3 ms·

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

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
  > This tells me there is a massive disconnect between architects and normal people. Well, on the other end of the scale we have McMansions[0] - although part of the critiques[1] also feel like architect snobbery to me at times. [0] http://mcmansionhell.com/ http://mcmansionhell.com/ [1] http://mcmansionhell.com/101 http://mcmansionhell.com/101
  - msla 9y ago
    McMansion means two things at the same time. Be wary of terms like those: 1. Badly-designed and badly-built (as in, objectively not up to some verifiable standard) homes built with the look of better-built homes but none of the construction quality those homes have. 2. Houses built by the newly-rich on small lots, in contrast with the houses inherited by the old money on larger tracts of land. The inevitable and, perhaps, deliberate conflation between the two senses is pure class warfare, of the "Established upper class striking against the newly arrived" sense.
  - Marazan 9y ago
    McMansions are also non-functional buildings. It would be possible to ape the 'incremental build' style of a building that's been around for 100s of years without the aesthetic dissonance and massive space wastage of the average McManison. If you have a different style of window in every fitting without a strong aesthetic tie then you've just raised the build and maintenance cost of the property for no reason except cargo cultism.
- Bartweiss 9y ago
  This is my objection also. Sturgeon's Law says that most things are bad; it doesn't obligate anyone to celebrate those failures. Having spent time in quite a few 'iconic' Brutalist building, my experience is that they're frequently terrible. Impressive looking, but deeply unfriendly to their inhabitants. There's one where it sometimes rains indoors because the venting and vault-ceilings are so poorly executed. It's still lauded as great architecture.
Khaine 9y ago
There are many brutalist buildings in my home town, and they are without exception fugly. My grandfather had to do maintenance on one that was poorly designed and built that water leaked in everywhere, it had half levels that you could get stuck in due to the passback system, and it had poor cooling and heating meaning everyone complained about the temperature. Anyone who has worked in it, absolute hates the building, yet architects love it. I have never been in, nor seen a brutalist building that looked good and was functional. They may exist, but all the examples in my home town (and there are many) are terrible buildings best left in the scrapheap of history.

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
> This tells me there is a massive disconnect between architects and normal people. Well, on the other end of the scale we have McMansions[0] - although part of the critiques[1] also feel like architect snobbery to me at times. [0] http://mcmansionhell.com/ http://mcmansionhell.com/ [1] http://mcmansionhell.com/101 http://mcmansionhell.com/101
- msla 9y ago
  McMansion means two things at the same time. Be wary of terms like those: 1. Badly-designed and badly-built (as in, objectively not up to some verifiable standard) homes built with the look of better-built homes but none of the construction quality those homes have. 2. Houses built by the newly-rich on small lots, in contrast with the houses inherited by the old money on larger tracts of land. The inevitable and, perhaps, deliberate conflation between the two senses is pure class warfare, of the "Established upper class striking against the newly arrived" sense.
- Marazan 9y ago
  McMansions are also non-functional buildings. It would be possible to ape the 'incremental build' style of a building that's been around for 100s of years without the aesthetic dissonance and massive space wastage of the average McManison. If you have a different style of window in every fitting without a strong aesthetic tie then you've just raised the build and maintenance cost of the property for no reason except cargo cultism.
Bartweiss 9y ago
This is my objection also. Sturgeon's Law says that most things are bad; it doesn't obligate anyone to celebrate those failures. Having spent time in quite a few 'iconic' Brutalist building, my experience is that they're frequently terrible. Impressive looking, but deeply unfriendly to their inhabitants. There's one where it sometimes rains indoors because the venting and vault-ceilings are so poorly executed. It's still lauded as great architecture.

Khaine 9y ago

There are many brutalist buildings in my home town, and they are without exception fugly. My grandfather had to do maintenance on one that was poorly designed and built that water leaked in everywhere, it had half levels that you could get stuck in due to the passback system, and it had poor cooling and heating meaning everyone complained about the temperature. Anyone who has worked in it, absolute hates the building, yet architects love it. I have never been in, nor seen a brutalist building that looked good and was functional. They may exist, but all the examples in my home town (and there are many) are terrible buildings best left in the scrapheap of history.