4 ms·

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

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.

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.