3 ms·
> A brutalist skyscraper would look oppressive and imposing, towering above you like a Vogon ship about to demolish your planet to build a hyperspace lane. Thi
by cannam 6y ago
> A brutalist skyscraper would look oppressive and imposing, towering above you like a Vogon ship about to demolish your planet to build a hyperspace lane.
This is kind of my point though - Nature is like that. A daunting slab of concrete has a lot in common with a cliff face. An empty, open expanse of concrete is like the rocky hillside. Both are more like "the world" than a regular repetition of patterns in brick rising to two storeys high set off with a tiled roof.
(Perhaps that's why they're offputting to people - too much like the unfiltered natural world, not enough comfortable regularisation.)
There's no equivalent of the forest (the default natural covering for most of the world) in any of these forms of architecture, but it's not like it's any worse in the Brutalist model.
- dafoex 6y agoYou make a valid point, but I still would disagree. The closest cliffs I can think of that are just as stark and imposing would be Dover. They are dramatic, iconic, and even beautiful, but would you want to live there all year round? The winter sea crashing against the shore and gale force winds battering you would make you grateful of any shelter, but that's only because the forces of nature have made you feel helpless, pinning you against this bare rock face, far from the safety that other aspects of nature would willingly provide. I'd like to reiterate that I like brutalism, I'm just trying to convey that I think its very easy to overdo when you only consider the macro scale of a project.