3 ms·

> I actually like that - nature easily integrates it back into itself. That can't happen with glass towers. Moss and vines look great on Britain's Georgian and

> I actually like that - nature easily integrates it back into itself. That can't happen with glass towers. Moss and vines look great on Britain's Georgian and Gothic architecture. On Brutalist flat surfaces, it just looks dirty. Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses.

_dain_ 3y ago
>Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses. Yep, and they'll pull out the "umm well akshually 'brutalism' comes from the french betón brut, it doesn't mean 'brutal'", but they're wrong; the word "brutalism" itself wasn't coined by the French, it was coined by a bunch of too-clever-by-half Anglophone students. They knew exactly what double meaning it would have; it was always a mean-spirited pun.
- kaba0 3y ago
  The origin of the word is not important, the way it is used is. And that is absolutely about concrete, and not “being brutal”.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
    You mean the way _you're_ using it. Etymology helps people understand the mindset at a given time.
lozenge 3y ago
Do you mean ivy which is meticulously maintained?
glogla 3y ago
> Moss and vines look great on Britain's Georgian and Gothic architecture. On Brutalist flat surfaces, it just looks dirty. That's just like your opinion, man. > Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses. That is a projection. Most brutalist buildings are not living spaces but things like bridges, university buildings, libraries, airports, museums, etc. Who do those oppress? If you don't like the concrete because the Soviets used a lot of it, say that without the pseudo-intelecualization.
- Nursie 3y ago
  Personally I don’t like it because Britain was full of it when I was growing up (still is in places) and it was - ugly - dirty - dark - felt impersonal, not designed for people - usually smelled of piss - often associated with petty crime They create spaces that are unfriendly, often cold, wet and dark. They have odd corners and cavities hidden away from view. As a result nobody felt affection or ownership of the spaces, so they would be used as a toilet, or a site for mugging. Most brutalist buildings should be wiped from the earth. People report liking living in the Barbican, perhaps we can keep that one. Most of the rest are nothing more than an eyesore.
omnicognate 3y ago
I don't disagree that the concrete hellholes brutalism became associated with are brutal in that sense, but if you want to see a version of brutalism this doesn't apply to see London's Barbican Estate. It was built on brutalist and modernist lines but was an aspirational development for "middle and upper middle class professionals" [1] and remains highly sought after to this day. Only seeing it from the outside I dismissed it for many years, but once I went in I realised both how huge it is and how it shows the ideas of brutalist and modernist architecture do exist independently of the depressing concrete boxes that have often been built in their name. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate
- okeuro49 3y ago
  I've visited a flat in the Barbican. It was like prison cells in a panopticon. > aspirational development for "middle and upper middle class professionals" [1] and remains highly sought after to this day. In spite of its brutalist architecture, not because. London has a severe shortage of housing/the UK is too centralised.
  - omnicognate 3y ago
    It may not be to your taste, but the fact that those flats sell for millions today is a counterexample to your claim that brutalism is nothing more than an assault on the lower class. The fact is that plenty of wealthy people disagree with your aesthetic judgement enough to pay to live in those flats for sums that would easily buy them a house in a leafy, conveniently commutable part of London. It provides an alternative motive for at least some brutalist designs.

_dain_ 3y ago

>Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses. Yep, and they'll pull out the "umm well akshually 'brutalism' comes from the french betón brut, it doesn't mean 'brutal'", but they're wrong; the word "brutalism" itself wasn't coined by the French, it was coined by a bunch of too-clever-by-half Anglophone students. They knew exactly what double meaning it would have; it was always a mean-spirited pun.

kaba0 3y ago
The origin of the word is not important, the way it is used is. And that is absolutely about concrete, and not “being brutal”.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- d0gsg0w00f 3y ago
  You mean the way _you're_ using it. Etymology helps people understand the mindset at a given time.

lozenge 3y ago

Do you mean ivy which is meticulously maintained?

glogla 3y ago

> Moss and vines look great on Britain's Georgian and Gothic architecture. On Brutalist flat surfaces, it just looks dirty. That's just like your opinion, man. > Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses. That is a projection. Most brutalist buildings are not living spaces but things like bridges, university buildings, libraries, airports, museums, etc. Who do those oppress? If you don't like the concrete because the Soviets used a lot of it, say that without the pseudo-intelecualization.

Nursie 3y ago
Personally I don’t like it because Britain was full of it when I was growing up (still is in places) and it was - ugly - dirty - dark - felt impersonal, not designed for people - usually smelled of piss - often associated with petty crime They create spaces that are unfriendly, often cold, wet and dark. They have odd corners and cavities hidden away from view. As a result nobody felt affection or ownership of the spaces, so they would be used as a toilet, or a site for mugging. Most brutalist buildings should be wiped from the earth. People report liking living in the Barbican, perhaps we can keep that one. Most of the rest are nothing more than an eyesore.

omnicognate 3y ago

I don't disagree that the concrete hellholes brutalism became associated with are brutal in that sense, but if you want to see a version of brutalism this doesn't apply to see London's Barbican Estate. It was built on brutalist and modernist lines but was an aspirational development for "middle and upper middle class professionals" [1] and remains highly sought after to this day. Only seeing it from the outside I dismissed it for many years, but once I went in I realised both how huge it is and how it shows the ideas of brutalist and modernist architecture do exist independently of the depressing concrete boxes that have often been built in their name. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbican_Estate

okeuro49 3y ago
I've visited a flat in the Barbican. It was like prison cells in a panopticon. > aspirational development for "middle and upper middle class professionals" [1] and remains highly sought after to this day. In spite of its brutalist architecture, not because. London has a severe shortage of housing/the UK is too centralised.
- omnicognate 3y ago
  It may not be to your taste, but the fact that those flats sell for millions today is a counterexample to your claim that brutalism is nothing more than an assault on the lower class. The fact is that plenty of wealthy people disagree with your aesthetic judgement enough to pay to live in those flats for sums that would easily buy them a house in a leafy, conveniently commutable part of London. It provides an alternative motive for at least some brutalist designs.