5 ms·

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 brutal

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.
  - afterburner 10y ago
    > it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. > http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg You're right, I hate it. It's lazy and bland ("you know what's amazing? gray"). I've even been in a place that has a very similar design. It felt like a dead area to me. Looks like the very definition of soul-crushing. People like blue skies over gray skies for a reason.
    - taejavu 10y ago
      > Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. It does, because the rest of your arguments are expressing the same attitude. You're saying "I think it's ugly, anyone that doesn't share my tastes is wrong, and no more buildings should ever be built in this style." Which would be fine if it was presented as opinion, but you've presented it as fact, which makes you incorrect.
      - afterburner 10y ago
        I said more than that, go check.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > 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 I think that anyone who prefers that to https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhodes_Our%20Campus.jpg https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhod... is objectively wrong, in the same sense that someone who thinks Steve Buscemi is more handsome than George Clooney is objectively wrong. With people, being a good person can be more important than looks; with buildings, being well-formed can also outweigh looks. But that, again, is where brutalism tends to fall down: unlike traditional architecture, it tends not to work on the level of the individual human being. It doesn't prioritise the experience of those inhabiting it, but rather the experience of those viewing it (it is, in that respect, 'arch'), nor those who must maintain it for its inhabitants. It's not situated to receive natural light and heat, but rather to receive natural and artificial light to make an interesting play of shadow in photographs. It's not full of little rooms and cubbyholes and shelves, because those wouldn't look as neat in a model. It's not full of decoration and ornament, moulding and waistcoating, glasswork and patterns of colour to delight the eye over decades, in part because those wouldn't show up in the model and in part because its designers simply don't care. Brutalist architecture is, in the end, a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

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.
- afterburner 10y ago
  > it completely invalidates any claim you're trying to make Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. > http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5356556-3x2-940x627.jpg You're right, I hate it. It's lazy and bland ("you know what's amazing? gray"). I've even been in a place that has a very similar design. It felt like a dead area to me. Looks like the very definition of soul-crushing. People like blue skies over gray skies for a reason.
  - taejavu 10y ago
    > Nah, it's just one word. That doesn't cancel the rest of my arguments. It does, because the rest of your arguments are expressing the same attitude. You're saying "I think it's ugly, anyone that doesn't share my tastes is wrong, and no more buildings should ever be built in this style." Which would be fine if it was presented as opinion, but you've presented it as fact, which makes you incorrect.
    - afterburner 10y ago
      I said more than that, go check.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > 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 I think that anyone who prefers that to https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhodes_Our%20Campus.jpg https://www.rhodes.edu/sites/default/files/u321/About%20Rhod... is objectively wrong, in the same sense that someone who thinks Steve Buscemi is more handsome than George Clooney is objectively wrong. With people, being a good person can be more important than looks; with buildings, being well-formed can also outweigh looks. But that, again, is where brutalism tends to fall down: unlike traditional architecture, it tends not to work on the level of the individual human being. It doesn't prioritise the experience of those inhabiting it, but rather the experience of those viewing it (it is, in that respect, 'arch'), nor those who must maintain it for its inhabitants. It's not situated to receive natural light and heat, but rather to receive natural and artificial light to make an interesting play of shadow in photographs. It's not full of little rooms and cubbyholes and shelves, because those wouldn't look as neat in a model. It's not full of decoration and ornament, moulding and waistcoating, glasswork and patterns of colour to delight the eye over decades, in part because those wouldn't show up in the model and in part because its designers simply don't care. Brutalist architecture is, in the end, a boot stamping on a human face, forever.