.com/search?q=macmillan+bloedel+building&num=100&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgqeO5rNTPAhVS1mMKHVHiAw0Q_AUICSgC https://www.google.com/search?q=macmillan+bloedel+building&n... Most of SFU (Simon Fraser University) is brutalist. https://www.google.com/search?q=SFU+brutalist&num=100&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq8ojIrNTPAhVI1mMKHZ6ABJUQ_AUICCgB&biw=2000&bih=1368&dpr=0.8 https://www.google.com/search?q=SFU+brutalist&num=100&client...
- grogenaut 10y ago
  Man I always thought that was in Argentina. So much scifi shot on that campus.
dayontonight 10y ago
William Pereira has left some very impressive examples of brutalist design throughout California. https://modernistarchitecture.blogspot.com/2015/03/uc-irvine-singular-brutalist-vision.html https://modernistarchitecture.blogspot.com/2015/03/uc-irvine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisel_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisel_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid
stana 10y ago
Brutalism not back according to the authorities in Sydney. The Sirius building waiting for the wrecking ball as we speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_building
- stupidcar 10y ago
  That's nothing to do with architecture though. It's the NSW government wanting to socially cleanse Sydney and replace the homes of the poor with luxury apartments.
hudibras 10y ago
Am I too late to mention the University of Washington's More Hall Annex? It's perhaps better known by its original (and, yes, official) name, the Nuclear Reactor Building. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/uws-nuke-reactor-building-cold-ugly-and-worth-saving/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/uws-nuke-...
musesum 10y ago
So, the Pierre Cardin Bubble house is brutalist? http://www.livbit.com/article/2010/06/11/bubble-palace-an-unusual-form-of-architecture/ http://www.livbit.com/article/2010/06/11/bubble-palace-an-un... With this in mind, I wonder what you could do with a 3D printer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M
edem 10y ago
Metro 4 was just finished a while ago in Budapest/Hungary and some of the stations look like maps from Quake 2. They are brutal.
- leadingthenet 10y ago
  Honestly, I'm not sure why they went for that style. With the sheer distaste people had for soviet style architecture after '89, they could have picked a number of far better choices than they did. It may have been a cost-cutting option, but iirc the project went way over-budget anyway.
conanbatt 10y ago
Buenos aires has several public Brutalist structures: the University of Buenos Aires and the public library are some of them. They are by far the most hideous buildings in the city.
coldcode 10y ago
When I read the title I thought it was about politics.
kchoudhu 10y ago
Hey, I used to live in those red (Parliament adjacent) buildings in Dhaka, Bangladesh. They were overly spacious (i.e. 20 foot ceilings) and ridiculously impractical. If Brutalism is back, we should show it the door again.
norea-armozel 10y ago
The only thing about brutalist architecture I've liked is the over all shape of the buildings but the rest of the designs are just a nightmare especially when it comes to floor plans. I get that they want to strip away the excesses of previous architectural styles but a floor plan shouldn't be one of them.
RandomName2020 10y ago
They get it wrong. It is not brutalism is back, it modernism in general; what we are witnessing is the end of postmodernism. Postmodernism seem to be in conflict with the faith into progress, both social and technological, yet we've been witnessing tremendous technological progress since early 2000s - nothing revolutionary, but still great advances in mobile, in science etc. So yes, brutalism, as an offspring of modernism, is back.

170 points by tintinnabula 10y ago

>When the Smithsons called their work Brutalist or part of a New Brutalism, the brutality to which they referred had less to do with materials and more to do with honesty: an uncompromising desire to tell it like it is, architecturally speaking. What crock. If it were about telling it how it is, there wouldn't be a bunch of superfluous, structurally challenging lumps coming out of the buildings.

afterburner 10y ago

Brutalist architecture is objectively wrong. It's terrible. Building design review boards, take note. It's not back, it died a quick death and we still see its ugly tombstones littering the landscape. Brutalist concept models must have looked super cool in miniature form though. Blown up to life size? Just a lot of flat, ugly, oppressive, senselessly artless concrete slabs.

SwellJoe 10y ago
Compared to what followed, I think I'd pick brutalism. Downtown buildings in cities that mostly grew up in the 80s and 90s are just boring. When I google brutalist building images, I'm struck by how wildly they vary. I don't love them all. But, they've got real personality and originality. Sure, sometimes it is overblown...big shapes in weird places just for the sake of showing off. I find architecture that slaps old forms onto new buildings to be...gross. There's a couple of skyscrapers just outside of Houston, for example, with fucking red shingles on it, like it's an adobe house in the desert or or something. So much architecture glues on a bunch of columns, ornamental lintels, fancy molding, etc. When placed on a structure that is huge, particularly one that is much taller than it is wide, they look ridiculous. I think there are good buildings that were built in almost every era; but, some eras are less ambitious than others. Brutalism was, at least, ambitious. I think there's a reason so much scifi and futurist imaginings feature brutalist architecture. It is an architecture that screams "there are no limits to what we can build!" I think that's pretty cool. It's all subjective, of course, and we all have our preferences. But, calling it "objectively wrong" seems hard to defend. It is only objectively wrong if it fails to function as a building for people to live or work in. If it leaks, if it falls down, if it is difficult to heat and cool, if it inaccessible to the people who need to use the building. Those are ways to measure architectural wrongness objectively. It's safe to say that some brutalist buildings failed to live up to their purpose, but that's true of many architectural projects. Having the style fall out of fashion, due to a reactionary response to the new and very different, and the buildings fall into disrepair because of it, is not really the fault of the architecture. Old buildings get renovated every 20-30 years, or they stop being relevant. This is true of even iconic buildings like the Empire State building. Anyway, I quite like brutalist architecture; I don't mean I like it with no discrimination. I still just buildings on their own merit and being in the right style doesn't mean I'll like it, any more than me saying I really love punk rock means I would ever listen to Green Day or Bad Religion. But, there are brutalist buildings that I find beautiful. And, a lot of stuff that followed that I find horrible.
- afterburner 10y ago
  Saying "objectively" is strong language, yes. But I think that if a building fails in its aesthetic, or at least at blending in if it's not going to be aesthetically pleasing, then no matter how functionally fine it is, it's a failure. If all we cared about was function, we'd build ugly boxes everywhere. Oh wait, that's practically brutalism anyways. Every brutalist building I've had the displeasure to walk around or be in has been oppressive, and ugly. The buildings we use shouldn't be oppressive and ugly, because we have to use them. If it was only a piece of art, then I can see the worth in evoking those emotions. But I have to live with the damn thing day in and day out, inside it, not just check it out in a gallery in miniature. And there is no reason at all to restrict yourself to architecture after brutalism. The Romans figured it out. The architects of the art deco era figured it out. Those ideas are still valid, they still make for beautiful buildings, and we should reuse good ideas because, again, we have to live with the damn things, day in and day out. We can pick and choose what few ideas were good since then and also include them. Prevailing construction techniques might not always allow for it, but we should try. But some ideas, like brutalist architecture, are a failure, and should never be re-used. I'd rather get a bland design in almost any other style than a brutalist design. That said, feel free to post some examples of your favourite brutalist architecture, maybe I overlooked something. I'll only be judging them from pictures, which is entirely different than actually seeing the thing in person and having to deal with it; the utter bland enormity and lack of detail gets much reduced when shrunk down to a screen, or student model. But it's something. You could probably save most brutalist structures by covering them in beautiful murals. Then at least the vast expanses of no detail at all works to your advantage as a convenient canvas. The Bierpinsel in Berlin is not a bad effort in this regard: http://berlin.citysegwaytours.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/BP-CyclingSeries2.jpg http://berlin.citysegwaytours.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/20...
  - taejavu 10y ago
    Saying "objective" isn't just strong language, it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make. You're objectively wrong. Personally, I adore the brutalist aesthetic, for example, everything in this photo: http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg Now I'm sure you'll hate it, and that's not because you've overlooked something, but because we have different tastes, ie, it's subjective.
maxsilver 10y ago
> Brutalist architecture is objectively wrong. You may not appreciate it, and that's a fine opinion to hold. But Brutalist architecture can't be "objectively" wrong, for the same reason that the color red can't be "objectively" wrong.
mrtree 10y ago
Exactly. Brutalist buildings are in their large majority giant pieces of shit. Please no more of that.

bogomipz 10y ago

Its easy to look at examples from master architects like Khan and Corbusier and extol the virtues of Brutalist Architecture. But for every Khan there are a dozen insipid and unwelcoming municipal courthouses and depressing tower blocks. This presents some good contrasts between the two in New York City alone: https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/iconic-addresses/new-yorks-brutalism-batch-the-good-bad/3003 https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/iconi...

hilop 10y ago
I can't see any different between the GOOD and the BAD sections. Some buildings look OK, some look unpleasant or awful.

ProudMexican 10y ago

Brutalism is just ugly, intended or not. It is actually a scandal that public funds were deliberately used to drop these things into cities where they continue to violate the eye to this very day.

carsongross 10y ago

Alienated architects and cheap capitalists make for a pretty awful built environment, don't they? https://www.amazon.com/Bauhaus-Our-House-Tom-Wolfe/dp/0312429142 https://www.amazon.com/Bauhaus-Our-House-Tom-Wolfe/dp/031242...

Pxtl 10y ago

Quake 2 was a really good videogame. Let's leave Brutalist architecture in there where it belongs.

wycx 10y ago

Anyone here worked at the Salk Institute? Are the buildings as good to work in as they are to look at? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salk_Institute_for_Biological_Studies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salk_Institute_for_Biological_...

et-al 10y ago
I'm personally hesitant to call Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Brutalist. I know many define Brutalism simply as buildings with large swaths of raw concrete, which probably qualifies 95% of modernist architecture. For me, I consider concrete oppressiveness, a certain level of heaviness, to be involved in Brutalism. The Salk Institute, in contrast, has lightness and openness. I never got a chance to go inside, or work there, but when I visited a few years ago, and it seemed like the offices had generous windows; however the wood frames were definitely weathered and could have used more care. It's was gorgeous to walk around and I recommend somehow scheduling a tour if you happen to be in La Jolla (San Diego). http://www.salk.edu/events/tour-information/ http://www.salk.edu/events/tour-information/
- PhasmaFelis 10y ago
  > I'm personally hesitant to call Louis Kahn's Salk Institute Brutalist. I know many define Brutalism simply as buildings with large swaths of raw concrete, which probably qualifies 95% of modernist architecture. For me, I consider concrete oppressiveness, a certain level of heaviness, to be involved in Brutalism. The Salk Institute, in contrast, has lightness and openness. It sounds like you're saying "it can't be Brutalist, because it's good." A bit No True Scotsman, perhaps?
  - et-al 10y ago
    Ha, I can see that interpretation. I just think the "raw concrete" definition for Brutalism is too general. If one designs a Deconstructivist building with raw concrete, does it all of a sudden make it Brutalist? Of course the terms aren't mutually exclusive, and we'd probably stroke our chins and mutter "hmmmm.. deconstructivist with brutalist tendencies, eeehhh?" (And personally, I've always enjoyed Brutalist buildings; having studied in a few.)

JonnieCache 10y ago

If you're interested in brutalism I can reccommend these superb documentaries by Jonathan Meades: https://meadesshrine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/bunkers.html https://meadesshrine.blogspot.co.uk/2014/01/bunkers.html That site has all of his films on there and they're all amazing tbh.

hood_syntax 10y ago

What I like most about architecture like this is the lack of noise. The intention comes through, my senses can focus on the substance rather than its dressing. I only hope that, contrary to what the article says, the revival will not mean losing its soul.

devilsavocado 10y ago

Brutalism came and went fairly quickly as an architectural trend. I feel like it never had much opportunity to develop. As a result, for every great example of brutalist architecture today you can point to 10 others that really are eye-sores. Many Canadian University campuses provide good examples of this: one or two magnificent buildings alongside many others that most people wouldn't mind tearing down.

pavel_lishin 10y ago
> As a result, for every great example of brutalist architecture today you can point to 10 others that really are eye-sores. Isn't that just sort of an application of Sturgeon's law? Although I suppose that given how expensive a building is to put up, there's a lot more push back against ugly things.
- herge 10y ago
  And also, old buildings are prettier on average because the old ugly buildings get torn down and replaced.
  - user5994461 10y ago
    Not sure whether it can apply to this context. The concretes building are fairly recent. Not sure there was enough time to have a sort of "return on investment". And breaking down something of that scale is quite an undertaking.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  Not to mention most of these were made mostly of concrete and steel and built to last a lifetime. Trying to justify tearing down a perfectly fine structure just because its an eye sore becomes a much harder argument to make.
  - throwanem 10y ago
    Concrete has a very hard time lasting more than a few decades anywhere that gets rain, and especially anywhere that gets snow.

nealrs 10y ago

The article totally skips over the fact that brutalism comes from French - Béton brut means concrete. There is nothing 'brutal' or 'brutalizing' about brutalist architecture. I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but words matter. Right?

at-fates-hands 10y ago
Not sure how they did that tbh. You'd think they'd take five minutes and do a Google search: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture The term originates from the French word for "raw" in the term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material béton brut (raw concrete).[1][2] British architectural critic Reyner Banham adapted the term into "brutalism" (originally "New Brutalism") to identify the emerging style. The very first paragraph of the article is completely wrong: it was a term of abuse for the work of architects whose buildings confronted their users — brutalized them — with hulking, piled-up slabs of raw, unfinished concrete. These same architects, centered on the British couple Alison and Peter Smithson, enthusiastically took up Brutalism as the name for their movement with a kind of pride, as if to say: That’s right, we are brutal. We do want to shove your face in cement. This is depressing to think about this revisionist history. This was apart of the modern architectural movement of the 20th century, not some sort of audacious idea of an your face art movement. Just. . .so. . .wrong on so many levels
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- Fricken 10y ago
  I'm not seeing the conflict. Brutalism is an english term, embraced by British architects who were fully aware of what it suggested. If they didn't want the term for their brand of architecture to imply brutality, they would have gone with something different. Concretism or Rawchitecture or something, I don't know.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  And yet I find brutalist architecture to be, if not brutal, at least dehumanizing. It's a place that is cold, inhuman (in the sense of being a place where humans don't really fit). Forcing people to live in that environment may not be brutal, but it's kind of cruel, or at least uncaring.

rayiner 10y ago

There was never anything particularly functional or honest about brutalist architecture. A Mies van der Rohe skyscraper is functional and honest: not much more than the structural steel necessary to keep the thing upright and the glass windows necessary to let in light for the humans inside. Compare with monstrosities like the old Prentice hospital in Chicago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prentice_Women%27s_Hospital_Building#/media/File:Prentice_Hospital_1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prentice_Women%27s_Hospital_Bu.... Nothing functional about the tiny windows, or weirdly-shaped circular interior spaces, or wrapping the whole thing in a material (concrete) that doesn't hold up well to a snowy climate. Just architectural wankery.

appleiigs 10y ago
Flat roofs are also architectural wankery here in Canada, but they are more and more popular these days. My friend built a contemporary and modern house with the flat roof. Thought they were having troubles with leaks, but then learnt it was condensation because of a lack of an attic.
- varjag 10y ago
  This is a design defect, not a flat roof problem per se. It is entirely possible to build a house with no attic and no condensation problem.
  - honkhonkpants 10y ago
    But that requires the architect to have a rudimentary understanding of thermodynamics, or to actually listen when the engineer tells them what is possible and what is not.
  - lmm 10y ago
    If flat roofs make condensation problems more likely and require more design work to avoid them, that's absolutely a flat roof problem.
    - 10y ago

nickbauman 10y ago

When it works, it's awesome: https://architecturestyles.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/p4040042web.jpg https://architecturestyles.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/p4040... When it doesn't it's horrid: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3752/13117856815_fdfa002c60_b.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3752/13117856815_fdfa002c60_b....

user5994461 10y ago
The first picture with both building next to each other just made me realize how MUCH MORE I prefer the glass building.
lmm 10y ago
The first isn't really brutalist is it? It's full of curves!
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  Brutalism is defined by concrete, not by the absence of curves.
  - SwellJoe 10y ago
    Undisguised concrete. All modern architecture on a large scale is defined by concrete (though apparently that's changing), but the difference is in how much it is on display.
nickbauman 10y ago
Wow you guys are breaking my heart! The "works" one is Mies Van Der Rohe. Notice how it actually "works" as in "functions" as a building. OK you have to admit this really nifty. It's a watertower!! https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1353/829390995_36add7f54d_b.jpg https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1353/829390995_36add7f54d_b.jp...
- klaasvakie 10y ago
  Hey, didn't expect to see South Africa on here. Is this the tower close to Grand Central Airport in Midrand? Another great (to me at least) looking brutalist building in Johannesburg is UJ (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/University_of_Johannesburg.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Universi...)

lets-tryagain 10y ago

"THERE’S NO QUESTION that Brutalism looks exceedingly cool." actually...

seccess 10y ago

UC Davis has the Social Sciences building (aka the "Death Star"): http://www.predock.com/SocialSciences/UC%20Davis.html http://www.predock.com/SocialSciences/UC%20Davis.html While visually striking, it is a labyrinthine nightmare on the inside and almost impossible to navigate if you have to get to a class.

diggernet 10y ago
Nightmare? I love that building! Of course, I never had any classes in it. And I always imagined that an exact model of it and its surroundings would make the best Quake level ever. So...yeah...nightmare... :)
at-fates-hands 10y ago
The University of Minnesota has a good mix of both good and bad brutalism - http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SXHJA8qATF8/TmmME0iDt_I/AAAAAAAADRw/VPXbD6wMqQM/s1600/DSCN3170.JPG.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SXHJA8qATF8/TmmME0iDt_I/AAAAAAAADR... This is juxtaposed when set next to the Frederick Weisman Museum which was designed by Frank Gehry: https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/minnesota/minneapolis/gehry/034.jpg https://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/sullivanm/minnes... Overall, the whole campus is a pretty good study in architecture.
sanswork 10y ago
University of Toronto has Robarts which I think looks like an Evil Wizard Castle. Or a turkey. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robarts_Library#/media/File:Robarts_Library.JPG https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robarts_Library#/media/File:Ro...
- sgift 10y ago
  Perfect headquarter for a secret government authority. I really like the style, at least from the outside.
Amorymeltzer 10y ago
UC Davis also has Briggs (https://localwiki.org/davis/Briggs_Hall https://localwiki.org/davis/Briggs_Hall) and Tupper (https://localwiki.org/davis/Tupper_Hall https://localwiki.org/davis/Tupper_Hall) Halls, two catastrophically ugly buildings that, not coincidentally, are two of the most internally poorly laid out buildings on campus.

tehchromic 10y ago

I couldn't be happier in the context of permacultural revolution, it make sense. Art povera will make a comeback next mark these words!

niftich 10y ago

I have a few issues with this article. Most notably, it doesn't prove that brutalism is back at all; it just admits that the style is no longer universally disliked by the public -- perhaps (I'm speculating) out of nostalgia, perhaps out of wistful remorse for having judged it too harshly, or perhaps by the fact that it's no longer the style associated with government intervention, with homogeneity, with willful disregard for social convention. I also disagree with the notion expressed midway through the article that brutalism was about "an uncompromising desire to tell it like it is". In fact, most brutalism that I'm familiar with deliberately provokes by its unnatural (or even top-heavy) massing, sheer vertical lines, and dominance of concrete over other materials as a deliberate choice. The claim reads as disingenuous since Le Corbusier used structures featuring beton brut -- raw, exposed concrete -- which is where the term brutalism originates. It was very much an aesthetic choice, intentionally designed to be provocative. As an aside, to me, the Washington DC Metro [1] represents the best of brutalism -- a functional design that, albeit stark, is pleasing to the eye solely as an accident of its function. It expresses the sheer human grandeur -- in this case, tunneling through the earth -- without being visually offensive. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/12-07-12-wikimania-wdc-by-RalfR-010.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/12-07-12...

tvanantwerp 10y ago
Go I hate riding the DC Metro everyday. Maybe it's brutalism at its best, but it's simply a poor design for a metro system. Contrast with something like Hong Kong's MTR [1]: brightly lit, different colored walls so you can visually distinguish stations, and a glass wall between passengers and trains to prevent falls/suicides. DC Metro may be grand, but it's just not smart. As for the rest of DC's brutalist architecture, this piece sums up a lot of my feelings: https://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-7-most-heinously-ugly-government-buildings-in-washington https://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-7-most-heinously-u... [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/MTR_North_Point_Station_Platform.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/MTR_Nort...
- lobster_johnson 10y ago
  On the other hand, compared to the NYC subway, the DC metro is like stepping into the future. (Roomy! Quiet! Escalators! Handicap-accessible! It's a modern marvel, I say.) I'd take the brutalism of the DC metro over NYC any day.

mdasen 10y ago

Part of the problem is that concrete doesn't age well. The building might start as looking ok, but quickly becomes discolored. It's worsened by the fact that many of the buildings made no accommodation for how they wouldn't allow water to just drip and discolor them even worse. The article talks about them belonging to "an era of muscular, public-minded development". Later, it says, "Brutalism wasn’t fully popular with a broad public, whose members were never convinced that awe-inspiring concrete dourness was what society was truly missing, and it ultimately depended on the good will of sympathetic planners". So, actually, it harkens back to an era when politicians and planners felt that they didn't need to be accountable. The worst part of the article is when it argues, "THERE’S NO QUESTION that Brutalism looks exceedingly cool. [author's emphasis]". I think most of the broad public would disagree - and the article basically says that. Brutalism is just gross and dirty to me. There's nothing interesting or cool about it for me. Brutalism means putting a lot of money into something that's crappy. As rayiner points out (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12688217), it isn't honest like the article portrays it as. The buildings are often needlessly complicated or purposely ugly.

pimeys 10y ago
> Part of the problem is that concrete doesn't age well. The building might start as looking ok, but quickly becomes discolored. It's worsened by the fact that many of the buildings made no accommodation for how they wouldn't allow water to just drip and discolor them even worse. Funny how people see things differently. For my eye the discolored old concrete buildings look very inspiring and I guess it was the original idea that the buildings show their age...
- mike_ivanov 10y ago
  > old concrete buildings look very inspiring especially those with a touch of moss, mold and climbing vegetation here and there.
- rtpg 10y ago
  Definitely sounds intended. Brutalism is about enforcing the artificial nature of things. Trying to keep it nice and clean goes against the core idea. Though I think brutalism is a blight on our cities....

wtvanhest 10y ago

The best modernization of brutalism I have seen is at UCF: http://rwc.sdes.ucf.edu/image/809 http://rwc.sdes.ucf.edu/image/809 http://centric.cos.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cropblimp6.jpg http://centric.cos.ucf.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/cropbl... Basically the campus started with a bunch of kind of interesting brutalist buildings and build around it to house its growth from 15,000 to 60,000 students. They mixed huge modern glass with brick and the campus is spectacular.

afterburner 10y ago
At least they didn't go gray. Brick brown is a huge step up. And glass improves it.

pimeys 10y ago

We have our share of brutalism in Berlin, especially in the west side of the wall. I really love how some of these buildings look so scary and menacing, so raw and so rough. Fits to the techno culture. http://www.shlur.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fem_2.jpg http://www.shlur.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/fem_2.jpg

icebraining 10y ago
What's with the tubes?
- SwellJoe 10y ago
  They make it look like a battleship. I can't imagine they have function...which makes them ugly, to me.
- pimeys 10y ago
  I guess it has something to do with air conditioning. The building is the Research Institute for Experimental Medicine, where they test medicine with animals. The look kind of suits the purpose, don't you think?

ekianjo 10y ago

> no question that brutalism vis exceedingly cool All right, NYT is telling us what to think now?

mastazi 10y ago

Architecture of Doom is a good blog for those who are interested in brutalism: http://architectureofdoom.tumblr.com/ http://architectureofdoom.tumblr.com/

soyiuz 10y ago

Brutalism, like any architectural trend, surely had its eye sores. But let's not forget its beauty as well. Some of the buildings I enjoy are Harvard's Carpenter Center by Le Corbusier (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_Center_for_the_Visual_Arts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpenter_Center_for_the_Visua...), Sert's Peabody Terrace (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Terrace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peabody_Terrace), and the sculptural craziness of Forder and Wotruba (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0ar6wJQtbFQ/TghHUI6e8tI/AAAAAAAAMOs/ZSuLFCc6aS0/s1600/blog-walter-forderer-architect-9.jpg http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0ar6wJQtbFQ/TghHUI6e8tI/AAAAAAAAMO... and http://www.uncubemagazine.com/sixcms/media.php/1323/Wotrubakirche_4-(1-von-1).jpg http://www.uncubemagazine.com/sixcms/media.php/1323/Wotrubak...)

internaut 10y ago

http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3641/3546348607_d60d612554_z.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3641/3546348607_d60d612554_z.j... The first thought that struck me when I saw it was "that is a visual expression of Orwellian thought". Deep down a majority of people prefer to live in houses that look like this: http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/40/a4/2e40a4bf4e335a68f7c721cf622f7601.jpg http://media-cache-ec0.pinimg.com/736x/2e/40/a4/2e40a4bf4e33... http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/74/71/2747107_896ab244.jpg http://s0.geograph.org.uk/geophotos/02/74/71/2747107_896ab24... Do you remember the Shire in the Lord of the Rings? That is a synopsis of what people feel when they think of 'home'. Honest, humble but well crafted dwellings affordable by the average hobbit. As master Bilbo is keen to tell us: "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort." Brutalism is quite obviously something that came out of Minas Morghul. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/enbLZaUyr3s/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/enbLZaUyr3s/maxresdefault.jpg It is an architectural anti-thesis.

wtbob 10y ago
> The first thought that struck me when I saw it was "that is a visual expression of Orwellian thought". Yup, exactly. There is little more care for the inhabitants inside than there is for the ants, the ivy, the birds, the earthworms which could live on & around a homier structure. A Brutalist building spares no more thought for its inhabitants than does an abbatoir for those who enter its confines: they are a necessary nuisance, but mustn't be permitted to intrude upon the happiness of the architect anymore than absolutely required. The Brutalist Le Corbusier famously said that a house is a machine for living in, but what he really meant is that he thought a home is a machine for performing intellectual labour, consuming calories, excreting waste and engaging in other animal activities as required. In other words, he didn't really know what it means to live; if he did, then he would have known that a house is not a machine, but rather a fractally intricate ecosystem, itself contained within even more intricate interlocking ecosystems. I don't actually blame him: he lived through the collapse of civilisation that was the Great War, and then the complete nightmare of the Second World War. He had seen so much that was great and good ground up in destruction, so much that had seemed so permanent turned to ash, that I can understand why he didn't think permanence could be found in an organic, human scale of building (it's much the same sentiment which fuelled Hitlerism & Stalinism: the old order had fallen, and the only thing many people thought they could turn to for strength was raw totalitarianism). Brutalism is a kind of totalitarianism of architecture, a demand that those who build, those who inhabit and those who maintain must constantly bend their wills to the will of the Great Man (the architect), bend without love, without understanding, without hope, without fear, without joy, just mute, abject obedience to a cold and uncaring plan. No thanks. Give me ivy, give me bricks, give me marble, give me dirt and grass and trees; give me men and women and children; give me sheep and dogs and horses; give me colours and light and ornament; give me emotion and delight; give me, in short, life.

tzakrajs 10y ago

The soviets had some really awesome brutalist architecture. http://weirdrussia.com/2015/04/27/soviet-brutalist-architecture-photographed-by-frederic-chaubin/ http://weirdrussia.com/2015/04/27/soviet-brutalist-architect...

lucker 10y ago

I don't want it! I've never understood why an obscure modern art movement got so much traction in a field where much funding comes from the government. Wait... never mind, I guess it makes perfect sense. Consumers wouldn't buy brutalist soup cans, but the government can deliver architecture of almost any level of ugliness to people. Well, at least brutalism isn't as ugly or wasteful of money as the HTML/CSS combo, and unlike the latter at least brutalism is not fundamentally wrong, so there's that.

beat 10y ago

Interesting to see this after admiring a Brutalist building today. It's the Phillips-Wagensteen building on the University of Minnesota campus, filled with medical offices. It's really two buildings connected by a multi-story skyway. Pebbled concrete surface, strong vertical and horizontal lines. It's not pretty, but it is beautiful.

redwood 10y ago

I was happy to see the National Parliament in Dhaka prominently featured. Amazing building. Feels like you're inside the Death Star inside.

wtbob 10y ago
> Feels like you're inside the Death Star inside. Is feeling as though one is inside a soulless death-machine a desirable quality in a legislature?

Spooky23 10y ago

Brutalist buildings exist because they are cheap and allow for architects to differentiate themselves. It is almost the physical manifestation of enterprise software: ugly, minimally functional, uncomfortable to the hapless inhabitants, and impossible to maintain. The article references the lament of brutalist fans that the near-universal hatred of these buildings results in neglect. The reality is that the prioritizarion of hubris over function translates to buildings that aren't fit to purpose. Wacky sight lines usually translate to complex roof and gutter systems, which fail. Poor engineering practice makes HVAC difficult to deliver, resulting in high costs and poor occupant comfort.

yc-kraln 10y ago

Reminder that Brutalism isn't related to the English word Brutal, but rather from the French meaning "naked".

wtbob 10y ago
They do share a common root in the Latin brūt, meaning heavy, animal, raw.

ktRolster 10y ago

Brick buildings are the purist form of brutalism. They're all over the place.

verisimilitude 10y ago

I spent four awful, expensive years becoming a dentist in a brutalist building that began its life with the name "Health Sciences Unit A". Christ, what a mess that building was. The ugliness goes away after a while, the ugliness you get used to, the ugliness is a matter of opinion. What didn't go away, what wasn't a matter of opinion, though, was the utter disregard for what James Howard Kunstler calls "human scale". The walls of this building ran, STRAIGHT UP without interruption for 15 stories from the plaza outside of it. You couldn't sit next to it, get in it, see inside of it, or shelter under it. You COULD walk a half block away and sit in a nice park. But the building stood in disregard of and negligence to the humans attempting to use it. Of course, I'm only just parroting the ideas of Kunstler, which you can read or watch here: http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_suburbia/transcript?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/james_howard_kunstler_dissects_subu...

walrus01 10y ago

The brutalist MacMillan Blodel building in Vancouver served as a (CGI-enhanced) Nazi party HQ in Amazon's adaptation of The Man in the High Castle. https://www.google.com/search?q=macmillan+bloedel+building&num=100&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgqeO5rNTPAhVS1mMKHVHiAw0Q_AUICSgC https://www.google.com/search?q=macmillan+bloedel+building&n... Most of SFU (Simon Fraser University) is brutalist. https://www.google.com/search?q=SFU+brutalist&num=100&client=firefox-b&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq8ojIrNTPAhVI1mMKHZ6ABJUQ_AUICCgB&biw=2000&bih=1368&dpr=0.8 https://www.google.com/search?q=SFU+brutalist&num=100&client...

grogenaut 10y ago
Man I always thought that was in Argentina. So much scifi shot on that campus.

dayontonight 10y ago

William Pereira has left some very impressive examples of brutalist design throughout California. https://modernistarchitecture.blogspot.com/2015/03/uc-irvine-singular-brutalist-vision.html https://modernistarchitecture.blogspot.com/2015/03/uc-irvine... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisel_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geisel_Library https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transamerica_Pyramid

stana 10y ago

Brutalism not back according to the authorities in Sydney. The Sirius building waiting for the wrecking ball as we speak. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_building https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirius_building

stupidcar 10y ago
That's nothing to do with architecture though. It's the NSW government wanting to socially cleanse Sydney and replace the homes of the poor with luxury apartments.

hudibras 10y ago

Am I too late to mention the University of Washington's More Hall Annex? It's perhaps better known by its original (and, yes, official) name, the Nuclear Reactor Building. http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/uws-nuke-reactor-building-cold-ugly-and-worth-saving/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/education/uws-nuke-...

musesum 10y ago

So, the Pierre Cardin Bubble house is brutalist? http://www.livbit.com/article/2010/06/11/bubble-palace-an-unusual-form-of-architecture/ http://www.livbit.com/article/2010/06/11/bubble-palace-an-un... With this in mind, I wonder what you could do with a 3D printer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQ5Elbvvr1M

edem 10y ago

Metro 4 was just finished a while ago in Budapest/Hungary and some of the stations look like maps from Quake 2. They are brutal.

leadingthenet 10y ago
Honestly, I'm not sure why they went for that style. With the sheer distaste people had for soviet style architecture after '89, they could have picked a number of far better choices than they did. It may have been a cost-cutting option, but iirc the project went way over-budget anyway.

conanbatt 10y ago

Buenos aires has several public Brutalist structures: the University of Buenos Aires and the public library are some of them. They are by far the most hideous buildings in the city.

coldcode 10y ago

When I read the title I thought it was about politics.

kchoudhu 10y ago

Hey, I used to live in those red (Parliament adjacent) buildings in Dhaka, Bangladesh. They were overly spacious (i.e. 20 foot ceilings) and ridiculously impractical. If Brutalism is back, we should show it the door again.

norea-armozel 10y ago

The only thing about brutalist architecture I've liked is the over all shape of the buildings but the rest of the designs are just a nightmare especially when it comes to floor plans. I get that they want to strip away the excesses of previous architectural styles but a floor plan shouldn't be one of them.

RandomName2020 10y ago

They get it wrong. It is not brutalism is back, it modernism in general; what we are witnessing is the end of postmodernism. Postmodernism seem to be in conflict with the faith into progress, both social and technological, yet we've been witnessing tremendous technological progress since early 2000s - nothing revolutionary, but still great advances in mobile, in science etc. So yes, brutalism, as an offspring of modernism, is back.