4 ms·

The was a somewhat more "humane" streak at the core of this movement than you make out. Specifically, these buildings were supposed to serve an egalitarian purp

The was a somewhat more "humane" streak at the core of this movement than you make out. Specifically, these buildings were supposed to serve an egalitarian purpose, removing class differences previously expressed with fancy fascades etc. This was also a time of far heavier air pollution than we today ever experience, at least in "the west". The typical multi-family building were therefore built not right at the sidewalk, but about 15m further back. Adjacent buildings no longer connected, but had similar spacing. The fraction of open space vs that used by buildings easily tripled, and the free space was planted with grass or brushes. This was also the time when mixed zoning was mostly abolished in favour of homogenous residential or commercial areas. As it turned out, this style isn't necessarily what people want. It tends to be too quiet, distances increase linear with lowered density, cars became somewhat required, etc. But the motives were mostly pure.

zeveb 7y ago
> The was a somewhat more "humane" streak at the core of this movement than you make out. Specifically, these buildings were supposed to serve an egalitarian purpose, removing class differences previously expressed with fancy fascades etc. Maybe egalitarianism isn’t as humane as it seems. Maybe if you bring everyone down to the same level, you find that you’ve reduced everything worth striving for to rubble. And maybe all those artisans and decorators the modernists drove out of business deserved to make a living too.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
The motives were indeed good, but you seem to be missing a few things in places. Bear in mind I'm in the UK, where Europe's post-war rebuilding was also large part of the motive. The American experience was necessarily a little different - no bomb damage, and a large profit from WW2, thank-you-very-much. The huge areas of bomb damage, and decades of soot and other pollutants meant many of those fine classic buildings were looking old, tired and in need of sand-blasting, or at least a good wash. The 50s brought coal restrictions and clean air legislation, so pollution and smog had passed. Cars weren't yet common. Looking to the future concrete was "clean", and very much of the Jetson's future, and you got so much more of it for every pound spent. Steam trains, and Victorian gothic fussiness were of the mucky past. Yet unlike marble, granite and even sandstone and brick it so often weathers and ages horribly. There was, as you note far more space - and in architect or promotional artistry before they were built this usually had trees, planting, and very often a view through trees. The other style was of people and cars as cells in the futuristic city organism - that Jetson future once again. The 95% reality had a few feature trees set in concrete or flagstones, some feature planters for flowers - horse trough or hot tub sized that in the sea of concrete looked comical afterthought. By the 70s the trees most especially were dying, horribly sad or missing. Turns out mature trees need more than 2 sq m of water capture. I remember very little grass in the brutalist bits of the city I grew up in or those I visited in the 70s and 80s. The sweeping walkways in the sky meant walking a mile to cross a road, or endless steps - horrible if mother with pram, and lastly plenty of dark gloomy spots to get mugged or lost in. The pre-war modernist, or the garden city movements, and even pre-war social housing had, in the UK, far more of the natural world, grass, large grass verges with mature trees and play spaces or parks. They hadn't yet discovered separating shopping centre from housing, so they were still working communities. So yeah, it's easy to see why they tried and the motives that brought them, but it's as easy to see why it so often turned out dystopian nightmare to be demolished as soon as affordable. We'll be stuck with those car-first choices for a century though. Today's alternative of finding lowest possible bid unless it's a feature tower block isn't that much better.
- TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
  The UK has a number of brutalist university campuses, but they're often set in extensive landscaping - which actually makes them quite pleasant. But I wouldn't idolise pre-war architecture. There are some shockingly awful 1930s estates around London, and they're almost as dispiriting in their own way as archetypal brutalist tower blocks. The garden cities are much more pleasant, but then you're not comparing like with like. Tower blocks were built to replace Victorian slums, with relatively high population density in both. Some of the original designs were terrible, but sometimes they can be salvaged. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/may/12/grand-parc-bordeaux-lacaton-vassal-mies-van-der-rohe-award https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/may/12/grand-p...
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    I'm not idolising the 30s but that era does seem to have been something of a peak for public housing. Even with a few awful ones. It was the last major round of building before we got the post-war legislation that gave us overspill estates - almost guaranteed to be isolated sink estates and split families. At least part of the attitude that saw tower blocks cut off from the world by adding a major urban motorway or junction as part of the project. You're completely right about the brutalist campuses, btw.

zeveb 7y ago

> The was a somewhat more "humane" streak at the core of this movement than you make out. Specifically, these buildings were supposed to serve an egalitarian purpose, removing class differences previously expressed with fancy fascades etc. Maybe egalitarianism isn’t as humane as it seems. Maybe if you bring everyone down to the same level, you find that you’ve reduced everything worth striving for to rubble. And maybe all those artisans and decorators the modernists drove out of business deserved to make a living too.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

The motives were indeed good, but you seem to be missing a few things in places. Bear in mind I'm in the UK, where Europe's post-war rebuilding was also large part of the motive. The American experience was necessarily a little different - no bomb damage, and a large profit from WW2, thank-you-very-much. The huge areas of bomb damage, and decades of soot and other pollutants meant many of those fine classic buildings were looking old, tired and in need of sand-blasting, or at least a good wash. The 50s brought coal restrictions and clean air legislation, so pollution and smog had passed. Cars weren't yet common. Looking to the future concrete was "clean", and very much of the Jetson's future, and you got so much more of it for every pound spent. Steam trains, and Victorian gothic fussiness were of the mucky past. Yet unlike marble, granite and even sandstone and brick it so often weathers and ages horribly. There was, as you note far more space - and in architect or promotional artistry before they were built this usually had trees, planting, and very often a view through trees. The other style was of people and cars as cells in the futuristic city organism - that Jetson future once again. The 95% reality had a few feature trees set in concrete or flagstones, some feature planters for flowers - horse trough or hot tub sized that in the sea of concrete looked comical afterthought. By the 70s the trees most especially were dying, horribly sad or missing. Turns out mature trees need more than 2 sq m of water capture. I remember very little grass in the brutalist bits of the city I grew up in or those I visited in the 70s and 80s. The sweeping walkways in the sky meant walking a mile to cross a road, or endless steps - horrible if mother with pram, and lastly plenty of dark gloomy spots to get mugged or lost in. The pre-war modernist, or the garden city movements, and even pre-war social housing had, in the UK, far more of the natural world, grass, large grass verges with mature trees and play spaces or parks. They hadn't yet discovered separating shopping centre from housing, so they were still working communities. So yeah, it's easy to see why they tried and the motives that brought them, but it's as easy to see why it so often turned out dystopian nightmare to be demolished as soon as affordable. We'll be stuck with those car-first choices for a century though. Today's alternative of finding lowest possible bid unless it's a feature tower block isn't that much better.

TheOtherHobbes 7y ago
The UK has a number of brutalist university campuses, but they're often set in extensive landscaping - which actually makes them quite pleasant. But I wouldn't idolise pre-war architecture. There are some shockingly awful 1930s estates around London, and they're almost as dispiriting in their own way as archetypal brutalist tower blocks. The garden cities are much more pleasant, but then you're not comparing like with like. Tower blocks were built to replace Victorian slums, with relatively high population density in both. Some of the original designs were terrible, but sometimes they can be salvaged. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/may/12/grand-parc-bordeaux-lacaton-vassal-mies-van-der-rohe-award https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2019/may/12/grand-p...
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  I'm not idolising the 30s but that era does seem to have been something of a peak for public housing. Even with a few awful ones. It was the last major round of building before we got the post-war legislation that gave us overspill estates - almost guaranteed to be isolated sink estates and split families. At least part of the attitude that saw tower blocks cut off from the world by adding a major urban motorway or junction as part of the project. You're completely right about the brutalist campuses, btw.