3 ms·

Ive never understood why this style of architecture is seen as "horrific" and "offensive". It looks nice. I like to see the materials a building is made of. I a

Ive never understood why this style of architecture is seen as "horrific" and "offensive". It looks nice. I like to see the materials a building is made of. I am so sick stucco and paneling trying to hide the material a building is made of. If you want to paint it paint a mural. Why must everything be sterilized and flattened.

trgn 2y ago
Because they didnt bother to put a roof on it for ideological reasons (postwar architects were obsessed with cubes, purely because it made a statement), so rain streaks down and those skidmarks looks awful on big concrete slabs. So they at least need to wash it and put on a roof that prevents it from happening again. Apart from that, this building is fine overall. It's odd though, because I would call this building sterilized and flattened as well!
- MeImCounting 2y ago
  The rain streaks look great to me as well! Its kind of like a pair of well worn leather shoes has creases and lines where the foot bends or how a well worn pair of jeans fades on the knees and wrinkles. Not that I am against a roof for this building, or even adding some materials like brick or maybe timber could be interesting. I think this about lots of 'brutalist' buildings: theyre gorgeous as is and might be improved a bit and receive less hate if they used more materials than just concrete and glass. Brick, Timber, and stone even after all people love all the Frank Loyd Wright stuff and he used plenty of raw materials.
  - trgn 2y ago
    Yeah, for sure, buildings in nice materials with nice details, would be nice! But I dont think that's what brutality buildings generally are. But the streaks, oh no, that's just foul lol. Weathering is nice on a buildings, but not grotesquely like that
hilux 2y ago
I'm with you in that I don't hate all brutalist architecture, but Wurster is generally acknowledged to be ugly in real life.

trgn 2y ago

Because they didnt bother to put a roof on it for ideological reasons (postwar architects were obsessed with cubes, purely because it made a statement), so rain streaks down and those skidmarks looks awful on big concrete slabs. So they at least need to wash it and put on a roof that prevents it from happening again. Apart from that, this building is fine overall. It's odd though, because I would call this building sterilized and flattened as well!

MeImCounting 2y ago
The rain streaks look great to me as well! Its kind of like a pair of well worn leather shoes has creases and lines where the foot bends or how a well worn pair of jeans fades on the knees and wrinkles. Not that I am against a roof for this building, or even adding some materials like brick or maybe timber could be interesting. I think this about lots of 'brutalist' buildings: theyre gorgeous as is and might be improved a bit and receive less hate if they used more materials than just concrete and glass. Brick, Timber, and stone even after all people love all the Frank Loyd Wright stuff and he used plenty of raw materials.
- trgn 2y ago
  Yeah, for sure, buildings in nice materials with nice details, would be nice! But I dont think that's what brutality buildings generally are. But the streaks, oh no, that's just foul lol. Weathering is nice on a buildings, but not grotesquely like that

hilux 2y ago

I'm with you in that I don't hate all brutalist architecture, but Wurster is generally acknowledged to be ugly in real life.