Brutalist architecture. What were they thinking?

Cafe Society
1

First, a few examples of Brutalist architecture:

http://cache.wists.com/thumbnails/b/46/b46e957cc20c3611795efdacdeb4c1e7-orig

Doesn’t it make you want to hang yourself?
Don’t get me wrong, when I’m playing a video game where I assault a flak tower to shoot Nazis, Brutalism fits quite nicely. When I’m watching a movie à la 1984, Brutalism is also great at setting the proper mood. Architecture which is/looks Brutalist can be quite fine if you only care about function and minimizing costs such as bunkers and some types of housing. I can see it being useful as a further punishment for criminals to live in a Brutalist prison.

But why would someone want to design other types of buildings that way? It screams: “Tovarich, proceed to the basement for NKVD interrogation”.

It’s drab, medium grey, hard, angular, repetitive, almost ominous. The closest look/impression I can think of is the rows of stone slabs in a cemetery. In a temperate climate, water stains will make the concrete look like it’s so sad and depressed it’s crying.

And it seemed to be meant as representative of a utopian society. How could this be an effective way to make people buy into the socialist utopianism that was (at least sometimes) behind it? “Follow us to the Revolution and a drabber future!”

Is this the type of society those utopians envisioned; Everything grey and rows upon rows of identical dullness? Their utopian society had the aesthetic of a prison or a bunker?

It reminds me of the Emo/Goth caricature who says: “I dress in black because my heart is black inside” except that here, it’s grey and not angsty teenagers.

It also seems to be particularly vulnerable to crime and vandalism. Part of that is because it tends to be used in poor neighborhoods or government property. It seems like another part of that is because when your surroundings look so dreary and rundown, it sets the mood for vandalism and crime.
What was behind it? How did it spread beyond totalitarian countries?

Perhaps there are positive aspects to Brutalism aside from serving as an example of what not to do. I just can’t seem to find any.

2

I’d like to know. Our college library was also in the brutalist style. Ugly as hell, especially when you see it connected with the pretty and sensible neo-Gothic library.

3

Ew, ew, ew, ew, …and yes.

4

Oddly, I kind of like it.

5

Heh. And the funny part is, the Lubyanka is a perfectly charming old Neo-Baroque yellow brick building. (Of course, it wasn’t actually designed as a secret police headquarters; it was originally a 19th century office building for an insurance company before the Bolsheviks took over.)

Why you would actually try to make your municipal buildings look like the local offices of the Thought Police I couldn’t say.

6

In fairness, Brutalism can be done well. I’m quite fond of the Washington, DC metro stations, for example: http://thelazytravelers.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/washington-metro-washington-d-c-dc123.jpg . And the ideals of Brutalism aren’t bad - use bare concrete to build rugged, rapidly assembled buildings with a bit of style to them. And most of the famous examples were thought of as having a bit of style - the architects who started the movement had serious chops.

That being said, I do agree with you - the results tend to be drab, and they look dated quickly. I live in Southwest DC, a few blocks from this beast: http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://blog.luxuryproperty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/hud-building.jpg&imgrefurl=http://blog.luxuryproperty.com/november-housing-scorecard-released-by-hud/hud-building/&h=333&w=500&sz=135&tbnid=DZTmZFyEWqrs3M:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&zoom=1&usg=__oHrkY99-zDgg1haXUqoTHm0eNrs=&docid=Xdy2K6xqrQPrnM&sa=X&ei=wgKbUKPxDdTV0gHVrICYAQ&ved=0CGUQ9QEwBg&dur=919

7

Probably because it’s unappealing to most people. “If ordinary people like it, that shows it lacks sophistication and class” has been a long-held position of the self-appointed artistic/aesthetic elite for decades. If you look at it and find it ugly, that just shows that you don’t understand the Deep Seated Meaning underlying its surface appearance.

8

I blame Corbusier, whose dehumanising grand visions of ‘massive blocks in a parkland’ corrupted architecture and urban planning for generations.

Oh and he was a fascist as well as a misanthrope in general.

9

It says “I believe living in the space I designed should be reserved as a form of punishment”.

Seriously. Those buildings look like a place some future society would raise genetically modified orphans to become space marines or something.

10

Yes, I believe they envisioned a society where there was cheap housing for all and the concrete aesthetic of brutalism just screams cheap (even if it wasn’t.) Even aesthetic pleasure was to be sacrificed in the name of efficiency (this was the mid 20th century after all).

I grew up near SUNY Fredonia which reminds me of Brutalist architecture. In retrospect, it is oppressively ugly, but at the time I liked the architecture there because it was fun to play around because it was huge and the concrete made balls bounce well. The only thing I like about it now is the raised concrete walkway that connects several of the buildings (plus, a connected amphitheatre).

11

I don’t find it ugly the way you do.

You have some strange associations.

But go ahead and rococo up all the buildings, if it makes the secret police and the disappearances go down smoother.

12

Wow. You could just as easily be talking about my alma mater, where this ugly Brutalist library is adjacent to this Gothic building, formerly a chapel and now a computing center.

13

You know, I actually like Brutalist architecture…but not all of it. Maybe half. It’s something I’ve wondered about myself. What is it, quantitatively, that makes one design look nice to me (for example, the Weldon library from the OP), versus looking like hideous rat’s nests (the Robin Hood Gardens example, in the OP)?

What comes to mind immediately is “looks like a location from an 80s sci-fi movie” versus “looks like a location from a late 60s-70s sci-fi movie.” I think I’ll start pondering it a bit more…

14

Unsurprisingly, an Excellent example.

I think the fact that the details are rather large and that it has some color help it a lot. The curved surface also helps. It feels otherwordly.

The first example is admittedly the least bad one. It looks like a mix between a flak tower (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d0/Vienna_flak_tower_dsc01594.jpg) and an ipod.
I’ve found one upside to Brutalism. This is the building named after Strom Thurmond:
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m65duvieGr1qzglyyo1_500.jpg

Emergency evacuation. Activate all launch pods. http://www.whatwasthere.com/images/uploads/iphone/Photo_37492.jpg
Wouldn’t walk through there at night
http://www.whatwasthere.com/images/uploads/iphone/Photo_37493.jpg
Rancloth,

What are the ways in which sci-fi in the 80s differed from the 60s-70s? I am curious to know as that does seem like a factor.

15

There’s certainly a lot of brutalism on university campuses. I put it down to it being the style in vogue when there was a lot of expansion going on in the tertiary sector.

16

You should read what Theodore Dalrymple said about Corbusier.

http://www.city-journal.org/2009/19_4_otbie-le-corbusier.html

17

No one was “thinking,” at least not any further than “The architect knows better than I do, or was chosen by people who know better than I do.”

Honestly, some of the best loved buildings in my life are brutalist, altho I would never call them beautiful or elegant.

18

That’s Le Corbusier to you. :wink:

(Who, by the way, was also able to design some pretty nice stuff when he was in the mood.)

Also, I agree with the sentiments upthread. I’ve been walking past London’s National Theatre a lot recently, and… damn, that thing is ugly.

19

Tom Wolfe’s From Bauhaus to Our House is a fun read as well.

20

I don’t see it so much as ugly as I do as, “These are serious buildings, with serious business going on inside them. There is no room for humanity here.”