11 ms·

This is funny, but I think also misses the point of Brutalism entirely. Brutalist architecture is functional first (but often beautiful, too). The examples of

This is funny, but I think also misses the point of Brutalism entirely. Brutalist architecture is functional first (but often beautiful, too). The examples of Brutalist web design almost entirely miss out on being functional by being hard to read, abstract (not merely containing abstract elements, but abstract at its core), and lacking in the clean hard lines commonly seen in Brutalism. There are some examples in the linked gallery (http://brutalistwebsites.com/ http://brutalistwebsites.com/) that I think can be fairly compared to Brutalist architecture, but nowhere near the majority of them. Most are just ugly and gimmicky. Brutalism may have been ugly and gimmicky at times, but it wasn't the core motivating force for any Brutalist work of note.

falcolas 9y ago
Functional yet beautiful in a clean, hard-line way makes me think of Craigslist. Exceptionally functional, blocky, information-dense, minimal styling... Also, some NSFW images on that brutalist website gallery.
ptaipale 9y ago
Or brutalist architecture claims to be functional, but is sometimes averse to actual functions, because buildings are considered pieces of art. Source: experiences trying to keep computer science classes in a university building designed by famous functionalist architect Alvar Aalto (university now named after him).
- StavrosK 9y ago
  At the risk of pulling a No True Scotsman, it seems to me that those buildings (like this website) were inspired by the aesthetics of Brutalism instead of the actual point of the movement. Ie, they tried to make buildings that looked Brutalist, instead of trying to design them to be functional and eschewing (or not paying as much attention to) aesthetics, which (in my uninformed opinion) is what Brutalism, as a movement, was about.
  - ptaipale 9y ago
    The problem here is that even when building is "functional", the needs of the functions change. If the architect does not allow it, or if the building is not well adaptable, the "functionality" becomes "non-functionality". In my case it was that the architect (who worked in early 1960's) could foresee classrooms with tables, but could not foresee that the classroom tables would have computers connected to a network (as they had in 1980's).
    - StavrosK 9y ago
      Ah, I hadn't considered that, thank you.
    - Bartweiss 9y ago
      This is a crucial point. I'm told Brutalism was fairly functional when it came into existence; much of it certainly isn't any more. Building structures with exposed structural materials means there's no space for hidden infrastructure like cabling and power points. Building structures out of concrete in particular is antithetical to modern technology - no one could have seen WiFi coming, but it's a major hurdle in all-concrete structures. The shift to power outlets and internet connectivity is a major aspect of usability; it's a shame that so much of Brutalism is in colleges and transit spaces where people urgently want those things.
squeed 9y ago
I don't disagree with you, but I think there's a further criticism of Brutalist architecture that's worth mentioning. Brutalism does indeed try to value functionality over decoration, but I feel it misses the mark in that regard, giving up too much in exchange for too little. Reinforced concrete is not the wonder-material it was initially thought to be. It needs plenty of maintenance; it needs to be painted and guarded against water; and it is very very hard to make watertight window junctions. A critical part of a building that is "functional" is that it's able to change and be altered as needed. No matter how brilliant your programming and research, needs will change. And then you're looking at years of noisy jackhammering and drilling to put a door, conduit, etc. So if concrete is no everlasting maintenance-free wood, is the physical inflexibility worth it?
- foolrush 9y ago
  I love the tongue in cheek site. Cracked me up. Brutalism is peak Late Modernism in the sense that it is the complete exorcising of cultural symbology via ornamentation. The timing of Brutalism isn't coincidental; it actively marched lock step with late industrialization. The need for an engine of commerce needs specialisation and parts that work with ultra efficiency in the machine. No need for the baggage of cultural nuance nor ecclectic individuality. Not a surprise that the busted up ideological polemic of "form" vs. "function" takes its dark roots in this era.
  - mbrock 9y ago
    Interesting connection for people interested in design patterns: > At the University of Oregon campus, outrage and vocal distaste for Brutalism led, in part, to the hiring of Christopher Alexander and the initiation of The Oregon Experiment in the late 1970s. This led to the development of Alexander's A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building.
  - tpm 9y ago
    Brutalism created its own symbols, through the simple and massive presence of concrete that cannot be ignored. Also concrete by itself quickly stopped being the most effective building material. On the other hand, the International Style, emerging at about the same time, now that's completely devoid of cultural symbols.
jankotek 9y ago
wiki: >The term originates from the French word for "raw", as Le Corbusier described his choice of material béton brut, raw concrete. I personally consider this style applies to any building without proper function; no windows, open-plan offices...
- gnud 9y ago
  Well, then you're basically just mis-using the term. Brutalist comes from 'raw', not from 'brutal'. Brutalist buildings have windows. And I've yet to see a brutalist open-plan office.
rmchugh 9y ago
Note also that the term brutalism comes from the french term for "raw", as it referred to the method of building with raw concrete, "béton brut" espoused by Le Corbusier. It does not mean purposely ugly, this is a misinterpretation.
- andygates 9y ago
  And if we're thinking in terms of straightforward, obvious functional design elements and no misdirection or ornament, sites like this one and Craigslist score high on the brut scale.
3pt14159 9y ago
The Brutalists always said that, but I never bought it. I went to a university (Waterloo) with some iconic Brutalist buildings. They were not more functional, and certainly not more maintainable. Big empty space when you enter, no place to hang your coat. Concrete stairs everywhere, nothing to soften your steps and slippery in the winter with even just a bit of snow outside. Wood stairs might absorb the some moisture and eventually rot, but they're easy to replace. When our stairs finally started cracking they just stayed cracked until the entire stairwell needed to be replaced. Everything looked the same => easy to get lost and hard to get a true sense of the building. Brutalism is the worst thing to happen to architecture. I don't understand why anyone would do it. The soft pastels, flowered windows, and charming, modest architectural flourishes of the old parts of European cities like Vilnius are so much more beautiful and human. Or even some modern Asian cities like Tokyo where things are bright and modern, without being depressing and harsh.
- peterclary 9y ago
  I believe you, but there's little there which is specific to Brutalism or even a core characteristic of it: Big empty space, no place to hang your coat, stairs everywhere, everything looked the same, easy to get lost and hard to get a true sense of the building; you could say the same about a lot of work coming from the Starchitects of the late 20th and early 21st Century. I do agree that Brutalism can look oppressive, but it doesn't have to. The Barbican in London is a wonderful estate, with highly sought-after apartments.
  - chiph 9y ago
    It's a good example of the style. But have you attended a tradeshow there? Maybe it was just the hall we were in, but the low ceilings were oppressive and didn't allow vendors to hang their signs very high, leading to even more claustrophobia.
    - peterclary 9y ago
      I know what you mean. It works well for exhibitions, I think, but not so well for trade shows. I've seen exhibitions on Ray and Charles Eames, Star Wars, Video Games and other stuff up there. I also went to a PC World show there back in the 80s. I live in an old house with low ceilings and doorways I have to duck through, so the Barbican headroom seems comparatively luxurious.
dalbasal 9y ago
In fairness, I think anything called "brutalist ______" will be more of an analogy than anything. The core of brutalist architecture materials. Brut means concrete. A lot of the abstract/philosphical concepts relate mostly to the material. Brutalism aften aims to be "true" to the concrete. Don't make it look like bricks or wood. Take advantage of its unique abilities to produce different shapes. You can mimick the look of brutalist architecture and make things look like concrete. But then, you're going explicitely against the "philosphy" by default: don't pretend you're not using concrete. You can mimic/adopt the philosophy, but then it will not look like brutalism.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >The core of brutalist architecture materials. Brut means concrete. It means "raw" / unrefined / untreated -- so something like "just the basics" / "rough and ready". Concrete is "beton" and "beton brut" is one type of concrete.
  - dalbasal 9y ago
    my bad
- yoz-y 9y ago
  Brut un brutalism actually means "raw" (from béton brut - raw concrete). The idea is mainly to use materials as they are, without paint or polish. An equivalent for a website would be to not use css... maybe.
vanderZwan 9y ago
> Brutalist architecture is functional first (but often beautiful, too). In regards to that, I have trouble considering a website that needs JavaScript to display plain images truly Brutalist in spirit.
Asooka 9y ago
So... Are bash and vim Brutalist? Have we finally gone full circle?
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  Yeah, I think vim is more like Brutalism than 90% of the examples in the gallery.
mhb 9y ago
How is a wall that scrapes you if you brush against it functional?
- throwanem 9y ago
  It teaches you not to touch the walls! One hardly fondles the paintings in the Louvre, after all. And aren't the works of architects indeed just as much works of art, with human habitation an incidental annoyance to be catered to as sparingly as possible, and never in ways that compromise the shining vision?
BenoitEssiambre 9y ago
news.ycombinator.com is in the examples, ha!
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  And, it's one of the few examples I would be comfortable comparing to Brutalist architecture (though I have a vague feeling that pg is not really a fan of Brutalism, though I can't think of where I got that idea from, as I don't think he's ever spoken specifically about it).
0xcde4c3db 9y ago
Arguably, a major point of Brutalism is letting the essence of the materials come through rather than covering them up. In that sense, I think "Brutalist" web design would connote embracing things like hypertext, links, and hierarchical structure rather than building up the illusion that your website is some ethereal dance of pure unsullied UX. The infamous "Motherfucking Website" [1] might be the best-known example of deliberately showcasing this approach. [1] http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/
- b4ux1t3 9y ago
  I think that early web (say, pre-Web 2.0) was the epitome of Brutalist design. Because resources were limited, you had to make the most of what you had, leading to that no-nonsense, sparse style. I think it's beautiful, in its own way.
  - rusk 9y ago
    I think you're giving early web "design" far too much credit. To say something is "brutalist" describes an intentional aesthetic - early pages really where purely functional, and any aesthetic flourishes really were limited by the technology despite aspirations to design something beautiful (whatever that means).
    - b4ux1t3 9y ago
      Fair point. I didn't mean to imply it was an intentional design choice, just that it was "selected for" by the "nature" of the platform (ha!). And with regard to "beauty", I just meant that it was almost elegant in a way that modern design tries to do away with. For instance, if a site didn't have a proper search function, but had a pretty logical URL scheme, you could often find what you need by trying a few permutations in the address bar. The limitations of the system meant web "designers" (I'm using that term loosely) had to build fairly organized and unintentionally "Brutalist" sites if they wanted to be used by any large number of people. Hope that made sense, I'm still waiting for my coffee to kick in.
  - et-al 9y ago
leemcalilly 9y ago
Have you seen Vice News on HBO. I'd say this is an example of this style that, no joke, works very well and is attractive.
- SwellJoe 9y ago
  Vice has very good designers across the board, IMHO. Their aesthetic is very distinctive, bold, modern, and clean, and it runs all through their properties (from TV, web, festivals, etc.). They're an impressive hybrid of a classic media company and tech savvy modern media company. I don't know if they're actually doing well as a business, but I like their style.
wisty 9y ago
Cathedrals and castles were built to be functional. Concrete and stone are strong under compression, but weak under tension. That's why medieval structures were built with lots of straight lines, or sweeping curves. When I look at a lot of Brutalist buildings (not all, but a lot), I can't help thinking the concrete is mostly a facade, which is covering up a steel structure trying to hold up badly engineered blocks that are jutting out for no reason other than being gimmicky. They make me think of over-styled hatchbacks with oversize spoilers, air intakes, and such. It's not all functional, but it looks functional. And maybe it's nice inside, but I suspect it's got tacky fake racing seats, bouncy suspension, and a sound system with way too much base. Obviously I don't like Brutalist architecture, so I might be biased. And some of it really looks like abstract modern cathedrals, with sweeping concrete arches that look both functional and efficient. But a lot of it seems to designed to look functional at the expense of actually being functional.
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  > When I look at a lot of Brutalist buildings (not all, but a lot), I can't help thinking the concrete is mostly a facade, which is covering up a steel structure trying to hold up badly engineered blocks that are jutting out for no reason other than being gimmicky. Brutalism (and especially neo-Brutalism) didn't allow facades. While that concrete may have rebar, the entire Brutalism philosophy was about not hiding the materials of construction. If a thing was to be made of concrete, it was going to look like it (instead of a faux brick or tile facade or whatever else), and a thing wasn't to be made of concrete if it didn't need to be (at the time that was often the cheapest material for the work). The concrete extensions out from Brutalist buildings were designed with a function: to create outdoor courtyards and gathering spaces, interesting shades and "cubbies" for socialization. A lot of those spaces don't get used for that much anymore, but that's as much of change in people's relationship with the outdoors as modern a/c has changed the landscape. There were a couple neo-Brutalist buildings rather central to my University's campus, which lead to my interest in the style, and it was interesting realizing how intentional they were meant to shape the space around themselves. That was a case where you would see a lot of those strange concrete overhangs used and subconsciously appreciated by students throughout the day. I don't think a lot of students realized those spaces were intentionally designed for just that usage.
mseebach 9y ago
> Brutalist architecture is functional first (but often beautiful, too). Brutalism was at its core an ideological movement, its purpose to create buildings for the masses in the new socialist utopias. As such, it often explicitly rejected aesthetics as decadence, and sought directly to shock the bourgeoise. Also, being ideological and utopian, its purported functionality was directed at utopian people, not actual people, which explains why these building often don't, in fact, feel all that functional. One clear shortcoming is that ugliness breed ugliness -- people are much more likely to take care of, and in general behave well, in a pretty environment than in an ugly one, aka. the broken window theory.
akdetrick 9y ago
and the word "Brutalism" originally referred to the material, béton brut (poured concrete), not a philosophy of being brutal.
resu_nimda 9y ago
The monospaced serifed fonts used in these sites strike me as very not brutal. From a typographic perspective, something like Arial is a lot more raw/basic/clean/simple than Courier New.
PhasmaFelis 9y ago
The Brutalists kind of screwed themselves by embracing that name. It's essentially a mistranslation; the original French term was beton brut, "raw concrete", so "raw" would make more sense than "brutal".

falcolas 9y ago

Functional yet beautiful in a clean, hard-line way makes me think of Craigslist. Exceptionally functional, blocky, information-dense, minimal styling... Also, some NSFW images on that brutalist website gallery.

ptaipale 9y ago

Or brutalist architecture claims to be functional, but is sometimes averse to actual functions, because buildings are considered pieces of art. Source: experiences trying to keep computer science classes in a university building designed by famous functionalist architect Alvar Aalto (university now named after him).

StavrosK 9y ago
At the risk of pulling a No True Scotsman, it seems to me that those buildings (like this website) were inspired by the aesthetics of Brutalism instead of the actual point of the movement. Ie, they tried to make buildings that looked Brutalist, instead of trying to design them to be functional and eschewing (or not paying as much attention to) aesthetics, which (in my uninformed opinion) is what Brutalism, as a movement, was about.
- ptaipale 9y ago
  The problem here is that even when building is "functional", the needs of the functions change. If the architect does not allow it, or if the building is not well adaptable, the "functionality" becomes "non-functionality". In my case it was that the architect (who worked in early 1960's) could foresee classrooms with tables, but could not foresee that the classroom tables would have computers connected to a network (as they had in 1980's).
  - StavrosK 9y ago
    Ah, I hadn't considered that, thank you.
  - Bartweiss 9y ago
    This is a crucial point. I'm told Brutalism was fairly functional when it came into existence; much of it certainly isn't any more. Building structures with exposed structural materials means there's no space for hidden infrastructure like cabling and power points. Building structures out of concrete in particular is antithetical to modern technology - no one could have seen WiFi coming, but it's a major hurdle in all-concrete structures. The shift to power outlets and internet connectivity is a major aspect of usability; it's a shame that so much of Brutalism is in colleges and transit spaces where people urgently want those things.

squeed 9y ago

I don't disagree with you, but I think there's a further criticism of Brutalist architecture that's worth mentioning. Brutalism does indeed try to value functionality over decoration, but I feel it misses the mark in that regard, giving up too much in exchange for too little. Reinforced concrete is not the wonder-material it was initially thought to be. It needs plenty of maintenance; it needs to be painted and guarded against water; and it is very very hard to make watertight window junctions. A critical part of a building that is "functional" is that it's able to change and be altered as needed. No matter how brilliant your programming and research, needs will change. And then you're looking at years of noisy jackhammering and drilling to put a door, conduit, etc. So if concrete is no everlasting maintenance-free wood, is the physical inflexibility worth it?

foolrush 9y ago
I love the tongue in cheek site. Cracked me up. Brutalism is peak Late Modernism in the sense that it is the complete exorcising of cultural symbology via ornamentation. The timing of Brutalism isn't coincidental; it actively marched lock step with late industrialization. The need for an engine of commerce needs specialisation and parts that work with ultra efficiency in the machine. No need for the baggage of cultural nuance nor ecclectic individuality. Not a surprise that the busted up ideological polemic of "form" vs. "function" takes its dark roots in this era.
- mbrock 9y ago
  Interesting connection for people interested in design patterns: > At the University of Oregon campus, outrage and vocal distaste for Brutalism led, in part, to the hiring of Christopher Alexander and the initiation of The Oregon Experiment in the late 1970s. This led to the development of Alexander's A Pattern Language and The Timeless Way of Building.
- tpm 9y ago
  Brutalism created its own symbols, through the simple and massive presence of concrete that cannot be ignored. Also concrete by itself quickly stopped being the most effective building material. On the other hand, the International Style, emerging at about the same time, now that's completely devoid of cultural symbols.

jankotek 9y ago

wiki: >The term originates from the French word for "raw", as Le Corbusier described his choice of material béton brut, raw concrete. I personally consider this style applies to any building without proper function; no windows, open-plan offices...

gnud 9y ago
Well, then you're basically just mis-using the term. Brutalist comes from 'raw', not from 'brutal'. Brutalist buildings have windows. And I've yet to see a brutalist open-plan office.

rmchugh 9y ago

Note also that the term brutalism comes from the french term for "raw", as it referred to the method of building with raw concrete, "béton brut" espoused by Le Corbusier. It does not mean purposely ugly, this is a misinterpretation.

andygates 9y ago
And if we're thinking in terms of straightforward, obvious functional design elements and no misdirection or ornament, sites like this one and Craigslist score high on the brut scale.

3pt14159 9y ago

The Brutalists always said that, but I never bought it. I went to a university (Waterloo) with some iconic Brutalist buildings. They were not more functional, and certainly not more maintainable. Big empty space when you enter, no place to hang your coat. Concrete stairs everywhere, nothing to soften your steps and slippery in the winter with even just a bit of snow outside. Wood stairs might absorb the some moisture and eventually rot, but they're easy to replace. When our stairs finally started cracking they just stayed cracked until the entire stairwell needed to be replaced. Everything looked the same => easy to get lost and hard to get a true sense of the building. Brutalism is the worst thing to happen to architecture. I don't understand why anyone would do it. The soft pastels, flowered windows, and charming, modest architectural flourishes of the old parts of European cities like Vilnius are so much more beautiful and human. Or even some modern Asian cities like Tokyo where things are bright and modern, without being depressing and harsh.

peterclary 9y ago
I believe you, but there's little there which is specific to Brutalism or even a core characteristic of it: Big empty space, no place to hang your coat, stairs everywhere, everything looked the same, easy to get lost and hard to get a true sense of the building; you could say the same about a lot of work coming from the Starchitects of the late 20th and early 21st Century. I do agree that Brutalism can look oppressive, but it doesn't have to. The Barbican in London is a wonderful estate, with highly sought-after apartments.
- chiph 9y ago
  It's a good example of the style. But have you attended a tradeshow there? Maybe it was just the hall we were in, but the low ceilings were oppressive and didn't allow vendors to hang their signs very high, leading to even more claustrophobia.
  - peterclary 9y ago
    I know what you mean. It works well for exhibitions, I think, but not so well for trade shows. I've seen exhibitions on Ray and Charles Eames, Star Wars, Video Games and other stuff up there. I also went to a PC World show there back in the 80s. I live in an old house with low ceilings and doorways I have to duck through, so the Barbican headroom seems comparatively luxurious.

dalbasal 9y ago

In fairness, I think anything called "brutalist ______" will be more of an analogy than anything. The core of brutalist architecture materials. Brut means concrete. A lot of the abstract/philosphical concepts relate mostly to the material. Brutalism aften aims to be "true" to the concrete. Don't make it look like bricks or wood. Take advantage of its unique abilities to produce different shapes. You can mimick the look of brutalist architecture and make things look like concrete. But then, you're going explicitely against the "philosphy" by default: don't pretend you're not using concrete. You can mimic/adopt the philosophy, but then it will not look like brutalism.

coldtea 9y ago
>The core of brutalist architecture materials. Brut means concrete. It means "raw" / unrefined / untreated -- so something like "just the basics" / "rough and ready". Concrete is "beton" and "beton brut" is one type of concrete.
- dalbasal 9y ago
  my bad
yoz-y 9y ago
Brut un brutalism actually means "raw" (from béton brut - raw concrete). The idea is mainly to use materials as they are, without paint or polish. An equivalent for a website would be to not use css... maybe.

vanderZwan 9y ago

> Brutalist architecture is functional first (but often beautiful, too). In regards to that, I have trouble considering a website that needs JavaScript to display plain images truly Brutalist in spirit.

Asooka 9y ago

So... Are bash and vim Brutalist? Have we finally gone full circle?

SwellJoe 9y ago
Yeah, I think vim is more like Brutalism than 90% of the examples in the gallery.

mhb 9y ago

How is a wall that scrapes you if you brush against it functional?

throwanem 9y ago
It teaches you not to touch the walls! One hardly fondles the paintings in the Louvre, after all. And aren't the works of architects indeed just as much works of art, with human habitation an incidental annoyance to be catered to as sparingly as possible, and never in ways that compromise the shining vision?

BenoitEssiambre 9y ago

news.ycombinator.com is in the examples, ha!

SwellJoe 9y ago
And, it's one of the few examples I would be comfortable comparing to Brutalist architecture (though I have a vague feeling that pg is not really a fan of Brutalism, though I can't think of where I got that idea from, as I don't think he's ever spoken specifically about it).

0xcde4c3db 9y ago

Arguably, a major point of Brutalism is letting the essence of the materials come through rather than covering them up. In that sense, I think "Brutalist" web design would connote embracing things like hypertext, links, and hierarchical structure rather than building up the illusion that your website is some ethereal dance of pure unsullied UX. The infamous "Motherfucking Website" [1] might be the best-known example of deliberately showcasing this approach. [1] http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/ http://motherfuckingwebsite.com/

b4ux1t3 9y ago
I think that early web (say, pre-Web 2.0) was the epitome of Brutalist design. Because resources were limited, you had to make the most of what you had, leading to that no-nonsense, sparse style. I think it's beautiful, in its own way.
- rusk 9y ago
  I think you're giving early web "design" far too much credit. To say something is "brutalist" describes an intentional aesthetic - early pages really where purely functional, and any aesthetic flourishes really were limited by the technology despite aspirations to design something beautiful (whatever that means).
  - b4ux1t3 9y ago
    Fair point. I didn't mean to imply it was an intentional design choice, just that it was "selected for" by the "nature" of the platform (ha!). And with regard to "beauty", I just meant that it was almost elegant in a way that modern design tries to do away with. For instance, if a site didn't have a proper search function, but had a pretty logical URL scheme, you could often find what you need by trying a few permutations in the address bar. The limitations of the system meant web "designers" (I'm using that term loosely) had to build fairly organized and unintentionally "Brutalist" sites if they wanted to be used by any large number of people. Hope that made sense, I'm still waiting for my coffee to kick in.
- et-al 9y ago

leemcalilly 9y ago

Have you seen Vice News on HBO. I'd say this is an example of this style that, no joke, works very well and is attractive.

SwellJoe 9y ago
Vice has very good designers across the board, IMHO. Their aesthetic is very distinctive, bold, modern, and clean, and it runs all through their properties (from TV, web, festivals, etc.). They're an impressive hybrid of a classic media company and tech savvy modern media company. I don't know if they're actually doing well as a business, but I like their style.

wisty 9y ago

Cathedrals and castles were built to be functional. Concrete and stone are strong under compression, but weak under tension. That's why medieval structures were built with lots of straight lines, or sweeping curves. When I look at a lot of Brutalist buildings (not all, but a lot), I can't help thinking the concrete is mostly a facade, which is covering up a steel structure trying to hold up badly engineered blocks that are jutting out for no reason other than being gimmicky. They make me think of over-styled hatchbacks with oversize spoilers, air intakes, and such. It's not all functional, but it looks functional. And maybe it's nice inside, but I suspect it's got tacky fake racing seats, bouncy suspension, and a sound system with way too much base. Obviously I don't like Brutalist architecture, so I might be biased. And some of it really looks like abstract modern cathedrals, with sweeping concrete arches that look both functional and efficient. But a lot of it seems to designed to look functional at the expense of actually being functional.

WorldMaker 9y ago
> When I look at a lot of Brutalist buildings (not all, but a lot), I can't help thinking the concrete is mostly a facade, which is covering up a steel structure trying to hold up badly engineered blocks that are jutting out for no reason other than being gimmicky. Brutalism (and especially neo-Brutalism) didn't allow facades. While that concrete may have rebar, the entire Brutalism philosophy was about not hiding the materials of construction. If a thing was to be made of concrete, it was going to look like it (instead of a faux brick or tile facade or whatever else), and a thing wasn't to be made of concrete if it didn't need to be (at the time that was often the cheapest material for the work). The concrete extensions out from Brutalist buildings were designed with a function: to create outdoor courtyards and gathering spaces, interesting shades and "cubbies" for socialization. A lot of those spaces don't get used for that much anymore, but that's as much of change in people's relationship with the outdoors as modern a/c has changed the landscape. There were a couple neo-Brutalist buildings rather central to my University's campus, which lead to my interest in the style, and it was interesting realizing how intentional they were meant to shape the space around themselves. That was a case where you would see a lot of those strange concrete overhangs used and subconsciously appreciated by students throughout the day. I don't think a lot of students realized those spaces were intentionally designed for just that usage.

mseebach 9y ago

> Brutalist architecture is functional first (but often beautiful, too). Brutalism was at its core an ideological movement, its purpose to create buildings for the masses in the new socialist utopias. As such, it often explicitly rejected aesthetics as decadence, and sought directly to shock the bourgeoise. Also, being ideological and utopian, its purported functionality was directed at utopian people, not actual people, which explains why these building often don't, in fact, feel all that functional. One clear shortcoming is that ugliness breed ugliness -- people are much more likely to take care of, and in general behave well, in a pretty environment than in an ugly one, aka. the broken window theory.

akdetrick 9y ago

and the word "Brutalism" originally referred to the material, béton brut (poured concrete), not a philosophy of being brutal.

resu_nimda 9y ago

The monospaced serifed fonts used in these sites strike me as very not brutal. From a typographic perspective, something like Arial is a lot more raw/basic/clean/simple than Courier New.

PhasmaFelis 9y ago

The Brutalists kind of screwed themselves by embracing that name. It's essentially a mistranslation; the original French term was beton brut, "raw concrete", so "raw" would make more sense than "brutal".