7 ms·

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 disl

by 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.
  - rayiner 10y ago
    To be fair, the DC metro was built more than 70 years after the New York subway.
    - lobster_johnson 10y ago
      There are much older subways (London, Paris and Madrid come to mind) that are as large and have managed to stay modern, albeit with slightly fewer stations (but longer networks). The NYC is subway is old, but it's not like they haven't had any time to work on it. From what I've read, it's mostly attributable to mismanagement at the MTA — misdirected funds, union squabbles, lack of political will, lack of imagination, outright corruption. NYC is admittedly extremely time-consuming (and therefore expensive) to dig, but all the things that could have modernized the subway and made more it convenient and accessible wouldn't require digging more tunnels. The other systemic problems — lack of modern signaling, lack of parallel tunnels — are harder and more expensive to solve, especially without disrupting commuters.
      - rayiner 10y ago
        The D.C. Metro is equally badly managed, if not worse. The only reason it's better in some ways,[1] is because it started with a 70-year technology advantage. [1] And it's worse in many ways too, such as the lack of express tracks.
      - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
        ummh... have you ever been on any of those subways? Paris is a marvel for its density and well-planned routes. But some of the lines are more like underground light rail compared to e.g. the Lexington line, which on its own carries like 1/3 of the passengers of Paris or London. The London Tube trains I've been on felt like a subway for midgets compared to the 10-foot wide BMT trains. They stop running at night. One of the only times I've missed a flight was due to a London Tube delay. The new Chinese subways really put the US to shame, quiet, double glass doors, video screens everywhere, cell phones work everywhere, very cheap, very dense and very crowded. The NY subway is pretty reliable and fast. Apps like Moovit and Citymapper make it pretty easy to get where you want as quickly as possible. Train Time coverage and wifi coverage could be better, the latter is improving. It could be nicer but all I can say is if you think the New York subway is bad now, you should have tried it in the 70s. Edit: I'd add that an Oyster-type payment system would be nice. Also, a couple of MTA alumni have led systems in London, Hong Kong, Toronto, other cities, so NY is probably not at the very bottom in best practices. Bottom line is you can get anywhere quickly and reliably at all hours, if not always in luxurious style, and you don't need a car to live here. So I'll take it, until your driverless taxi can deal with NY traffic and get there faster.
throwanem 10y ago
Amazing how it expresses sheer human grandeur at the same time it reduces the human to insignificance, isn't it? I always feel like I'm in some kind of weird cross between a cathedral and the diggings of some giant alien worm.
azernik 10y ago
> perhaps by the fact that it's no longer the style associated with government intervention The speculation of the article is actually the opposite - that in the era of Bernie Sanders, when young people hear "socialism" and think of a functioning European welfare state rather than an oppressive European dictatorship, the connotations of large-scale government intervention have become a positive.
- allendoerfer 10y ago
  The funny thing about that is, that even for Europeans the term sounds negative, at least for Germans. We do not think that we live inside socialism. For us socialism is what Eastern Germany had and it is a bad idea (TM), too. We would use terms like social democratic or social market economy. Maybe it is different in other European countries, though.
  - azernik 10y ago
    Interesting. I'm referring to the US associations; I think that's the cultural zeitgeist that the New York Times is more familiar with :-P Sort of the backlash to the right wing calling both European Social Democrats and American moves to expand the welfare state "socialist" as a term of abuse.
    - vidarh 10y ago
      I honestly don't think Bernie would have had a chance at getting the kind of traction he got if the US right hadn't basically massively overplayed its hand by trying to tell a generation that grew up after the end of the cold war that Obama was a socialist. It led to a very strong, very noticeable shift in perception where a much wider group of Americans in discussions would start asking questions about socialism instead of shooting down any mention of it with insults.
      - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
        He probably wouldn't have chosen to call himself a socialist if the American right hadn't watered down the term so much.
duaneb 10y ago
> It was very much an aesthetic choice, intentionally designed to be provocative. Sometimes, perhaps. Soviet brutalism was inspired by anemic budgets rather than the aesthetic. In fact I would speculate this is a driving factor more than anything--concrete is easy to work with and is cheap. The aesthetic certainly gives the movement its name, though.
- twelvechairs 10y ago
  It was also popular for its apparent low maintenance. Only now we are at the point where 60 year old concrete buildings need to be cleaned and it costs a fortune to do so because they were never designed for it
syphilis2 10y ago
In addition to the Metro, another structure that I recognize as wonderful brutalism is the Hirshhorn museum. More than just visually unique, the space works well for exhibits as you work your way around the donut (one way or the other) with large interior windows (but also windowless exterior space). It's very different from anything else on the Mall, and also from much of the other typically rectangular brutalist (waffle) buildings in DC (exceptions for Watergate and the lovely Canadian embassy). From within the surrounding garden it feels at home, a smooth, geometric, vaguely alien singleton resting behind the hedges as any other sculpture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture_Garden#Gallery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture... As for brutalism coming back, I haven't seen much new construction. I suspect when it does make its resurgence it will be with some recognition of how it was received in the past and how those structures are regarded today.

by niftich 10y ago

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.
- rayiner 10y ago
  To be fair, the DC metro was built more than 70 years after the New York subway.
  - lobster_johnson 10y ago
    There are much older subways (London, Paris and Madrid come to mind) that are as large and have managed to stay modern, albeit with slightly fewer stations (but longer networks). The NYC is subway is old, but it's not like they haven't had any time to work on it. From what I've read, it's mostly attributable to mismanagement at the MTA — misdirected funds, union squabbles, lack of political will, lack of imagination, outright corruption. NYC is admittedly extremely time-consuming (and therefore expensive) to dig, but all the things that could have modernized the subway and made more it convenient and accessible wouldn't require digging more tunnels. The other systemic problems — lack of modern signaling, lack of parallel tunnels — are harder and more expensive to solve, especially without disrupting commuters.
    - rayiner 10y ago
      The D.C. Metro is equally badly managed, if not worse. The only reason it's better in some ways,[1] is because it started with a 70-year technology advantage. [1] And it's worse in many ways too, such as the lack of express tracks.
    - RockyMcNuts 10y ago
      ummh... have you ever been on any of those subways? Paris is a marvel for its density and well-planned routes. But some of the lines are more like underground light rail compared to e.g. the Lexington line, which on its own carries like 1/3 of the passengers of Paris or London. The London Tube trains I've been on felt like a subway for midgets compared to the 10-foot wide BMT trains. They stop running at night. One of the only times I've missed a flight was due to a London Tube delay. The new Chinese subways really put the US to shame, quiet, double glass doors, video screens everywhere, cell phones work everywhere, very cheap, very dense and very crowded. The NY subway is pretty reliable and fast. Apps like Moovit and Citymapper make it pretty easy to get where you want as quickly as possible. Train Time coverage and wifi coverage could be better, the latter is improving. It could be nicer but all I can say is if you think the New York subway is bad now, you should have tried it in the 70s. Edit: I'd add that an Oyster-type payment system would be nice. Also, a couple of MTA alumni have led systems in London, Hong Kong, Toronto, other cities, so NY is probably not at the very bottom in best practices. Bottom line is you can get anywhere quickly and reliably at all hours, if not always in luxurious style, and you don't need a car to live here. So I'll take it, until your driverless taxi can deal with NY traffic and get there faster.

throwanem 10y ago

Amazing how it expresses sheer human grandeur at the same time it reduces the human to insignificance, isn't it? I always feel like I'm in some kind of weird cross between a cathedral and the diggings of some giant alien worm.

azernik 10y ago

> perhaps by the fact that it's no longer the style associated with government intervention The speculation of the article is actually the opposite - that in the era of Bernie Sanders, when young people hear "socialism" and think of a functioning European welfare state rather than an oppressive European dictatorship, the connotations of large-scale government intervention have become a positive.

allendoerfer 10y ago
The funny thing about that is, that even for Europeans the term sounds negative, at least for Germans. We do not think that we live inside socialism. For us socialism is what Eastern Germany had and it is a bad idea (TM), too. We would use terms like social democratic or social market economy. Maybe it is different in other European countries, though.
- azernik 10y ago
  Interesting. I'm referring to the US associations; I think that's the cultural zeitgeist that the New York Times is more familiar with :-P Sort of the backlash to the right wing calling both European Social Democrats and American moves to expand the welfare state "socialist" as a term of abuse.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    I honestly don't think Bernie would have had a chance at getting the kind of traction he got if the US right hadn't basically massively overplayed its hand by trying to tell a generation that grew up after the end of the cold war that Obama was a socialist. It led to a very strong, very noticeable shift in perception where a much wider group of Americans in discussions would start asking questions about socialism instead of shooting down any mention of it with insults.
    - TheCoelacanth 10y ago
      He probably wouldn't have chosen to call himself a socialist if the American right hadn't watered down the term so much.

duaneb 10y ago

> It was very much an aesthetic choice, intentionally designed to be provocative. Sometimes, perhaps. Soviet brutalism was inspired by anemic budgets rather than the aesthetic. In fact I would speculate this is a driving factor more than anything--concrete is easy to work with and is cheap. The aesthetic certainly gives the movement its name, though.

twelvechairs 10y ago
It was also popular for its apparent low maintenance. Only now we are at the point where 60 year old concrete buildings need to be cleaned and it costs a fortune to do so because they were never designed for it

syphilis2 10y ago

In addition to the Metro, another structure that I recognize as wonderful brutalism is the Hirshhorn museum. More than just visually unique, the space works well for exhibits as you work your way around the donut (one way or the other) with large interior windows (but also windowless exterior space). It's very different from anything else on the Mall, and also from much of the other typically rectangular brutalist (waffle) buildings in DC (exceptions for Watergate and the lovely Canadian embassy). From within the surrounding garden it feels at home, a smooth, geometric, vaguely alien singleton resting behind the hedges as any other sculpture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture_Garden#Gallery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirshhorn_Museum_and_Sculpture... As for brutalism coming back, I haven't seen much new construction. I suspect when it does make its resurgence it will be with some recognition of how it was received in the past and how those structures are regarded today.