4 ms·

> Proponents praised its explicit functionality If it were about functionality you wouldn’t build massive structures at weird angles like the Wotruba Church. Y

by rtpg 8y ago

> Proponents praised its explicit functionality If it were about functionality you wouldn’t build massive structures at weird angles like the Wotruba Church. You wouldn’t build physics-defying overhangs to compensate your wanting for a nonexistant first floor like the Giesel library. There’s no functional basis for the design of the buildings outlined here. Only some superficial notion of functionalism because of the revealing of the underlying structure. Meanwhile, so many creators of brutalist structures are on the record for hating humans for messing with their grand designs. The world would be a better place without this blight masquerading as some purity of design.

YorkshireSeason 8y ago
functionality Functionality has multiple dimensions. Often brutalist buildings were rather functional on a micro level (e.g. central heating, indoor toilet etc) which was usually better than what they replaced. But on a macro level they were often terrible, e.g. the extreme focus on being car friendly (e.g. you had to cross an 8-lane motorway to meet your frriend in the neighbouring building). The former has nothing to do with brutalist architecture and is now available for all styles of architecture. The latter was a crazy mistake.
netcan 8y ago
Brutalism (and modernism in general) was/is a fundamentalist way of thinking. They wanted buildings to embody principles, that could be rationally justified. Generally speaking, fundamentalism is usually a bad word. We use it when people seem to view the world through a narrow framework, and can't even engage with ideas, facts or truths from outside that framework. We tend to think of authorotarian religions, strict political doctrines and such. But... there are other examples of fundamentalism, that we call out more rarely. Science, for examaple, is very fundamentalist. It is, after all, a narrow framework for determining truth that ignores anything which can't fit into it's framework. Anyway.... the modernist movement(s) failed, in terms of proving it's principles but it did have some significant influence. Personally, I think the biggest reason was economics. Architects (especially the more ideological types) often hate having commercial decisions impact their work in any way. Ultimately, I don't think you can (philosophically) have a truly rational "theory of buildings" that ignore economics. Economy of space, materials, labour... money. Still... I think there's some value in purity, embodying ideas as fully as we can. Not everything that fails is a failure. Imagine a town that's fundamentally democratic. It probably won't work, but we need someone to try it so that we can learn.

by rtpg 8y ago

YorkshireSeason 8y ago

functionality Functionality has multiple dimensions. Often brutalist buildings were rather functional on a micro level (e.g. central heating, indoor toilet etc) which was usually better than what they replaced. But on a macro level they were often terrible, e.g. the extreme focus on being car friendly (e.g. you had to cross an 8-lane motorway to meet your frriend in the neighbouring building). The former has nothing to do with brutalist architecture and is now available for all styles of architecture. The latter was a crazy mistake.

netcan 8y ago

Brutalism (and modernism in general) was/is a fundamentalist way of thinking. They wanted buildings to embody principles, that could be rationally justified. Generally speaking, fundamentalism is usually a bad word. We use it when people seem to view the world through a narrow framework, and can't even engage with ideas, facts or truths from outside that framework. We tend to think of authorotarian religions, strict political doctrines and such. But... there are other examples of fundamentalism, that we call out more rarely. Science, for examaple, is very fundamentalist. It is, after all, a narrow framework for determining truth that ignores anything which can't fit into it's framework. Anyway.... the modernist movement(s) failed, in terms of proving it's principles but it did have some significant influence. Personally, I think the biggest reason was economics. Architects (especially the more ideological types) often hate having commercial decisions impact their work in any way. Ultimately, I don't think you can (philosophically) have a truly rational "theory of buildings" that ignore economics. Economy of space, materials, labour... money. Still... I think there's some value in purity, embodying ideas as fully as we can. Not everything that fails is a failure. Imagine a town that's fundamentally democratic. It probably won't work, but we need someone to try it so that we can learn.