5 ms·

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, a

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.
golergka 9y ago
> I don't understand why anyone would do it Well, may be because qualities like these: > beautiful and human aren't considered to be good and desirable in architecture by everyone.
- briandear 9y ago
  Of course not, Soviets and other communist countries loved it specifically because it was not beautiful or human as it reinforced the unimportance of the individual and reinforced the power of the State. Brutalism is totalitarian architecture.
  - golergka 9y ago
    But it was fashionable all over the globe, not only in totalitarian communist dictatorships. Personally, I love brutalism especially because of how impersonal, cold and unnatural it is. It's not about balance of power, but rather the inner emotional feeling and comfort.
    - rglullis 9y ago
      If the countries themselves were not communist dictatorships, at least the architects that led the efforts were influenced by communist and authoritarian ideologies. At least in Brazil, the biggest name in Brutalism, Oscar Niemeyer, who brought us atrocities such as the Metropolitan Cathedral of Rio de Janeiro [1] and the whole shitstorm called Brasilia, has always been an avid communist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_Cathedral#/media/File:Rio-Cathedral1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_Cathedral#/medi...
      - emodendroket 9y ago
        Now you're really stretching. The political leanings of one architect mean the whole project is Marxist?
  - tetromino_ 9y ago
    > Soviets and other communist countries loved it Not particularly. There were some brutalist buildings put up in the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and early 1980s [1] - but it absolutely was not a predominant architectural style, nothing at all comparable to brutalism's reign in the UK. For example, an apartment building in Moscow [2] is notable just for being one of the very few examples of brutalist residential architecture in a city full of non-brutalist apartment buildings. [1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Брутализм#.D0.91.D1.80.D1.83.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.B7.D0.BC_.D0.B2_.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0.A0 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Брутализм#.D0.91.D1.80.D1.83.D... [2] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дом_авиаторов_на_Беговой_улице https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дом_авиаторов_на_Беговой_улице
SwellJoe 9y ago
I don't doubt that Brutalist architects failed sometimes (maybe often). I think the style has also gotten a bad rap. Sturgeon's Law applies to everything...it's easy to think about your favorite classic European architecture and think, "Well, everything should be like this, it's really nice." But, that discounts the thousands of buildings that were built and subsequently torn down because they failed by some metric. The style didn't make them failures; they just weren't good. Brutalist buildings are no exception, they're just more recent and so we have a lot more of the stinkers still standing. And, we're living in a time where people value the past (even the recent-ish past) more than folks in previous generations. We venerate old buildings, maybe because the pace of destruction and rebuilding has accelerated beyond our comfort zone for change. So, it's likely that a lot of poorly conceived Brutalist architecture will live long enough to be hated. And, it also does seem to be the case that retrofitting Brutalist buildings to suit modern needs and tastes may be more difficult than previous kinds of architecture. The Grenfell tower is a tragic example of that (though one could reasonably argue that it didn't have to be that way...a little more money spent would have saved lives). I don't know. I happen to be fond of a lot of Brutalist architecture. Not all of it. And, I recognize and agree with many of your points. But, I think there's a beauty to be found in the raw concrete, straight lines, cantilevered elements, etc. of the best Brutalist architecture. I like the design of those decades, in general, not just the buildings.
- Marazan 9y ago
  With regards to Sturgeon's law unfortunately lots of completely non-functional Brutalist buildings are held up as beautiful marvels. Buildings with flat roofs and piss poor drainage in the West of Scotland (rains a bit) are held up as timeless paragons of the style. This tells me there is a massive disconnect between architects and normal people. (EDIT: There is quite a lot of Brutalist stuff I like but there is a lot of shit decaying ruins that I'm repeatedly told are brilliant that are most certainly not)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - vanderZwan 9y ago
rusk 9y ago
I don't understand why anyone would do it. Cost. You don't have to pay for and manage pesky craftsmen with their finicky details. Fabricate some concrete slabs in a factory, ship them to site and hoist them into place and you're done. At the very least the art-deco guys tried to find some compromise with form, and Bauhaus did emphasise function at all costs. Brutalism for its own sake reminds me of the dudes who hear the trope "nice guys finish last" and then go about acting the scoundrel just cause they think the opposite might be true. Maybe they get a few "wins" here and there but romantically, and to all practical intents and purposes it's a dead end.
- ahartmetz 9y ago
  > Bauhaus did emphasise function at all costs That is not true. They went for a new blend of usefulness, looks and manufacturability. The look was just new and different (although similar to some precursors: De Stijl and some Russian constructivism), it wasn't ignored at all. Today, many things seem to be cargo-culted Bauhaus designs with many of the good aspects removed. Not all buildings with "simple" shapes look good.
avn2109 9y ago
>> "The Brutalists always said that, but I never bought it." The Brutalists were disingenuous in many ways. You'll hear the trope "Oh 'Brutalism' doesn't mean the English word brutal, it's derived from the French 'Béton brut!'" absolutely everywhere in print and on the internet. This is lazy journalism parroting a faux-profound claim, frequently repeated by people trying to look sophisticated. It's e.g. all over the Wiki article on Brutalism and is probably in 10 different comments downthread. The British people who coined and popularized the term (Ventris and the Smithsons, mostly) were native English speakers and were perfectly aware of the connotations/double meaning of the word "brutal" when designing buildings that ordinary people think look like supervillain lairs. The "French etymology" claim is just a twee shibboleth for architectural-world pretension. That said, this site is hilarious.
Blackthorn 9y ago
When I think of brutalism, I think of old Soviet built buildings. Those things were built to last with no nonsense. But that's not what brutalism in a western architectural sense really is.

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.

golergka 9y ago

> I don't understand why anyone would do it Well, may be because qualities like these: > beautiful and human aren't considered to be good and desirable in architecture by everyone.

briandear 9y ago
Of course not, Soviets and other communist countries loved it specifically because it was not beautiful or human as it reinforced the unimportance of the individual and reinforced the power of the State. Brutalism is totalitarian architecture.
- golergka 9y ago
  But it was fashionable all over the globe, not only in totalitarian communist dictatorships. Personally, I love brutalism especially because of how impersonal, cold and unnatural it is. It's not about balance of power, but rather the inner emotional feeling and comfort.
  - rglullis 9y ago
    If the countries themselves were not communist dictatorships, at least the architects that led the efforts were influenced by communist and authoritarian ideologies. At least in Brazil, the biggest name in Brutalism, Oscar Niemeyer, who brought us atrocities such as the Metropolitan Cathedral of Rio de Janeiro [1] and the whole shitstorm called Brasilia, has always been an avid communist. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_Cathedral#/media/File:Rio-Cathedral1.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rio_de_Janeiro_Cathedral#/medi...
    - emodendroket 9y ago
      Now you're really stretching. The political leanings of one architect mean the whole project is Marxist?
- tetromino_ 9y ago
  > Soviets and other communist countries loved it Not particularly. There were some brutalist buildings put up in the Soviet Union in the late 1970s and early 1980s [1] - but it absolutely was not a predominant architectural style, nothing at all comparable to brutalism's reign in the UK. For example, an apartment building in Moscow [2] is notable just for being one of the very few examples of brutalist residential architecture in a city full of non-brutalist apartment buildings. [1] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Брутализм#.D0.91.D1.80.D1.83.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.BB.D0.B8.D0.B7.D0.BC_.D0.B2_.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0.A1.D0.A0 https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Брутализм#.D0.91.D1.80.D1.83.D... [2] https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дом_авиаторов_на_Беговой_улице https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Дом_авиаторов_на_Беговой_улице

SwellJoe 9y ago

I don't doubt that Brutalist architects failed sometimes (maybe often). I think the style has also gotten a bad rap. Sturgeon's Law applies to everything...it's easy to think about your favorite classic European architecture and think, "Well, everything should be like this, it's really nice." But, that discounts the thousands of buildings that were built and subsequently torn down because they failed by some metric. The style didn't make them failures; they just weren't good. Brutalist buildings are no exception, they're just more recent and so we have a lot more of the stinkers still standing. And, we're living in a time where people value the past (even the recent-ish past) more than folks in previous generations. We venerate old buildings, maybe because the pace of destruction and rebuilding has accelerated beyond our comfort zone for change. So, it's likely that a lot of poorly conceived Brutalist architecture will live long enough to be hated. And, it also does seem to be the case that retrofitting Brutalist buildings to suit modern needs and tastes may be more difficult than previous kinds of architecture. The Grenfell tower is a tragic example of that (though one could reasonably argue that it didn't have to be that way...a little more money spent would have saved lives). I don't know. I happen to be fond of a lot of Brutalist architecture. Not all of it. And, I recognize and agree with many of your points. But, I think there's a beauty to be found in the raw concrete, straight lines, cantilevered elements, etc. of the best Brutalist architecture. I like the design of those decades, in general, not just the buildings.

Marazan 9y ago
With regards to Sturgeon's law unfortunately lots of completely non-functional Brutalist buildings are held up as beautiful marvels. Buildings with flat roofs and piss poor drainage in the West of Scotland (rains a bit) are held up as timeless paragons of the style. This tells me there is a massive disconnect between architects and normal people. (EDIT: There is quite a lot of Brutalist stuff I like but there is a lot of shit decaying ruins that I'm repeatedly told are brilliant that are most certainly not)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- vanderZwan 9y ago

rusk 9y ago

I don't understand why anyone would do it. Cost. You don't have to pay for and manage pesky craftsmen with their finicky details. Fabricate some concrete slabs in a factory, ship them to site and hoist them into place and you're done. At the very least the art-deco guys tried to find some compromise with form, and Bauhaus did emphasise function at all costs. Brutalism for its own sake reminds me of the dudes who hear the trope "nice guys finish last" and then go about acting the scoundrel just cause they think the opposite might be true. Maybe they get a few "wins" here and there but romantically, and to all practical intents and purposes it's a dead end.

ahartmetz 9y ago
> Bauhaus did emphasise function at all costs That is not true. They went for a new blend of usefulness, looks and manufacturability. The look was just new and different (although similar to some precursors: De Stijl and some Russian constructivism), it wasn't ignored at all. Today, many things seem to be cargo-culted Bauhaus designs with many of the good aspects removed. Not all buildings with "simple" shapes look good.

avn2109 9y ago

>> "The Brutalists always said that, but I never bought it." The Brutalists were disingenuous in many ways. You'll hear the trope "Oh 'Brutalism' doesn't mean the English word brutal, it's derived from the French 'Béton brut!'" absolutely everywhere in print and on the internet. This is lazy journalism parroting a faux-profound claim, frequently repeated by people trying to look sophisticated. It's e.g. all over the Wiki article on Brutalism and is probably in 10 different comments downthread. The British people who coined and popularized the term (Ventris and the Smithsons, mostly) were native English speakers and were perfectly aware of the connotations/double meaning of the word "brutal" when designing buildings that ordinary people think look like supervillain lairs. The "French etymology" claim is just a twee shibboleth for architectural-world pretension. That said, this site is hilarious.

Blackthorn 9y ago

When I think of brutalism, I think of old Soviet built buildings. Those things were built to last with no nonsense. But that's not what brutalism in a western architectural sense really is.