4 ms·

Brutalism is the worst architectonic style. I spent quite a bit of time in brutalist buildings and they impact you negatively. Idk why anyone would want to refe

Brutalism is the worst architectonic style. I spent quite a bit of time in brutalist buildings and they impact you negatively. Idk why anyone would want to reference that.

monocasa 8y ago
IDK, brutalist architecture is great when done right.
- smrk007 8y ago
  I’m not so sure about that. At my university (University of Texas at Dallas) we are “blessed” with a legacy of brutalist architecture [1], which I’ve been told won its fair share of architecture awards. [?] (I’ll assume that means it’s been done “right”. As you can see, it’s been really great for our mental health :) [2]. I can appreciate this style of architecture from an intellectual level, but to be around these kinds of buildings daily is a little exhausting. Sources: [1]https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericejohnson/6344277129/in/photostream https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericejohnson/6344277129/in/pho... [?] Word of mouth. [2]https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=least-happy-students https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=le...
  - Bromskloss 8y ago
    >I can appreciate this style of architecture from an intellectual level Indeed. There are many things – not only architecture – that are interesting to look at for a bit, maybe on paper, but that I would never want to actually have around me in my life. It seems that some people do not consider this difference. Architecture is particularly troublesome, since others force it upon you. You cannot choose it like you can choose what music to engage with, for example.
  - monocasa 8y ago
    I feel like this is a perfect example of how correlation isn't necessarily causation.
  - srtjstjsj 8y ago
    Architecture is like high fashion -- what architects celebrate is not what's good for users, but what's fun in their art shows. Architecture-as-art uses human environments as their canvas instead of as their goal. Architecture award-winning is usually the opposite of what architecture users consider "done right".
timwaagh 8y ago
its been a trend since forever on this site
fredley 8y ago
Like any school of archeticture, there are good examples and bad. Largely, over time, only the good examples survive. The older the school, the higher percentage of it will be good, surviving examples. I find the Barbican in London — which I walk through most days — to be a very uplifting building!
- jeffwass 8y ago
  I was just about to say that the Barbican is probably one of the few Brutalist designs that is actually aesthetically appealing (to me). Most all other examples just feel like dystopian nightmares.
  - fredley 8y ago
    Partly this is because the Barbican is exceptionally well kept (much brutalist architecture is associated with slum estates, whereas the Barbican is mostly inhabited by richer people). The concrete is clean, the ponds and fountains are working, the balconies overflow with plants. There are many exceptional examples of brutalist architecture in Paris, some well kept, some not so much: http://www.anothermag.com/design-living/9587/the-brutalist-buildings-to-visit-in-paris http://www.anothermag.com/design-living/9587/the-brutalist-b...
- randomsearch 8y ago
  I don’t like brutalist and I don’t like the Barbican. For me, brutalist architecture is defined by an extraordinary level of arrogance and disregard for well established design. When I was last at the Barbican I found it very hard to navigate, and I was relieved to be told by the staff there about the many “alterations” they’ve had to make to try to make the building less confusing and alien.
- IshKebab 8y ago
  The Barbican is notable as a rare not-horrifyingly-ugly brutalist building, but that doesn't make it good on an absolute scale.
- mattlondon 8y ago
pjc50 8y ago
Ironically physical brutalism often fails because of poor usability and discomfort, while the brutalist web design manages to be faster and more accessible than whatever the conventional (baroque?) style is. I think we all benefit from a little bit of useless ornament. Unadorned brut concrete rapidly becomes so ugly that some buildings became notorious suicide spots.
- lstodd 8y ago
  > Unadorned brut concrete rapidly becomes so ugly that some buildings became notorious suicide spots. Well at least they grow some function as opposed to the most of the contemporary web.
duxup 8y ago
Sometimes it works. Sadly brutalism also took a big hit when a lot of the concrete structures weren't properly treated and the outside deteriorated. Concrete and stone exteriors really go from great to horrific if they're not sealed properly.
- srtjstjsj 8y ago
  Even so, concrete is unmaintanable and unmodifiable. That's why (self-absorbed) architects love it -- it's a sculpture or "walled garden" (with emphasis on the "wall") where the prole users can't interfere with the architect's art project by making the building usable for their own needs.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    It's possible to slap a new facade on a concrete building, or expand it by building around it/enclosing it.
crazygringo 8y ago
I dunno... the Yale Art & Architecture building is a classic early example of brutalism, and I've never been in a space that felt more open to creativity or so honest... it was a revelation the first time I stepped inside of it. I looked forward to classes there because it felt uplifting for my soul, and deeply envied architecture students who got to use it as their workspace, its spirit was so perfect. Of course I'm sure brutalism can be done badly too (like anything), and I haven't spent time on the inside of too many others... but there can be something profound about it -- a modern building in balance that tries to be exactly what it is, no more, no less.
- JackCh 8y ago
  For those wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yale-Art-and-Architecture-Building-Rudolph-Hall-New-Haven-Connecticut-Apr-2014.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yale-Art-and-Architecture...
rdiddly 8y ago
The problem I think is not so much the brut as the béton. I don't find concrete to be a wonderful material, aesthetically speaking. Even when you take into account the fact that it can be formed and poured into almost any shape. But the philosophy of minimalism/honesty/unity captures some very sound principles.
iron0012 8y ago
I'm surprised that so many folks here (obv not everyone) have so readily accepted the word "brutalist" to apparently mean "simple, functional, and minimal", because that's definitely NOT what brutalism entails in the architectural world! I really like a lot of brutalist architecture, but much of it is far LESS functional/useful/practical than other styles. Brutalism was an aesthetic, largely a reaction to existing forms--many of which were characterized by their utility! A lot of brutalist architects were rebelling against the bourgeois notion of a building as merely (as they saw it) "a place intended for humans to live, work, and play", and instead asserting the notion of a building as an artistic form in its own right, which often meant intentionally disregarding or downplaying the importance of the building's utility for the humans who interacted with it! Anyone who has lived or worked in a brutalist building can aver this truth: if the building served its function w/r/t humans, it was often DESPITE its artistic intentions, which prioritized almost everything else instead.

Brutalism is the worst architectonic style. I spent quite a bit of time in brutalist buildings and they impact you negatively. Idk why anyone would want to reference that.

monocasa 8y ago

IDK, brutalist architecture is great when done right.

smrk007 8y ago
I’m not so sure about that. At my university (University of Texas at Dallas) we are “blessed” with a legacy of brutalist architecture [1], which I’ve been told won its fair share of architecture awards. [?] (I’ll assume that means it’s been done “right”. As you can see, it’s been really great for our mental health :) [2]. I can appreciate this style of architecture from an intellectual level, but to be around these kinds of buildings daily is a little exhausting. Sources: [1]https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericejohnson/6344277129/in/photostream https://www.flickr.com/photos/ericejohnson/6344277129/in/pho... [?] Word of mouth. [2]https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=least-happy-students https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=le...
- Bromskloss 8y ago
  >I can appreciate this style of architecture from an intellectual level Indeed. There are many things – not only architecture – that are interesting to look at for a bit, maybe on paper, but that I would never want to actually have around me in my life. It seems that some people do not consider this difference. Architecture is particularly troublesome, since others force it upon you. You cannot choose it like you can choose what music to engage with, for example.
- monocasa 8y ago
  I feel like this is a perfect example of how correlation isn't necessarily causation.
- srtjstjsj 8y ago
  Architecture is like high fashion -- what architects celebrate is not what's good for users, but what's fun in their art shows. Architecture-as-art uses human environments as their canvas instead of as their goal. Architecture award-winning is usually the opposite of what architecture users consider "done right".

timwaagh 8y ago

its been a trend since forever on this site

fredley 8y ago

Like any school of archeticture, there are good examples and bad. Largely, over time, only the good examples survive. The older the school, the higher percentage of it will be good, surviving examples. I find the Barbican in London — which I walk through most days — to be a very uplifting building!

jeffwass 8y ago
I was just about to say that the Barbican is probably one of the few Brutalist designs that is actually aesthetically appealing (to me). Most all other examples just feel like dystopian nightmares.
- fredley 8y ago
  Partly this is because the Barbican is exceptionally well kept (much brutalist architecture is associated with slum estates, whereas the Barbican is mostly inhabited by richer people). The concrete is clean, the ponds and fountains are working, the balconies overflow with plants. There are many exceptional examples of brutalist architecture in Paris, some well kept, some not so much: http://www.anothermag.com/design-living/9587/the-brutalist-buildings-to-visit-in-paris http://www.anothermag.com/design-living/9587/the-brutalist-b...
randomsearch 8y ago
I don’t like brutalist and I don’t like the Barbican. For me, brutalist architecture is defined by an extraordinary level of arrogance and disregard for well established design. When I was last at the Barbican I found it very hard to navigate, and I was relieved to be told by the staff there about the many “alterations” they’ve had to make to try to make the building less confusing and alien.
IshKebab 8y ago
The Barbican is notable as a rare not-horrifyingly-ugly brutalist building, but that doesn't make it good on an absolute scale.
mattlondon 8y ago

pjc50 8y ago

Ironically physical brutalism often fails because of poor usability and discomfort, while the brutalist web design manages to be faster and more accessible than whatever the conventional (baroque?) style is. I think we all benefit from a little bit of useless ornament. Unadorned brut concrete rapidly becomes so ugly that some buildings became notorious suicide spots.

lstodd 8y ago
> Unadorned brut concrete rapidly becomes so ugly that some buildings became notorious suicide spots. Well at least they grow some function as opposed to the most of the contemporary web.

duxup 8y ago

Sometimes it works. Sadly brutalism also took a big hit when a lot of the concrete structures weren't properly treated and the outside deteriorated. Concrete and stone exteriors really go from great to horrific if they're not sealed properly.

srtjstjsj 8y ago
Even so, concrete is unmaintanable and unmodifiable. That's why (self-absorbed) architects love it -- it's a sculpture or "walled garden" (with emphasis on the "wall") where the prole users can't interfere with the architect's art project by making the building usable for their own needs.
- ams6110 8y ago
  It's possible to slap a new facade on a concrete building, or expand it by building around it/enclosing it.

crazygringo 8y ago

I dunno... the Yale Art & Architecture building is a classic early example of brutalism, and I've never been in a space that felt more open to creativity or so honest... it was a revelation the first time I stepped inside of it. I looked forward to classes there because it felt uplifting for my soul, and deeply envied architecture students who got to use it as their workspace, its spirit was so perfect. Of course I'm sure brutalism can be done badly too (like anything), and I haven't spent time on the inside of too many others... but there can be something profound about it -- a modern building in balance that tries to be exactly what it is, no more, no less.

JackCh 8y ago
For those wondering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yale-Art-and-Architecture-Building-Rudolph-Hall-New-Haven-Connecticut-Apr-2014.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Yale-Art-and-Architecture...

rdiddly 8y ago

The problem I think is not so much the brut as the béton. I don't find concrete to be a wonderful material, aesthetically speaking. Even when you take into account the fact that it can be formed and poured into almost any shape. But the philosophy of minimalism/honesty/unity captures some very sound principles.

iron0012 8y ago

I'm surprised that so many folks here (obv not everyone) have so readily accepted the word "brutalist" to apparently mean "simple, functional, and minimal", because that's definitely NOT what brutalism entails in the architectural world! I really like a lot of brutalist architecture, but much of it is far LESS functional/useful/practical than other styles. Brutalism was an aesthetic, largely a reaction to existing forms--many of which were characterized by their utility! A lot of brutalist architects were rebelling against the bourgeois notion of a building as merely (as they saw it) "a place intended for humans to live, work, and play", and instead asserting the notion of a building as an artistic form in its own right, which often meant intentionally disregarding or downplaying the importance of the building's utility for the humans who interacted with it! Anyone who has lived or worked in a brutalist building can aver this truth: if the building served its function w/r/t humans, it was often DESPITE its artistic intentions, which prioritized almost everything else instead.