4 ms·

> Why would someone invest in an elaborate and expensive design when they could simply throw up a slab of brutalist concrete and punch some windows into it? Bu

> Why would someone invest in an elaborate and expensive design when they could simply throw up a slab of brutalist concrete and punch some windows into it? But why do the students of architecture prefer brutalism? I don't believe they factor the financials in when they choose which picture they like better.

7bit 11d ago
Because the commenter you're replying to has no idea what brutalism is, and is confusing a ugly concrete block with holes in it with brutalism.
- IslandRebel 11d ago
  I've seen plenty of examples of Brutalism in architecture (in the UK) first hand and to most people it looks like ugly concrete blocks with hole in it.
  - rbanffy 11d ago
    Sometimes being "ugly" is the point. You want to bring out emotions - the building can be grandiose, imposing, surprising, but, if you look closely, it's a carefully crafted work of art that's also highly functional. One great example from the city where I grew up: https://hicarquitectura.com/2024/09/lina-bo-bardi-sesc-pompeia/ https://hicarquitectura.com/2024/09/lina-bo-bardi-sesc-pompe...
    - IslandRebel 10d ago
      I don't care for this argument at all. There are functional buildings where I live from the Industrial Revolution that look quite nice. I want things to look nice where I live. I don't want them to be ugly and demoralising. As for the building you showed me. I think it looks awful. It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium. https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-reviews/a6236-an-architectural-review-of-the-movie-equilibrium/ https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-revie...
      - rbanffy 10d ago
        > It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium. Taste is extremely subjective. I am an engineer and I've spent a whole career training my tastes (for system design, hardware architecture) to be less subjective and help guide my work towards what's good. Some of that seems to have leaked to building and city planning, because my taste seems to align well with the experts in those fields.
        IslandRebel 10d ago
        The article is about the schism between the experts and what people generally prefer and recommends that said experts should try to take that into account. People almost always prefer traditional architecture. Is it really subjective when a vast majority of people agree? I suppose technically it is, but at the same time not really. There is obviously something that people prefer about it other than it being old.
        rbanffy 10d ago
        > schism between the experts and what people generally prefer This is true > and recommends that said experts should try to take that into account They should, but it’s up to the experts to make the decision. You need an informed group to make decisions. > People almost always prefer traditional architecture People usually prefer the familiar. > Is it really subjective when a vast majority of people agree? I suppose technically it is It is, unless the people can show data justifying their choice. Subjective preference is not data and does not offer a justification.
        IslandRebel 9d ago
        > They should, but it’s up to the experts to make the decision. You need an informed group to make decisions. I've seen experts in my own field completely misunderstand what customers have wanted and/or completely missed the point. There are numerous examples where experts have made things worse or got things very wrong, especially in large construction projects. There are many reasons why this happens, sometimes it is personal ego, adherence to ideas that are out of data, their paycheck might be dependant on a certain decision being made. Experts should not get the say in everything. Pretending that people who aren't experts aren't capable of making reasonable decisions and ever is IMO asinine. > Subjective preference is not data and does not offer a justification. The point is that it isn't as subjective as you claim. It isn't simply people prefer the familiar. The article itself explores this. There are whole branch of philosophy behind aesthetics. I find it very frustrating when people believe that aesthetics is simply personal preference.
dxdm 11d ago
Why, indeed.
- rbanffy 11d ago
  We really need to understand why people who study a subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding would show a clear preference for something...
  - dxdm 10d ago
    Yes, I would like to understand why this is their preference. Aren't you curious? I don't think it's enough to say: these people are experts, so in this issue of style and taste their answer is automatically correct, no more info needed, thank you. Also, I'd be surprised if ALL "people who study [this] subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding" would share the same preference.
    - rbanffy 10d ago
      > their answer is automatically correct, No, but I'll trust their opinion on building design and urban planning over yours the same way I wouldn't trust you to do brain surgery or landing an airliner. I am a skilled pilot in simulators, but I still wouldn't trust myself to land a real plane.
      - dxdm 10d ago
        I thought we were talking about how things look, not the skill that goes into making them look like it. These are sufficiently different things. Fashion. Taste. Informed by functional and economical requirements, materials, surroundings, urban planning, yes, but in the end, there's also an element of taste and subjective preference that can clump together in periods or zeitgeist forms or whatever you like to call it. As taste and preference go, you are free to delegate yours to others without question, as you seem to be doing here so passionately. I don't find empty appeals to authority very convincing. But maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. I'm willing to hold two concepts in my head: my own impression of the appearance of different examples of a certain architectural style (which, like all others, has better and worse ones); and the question why some people who know a lot more than me might see it differently than me. Their reasons and my reasons might both be valid, but mine would be far less interesting. Hence, my question. Finally: You seem to think that I asked you to trust my opinion, or even to change yours. You might want to look into why you think that, because that's not at all what I did. I asked something entirely different.
AlanYx 11d ago
>But why do the students of architecture prefer brutalism? It's probably some combination of the subculture effect (i.e., subcultures tend to develop their own in-group aesthetics) and as a functional shibboleth (i.e., being able to "appreciate" things average people don't has an in-group signalling function).
Zigurd 11d ago
Brutalism isn't cheaper. Not even in the secondary market. Brutalist masterpieces like the Barbican are highly desirable residences.
- rbanffy 11d ago
  I am a fan of brutalism, but there is also some survivorship bias at work - I'm sure some brutalist hellscapes were demolished because nobody wanted to live in them. Now, as a contrast, another masterpiece from the city where I grew up: https://www.scribd.com/document/955270807/g10-Cultural-Center-Sao-Paulo-Case-Study https://www.scribd.com/document/955270807/g10-Cultural-Cente...
jpalawaga 11d ago
brutalism doesn't refer to the architecture being "brutal". it refers to "béton brut" - french for 'raw concrete'. in this case, brutalism could be more readily understood as 'rawism'. it also emerged during (and is a descendant of) the modernist architectural period, which is well known for those boring, non-descript office towers. there's nothing wrong with the simplicity of raw concrete. but just like other architecture, it can be done well and it can be done poorly. it can be done for utility, and it can be done for extravagance. I think many people think of non-descript office towers when they think of brutalism, rather than all of the interesting things that can be done with a single material (shapes, textures, designs, etc. it's a very versatile + strong medium!).
rbanffy 11d ago
> But why do the students of architecture prefer brutalism? Because they study architecture. The article is profoundly anti-intellectual. This discourse, that colleges indoctrinate people and, thus, cause them to disagree with some form of "truth" that the uneducated masses know.
- tengbretson 11d ago
  > Because they study architecture. If the architecture they're studying is divorced from the preferences and needs of the uneducated masses then who cares? They may as well be studying their own butts.
  - rbanffy 11d ago
    > divorced from the preferences and needs of the uneducated masses then who cares? Preferences, perhaps, but needs, I'm sure not. On this, I much prefer being divorced from preferences, than designing soul-less buildings designed solely to cater to preferences, without leveraging the knowledge gained through years of study.
    - bobthepanda 11d ago
      Modernist architecture certainly has its fair share of misfires, particularly where the postwar architects were attempting social engineering to be “cleaner” or more “rational.” The schools were often teaching ideals based in no empirical evidence.
      - rbanffy 10d ago
        It's hard to build something new based on empirical evidence because the thing you are building might be such a radical departure from previous experience the data you have simply does not apply.
        bobthepanda 10d ago
        The problem is that a core group of modernists kept doggedly insisting on it after it was proven to not work. For example, we know now that pedestrian skyways only work in limited contexts and have plenty of downsides; or that a large, concrete windswept plaza is pretty to look at but pretty antisocial and unusable space, and yet you still see this kind of thing in the latest from say Zaha Hadid et al. It’s why a next wave of architects and planners have coined terms like “bird-shit architecture” that only looks good completely devoid of context and landed from the sky.

7bit 11d ago

Because the commenter you're replying to has no idea what brutalism is, and is confusing a ugly concrete block with holes in it with brutalism.

IslandRebel 11d ago
I've seen plenty of examples of Brutalism in architecture (in the UK) first hand and to most people it looks like ugly concrete blocks with hole in it.
- rbanffy 11d ago
  Sometimes being "ugly" is the point. You want to bring out emotions - the building can be grandiose, imposing, surprising, but, if you look closely, it's a carefully crafted work of art that's also highly functional. One great example from the city where I grew up: https://hicarquitectura.com/2024/09/lina-bo-bardi-sesc-pompeia/ https://hicarquitectura.com/2024/09/lina-bo-bardi-sesc-pompe...
  - IslandRebel 10d ago
    I don't care for this argument at all. There are functional buildings where I live from the Industrial Revolution that look quite nice. I want things to look nice where I live. I don't want them to be ugly and demoralising. As for the building you showed me. I think it looks awful. It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium. https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-reviews/a6236-an-architectural-review-of-the-movie-equilibrium/ https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/rtf-architectural-revie...
    - rbanffy 10d ago
      > It actually looks worse than the architecture in movie Equilibrium. Taste is extremely subjective. I am an engineer and I've spent a whole career training my tastes (for system design, hardware architecture) to be less subjective and help guide my work towards what's good. Some of that seems to have leaked to building and city planning, because my taste seems to align well with the experts in those fields.
      - IslandRebel 10d ago
        The article is about the schism between the experts and what people generally prefer and recommends that said experts should try to take that into account. People almost always prefer traditional architecture. Is it really subjective when a vast majority of people agree? I suppose technically it is, but at the same time not really. There is obviously something that people prefer about it other than it being old.
        rbanffy 10d ago
        > schism between the experts and what people generally prefer This is true > and recommends that said experts should try to take that into account They should, but it’s up to the experts to make the decision. You need an informed group to make decisions. > People almost always prefer traditional architecture People usually prefer the familiar. > Is it really subjective when a vast majority of people agree? I suppose technically it is It is, unless the people can show data justifying their choice. Subjective preference is not data and does not offer a justification.
        IslandRebel 9d ago
        > They should, but it’s up to the experts to make the decision. You need an informed group to make decisions. I've seen experts in my own field completely misunderstand what customers have wanted and/or completely missed the point. There are numerous examples where experts have made things worse or got things very wrong, especially in large construction projects. There are many reasons why this happens, sometimes it is personal ego, adherence to ideas that are out of data, their paycheck might be dependant on a certain decision being made. Experts should not get the say in everything. Pretending that people who aren't experts aren't capable of making reasonable decisions and ever is IMO asinine. > Subjective preference is not data and does not offer a justification. The point is that it isn't as subjective as you claim. It isn't simply people prefer the familiar. The article itself explores this. There are whole branch of philosophy behind aesthetics. I find it very frustrating when people believe that aesthetics is simply personal preference.

dxdm 11d ago

Why, indeed.

rbanffy 11d ago
We really need to understand why people who study a subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding would show a clear preference for something...
- dxdm 10d ago
  Yes, I would like to understand why this is their preference. Aren't you curious? I don't think it's enough to say: these people are experts, so in this issue of style and taste their answer is automatically correct, no more info needed, thank you. Also, I'd be surprised if ALL "people who study [this] subject and dedicate their lives to studying and perfecting their understanding" would share the same preference.
  - rbanffy 10d ago
    > their answer is automatically correct, No, but I'll trust their opinion on building design and urban planning over yours the same way I wouldn't trust you to do brain surgery or landing an airliner. I am a skilled pilot in simulators, but I still wouldn't trust myself to land a real plane.
    - dxdm 10d ago
      I thought we were talking about how things look, not the skill that goes into making them look like it. These are sufficiently different things. Fashion. Taste. Informed by functional and economical requirements, materials, surroundings, urban planning, yes, but in the end, there's also an element of taste and subjective preference that can clump together in periods or zeitgeist forms or whatever you like to call it. As taste and preference go, you are free to delegate yours to others without question, as you seem to be doing here so passionately. I don't find empty appeals to authority very convincing. But maybe I misunderstand what you're saying. I'm willing to hold two concepts in my head: my own impression of the appearance of different examples of a certain architectural style (which, like all others, has better and worse ones); and the question why some people who know a lot more than me might see it differently than me. Their reasons and my reasons might both be valid, but mine would be far less interesting. Hence, my question. Finally: You seem to think that I asked you to trust my opinion, or even to change yours. You might want to look into why you think that, because that's not at all what I did. I asked something entirely different.

AlanYx 11d ago

>But why do the students of architecture prefer brutalism? It's probably some combination of the subculture effect (i.e., subcultures tend to develop their own in-group aesthetics) and as a functional shibboleth (i.e., being able to "appreciate" things average people don't has an in-group signalling function).

Zigurd 11d ago

Brutalism isn't cheaper. Not even in the secondary market. Brutalist masterpieces like the Barbican are highly desirable residences.

rbanffy 11d ago
I am a fan of brutalism, but there is also some survivorship bias at work - I'm sure some brutalist hellscapes were demolished because nobody wanted to live in them. Now, as a contrast, another masterpiece from the city where I grew up: https://www.scribd.com/document/955270807/g10-Cultural-Center-Sao-Paulo-Case-Study https://www.scribd.com/document/955270807/g10-Cultural-Cente...

jpalawaga 11d ago

brutalism doesn't refer to the architecture being "brutal". it refers to "béton brut" - french for 'raw concrete'. in this case, brutalism could be more readily understood as 'rawism'. it also emerged during (and is a descendant of) the modernist architectural period, which is well known for those boring, non-descript office towers. there's nothing wrong with the simplicity of raw concrete. but just like other architecture, it can be done well and it can be done poorly. it can be done for utility, and it can be done for extravagance. I think many people think of non-descript office towers when they think of brutalism, rather than all of the interesting things that can be done with a single material (shapes, textures, designs, etc. it's a very versatile + strong medium!).

rbanffy 11d ago

> But why do the students of architecture prefer brutalism? Because they study architecture. The article is profoundly anti-intellectual. This discourse, that colleges indoctrinate people and, thus, cause them to disagree with some form of "truth" that the uneducated masses know.

tengbretson 11d ago
> Because they study architecture. If the architecture they're studying is divorced from the preferences and needs of the uneducated masses then who cares? They may as well be studying their own butts.
- rbanffy 11d ago
  > divorced from the preferences and needs of the uneducated masses then who cares? Preferences, perhaps, but needs, I'm sure not. On this, I much prefer being divorced from preferences, than designing soul-less buildings designed solely to cater to preferences, without leveraging the knowledge gained through years of study.
  - bobthepanda 11d ago
    Modernist architecture certainly has its fair share of misfires, particularly where the postwar architects were attempting social engineering to be “cleaner” or more “rational.” The schools were often teaching ideals based in no empirical evidence.
    - rbanffy 10d ago
      It's hard to build something new based on empirical evidence because the thing you are building might be such a radical departure from previous experience the data you have simply does not apply.
      - bobthepanda 10d ago
        The problem is that a core group of modernists kept doggedly insisting on it after it was proven to not work. For example, we know now that pedestrian skyways only work in limited contexts and have plenty of downsides; or that a large, concrete windswept plaza is pretty to look at but pretty antisocial and unusable space, and yet you still see this kind of thing in the latest from say Zaha Hadid et al. It’s why a next wave of architects and planners have coined terms like “bird-shit architecture” that only looks good completely devoid of context and landed from the sky.