To counter some of the Brutalist places of worship here’s a link to some photos of John Scott’s architecture- which shows that churches can be made gracefully out of reinforced concrete.
Brutalist architect, posing in front of his house after having added some unfortunate touches: http://www.coolminiornot.com/pics/pics13/img49a3eebb9155a.jpg
Invite friends to your brutalist house warming party!
http://buonanno.org/rrb/displaycase/Bunker2.jpg
http://buonanno.org/rrb/displaycase/Bunker3.jpg
Different perspectives on Brutalist cottage
Brutalist summer home with brutalist landscaping
Are you implying that suffering is good for the soul and that appropriate church design should have one suffering while sitting?
That already happens: if no one likes a building and wants to spend money on it, it fails. It gets demolished. If this keeps happening to an architect, that architect will change either schools or professions. If it keeps happening to any architect who builds in a certain style, no one will build in that style anymore.
There’s occasionally a fashion in various forms of art to be anti-democratic, like Richard Serra saying that if that piece of shit he put by the UN was inconveniencing people, the problem was with the people.
You know how CLIOs tend to go to ads that are incomprehensible and cannot possibly sell anything, except possibly the ad agency? I suspect architecture is the same way.
Ahh, the perfect occasion to post my favorite incidece of Wikipedia vandalism. F*ck you noted brutalist hack Paul Rudolph.
I like Brutalist architecture- actually, kind of a lot.
It’s not trying to tell me some bullshit story about Paris or ranches or whatever Disneyland pastiche people are looking for. It’s honestly doesn’t care what I think about it. Like a mountain or the sky, it’s just there, It’s cold and unfeeling, but like a mountain or the sky, that’s okay. It’s job isn’t to feel for me. All it needs to do is provide a space for me, and the millions of others who live in this city, to live out our human dramas.
I don’t mind that it can be gloomy. I feel pretty gloomy sometimes- especially if I’m going to or from work or skulking around the city after dark. I like, at times, feeling a small part of something overwhelming, sometimes far bigger and far more permanent than myself. It feels dramatic at times, humbling at others…much like city life itself.
Can’t say that I like being made to feel gloomy and small, but to each his or her own.
I’m coming into this thread late, and it’s fascinating but too much to respond to.
However, I Made French Toast For You, could you please answer a couple of questions for me?
You make a stirring defense of architectural theorizing and intention. But you also stop there. What is the place of architectural theory in the larger world of urban design? How should a building interact with the public, the neighborhood, and the larger cityscape? Who are buildings built for, architects, owners, those who work in them, or those who pass by them? (I know the ideal answer is everyone, but when does that happen in practice?) How should architects react if a style, for whatever reason, is reviled by the general public? How does Brutalism rank when compared with the many other fads, theories, and styles that the 20th century generated?
Just to make you aware of my biases: I started learning about architectural history through urban studies and so I tend to look at things from the larger view inward rather than as architects do from the individual building outward. I was certainly influenced by William Whyte, who was still active when I was in city government. For those on the outside, you should know that the two professions have become somewhat antagonistic since so many theory buildings fail in practice, while urbanists have a number of pet theories of their own which also fail in practice.
No? I find cities can evoke a strange, but not unpleasant melancholy- the city lights reflecting off rainy streets, the anonymity of being one of crowd, the awe and wonder at the sheer number of lives and stories unfolding around you, the contrast between the power of the city as a whole, and your own tiny part of that…It’s humbling and awe inspiring. And Brutalist architecture, for me at least, is the perfect setting for that sort of urban melancholy. Maybe it’s too much time spent in concrete university libraries or the DC subway system speaking, but it evokes a sort of nostalgic sense of solitude and purpose.
Really? Because what I love about cities is the life, the energy, the hustle and flow, the small details and the constant changes. I never feel small in a city; in fact, I feel larger for being part of something so big.
Even the sainted Frank Lloyd Wright was guilty of this-once, a client called him to complain-the roof of the house was leaking water on his antique Louis XVI table. Wright replied-“move the table”!
Frank Lloyd Wright may have been many things, but saint wasn’t one of them.
These buildings look like they were eating each other with their square jutty jaws, so they could have saved on the demolition and just left them to it.
I certainly appreciate your knowledge and explanations, I Made French Toast For You. Still, I’d like to look at this type of architecture and not feel bruised and brutalised. Really. They do that. Like an undeserved punch in the sternum.
(one architectural feature that I can never look at without thinking of FLW: a Dutch door. Why yes, people prefer I not be left alone with their children, now that you mention it.)
The Guggenheim is one big “fuck you” from architect to fine artist. “Yeah, yeah, they’re paintings. Keep moving, cattle.”
I visited Toronto earlier this year and walked around the U of T campus area. The Robarts Library struck me as really cool looking. I thought it was an interesting style I’ve never seen before but could imagine in something sci-fi. I’ve never heard of the brutalist architecture style before this thread, but I think I like much of it. A friend who went with me thought the library was really ugly though, which makes sense after seeing this thread.
But those fine artists had it coming. The visual arts have been an extended ‘fuck you’ to the rest of us since about 1945.
Because Monty Python is always pertinent
.
Heh, whatever one thinks of its aesthetics, it’s a failure as a library and is universally hated by students - try finding a book in a library that is based on a triangular footprint - as I had to. 
There is a reason libraries are, generally, not triangular. That reason is that finding anything in such a place is really, really hard - since people are used to stuff being arranged in grids. According to legend and wikipedia, Umberto Eco based the library/maze in “Name of the Rose” on Robarts.
As a student you want to be able to find books easily. Even if an impenetrable maze makes for cool literature, it does not make for a good university library.
The fact that the place is unbearably gloomy on the inside doesn’t help, though allegedly they are trying to fix that:
So attempts are being made to “fix” the mistake that is Robarts - though really nothing can fix the fact that it’s a triangle.
But he didn’t always succeed. Fallingwater, for instance, sticks out so much with its concrete-like flatness and squareness in comparison to it surroundings that it can’t help but remind me of generic large-scale unfeeling mid-century concrete structures, if not Brutalism per se. But it’s true that because of its smaller scale, it does exude a kind of humanness and superficial warmth akin to a kitschy mid-century roadside motel that Brutalism does not.
I wonder: do urban designers get as much flak as architects when the public reacts badly to a project? I feel like you all must have it worse, since you’re working on a larger and more public scale. I’ve heard of William Whyte and his observations of how people interact with their environment. I don’t know too much about him, but it all seems fascinating. Oh, and maybe you’re better equipped to address Schouwburgplein, which was criticized earlier in the thread.
I’ll try to answer your questions in terms of Brutalism, to stay on topic. Unfortunately the core theory didn’t involve the city, as far as I know, and so stopped at the outer edge of the building (its socialist-utopian underpinnings might apply more broadly to the city though – maybe you know more about it?). Because of this, in general, Brutalism is justly criticized for not taking the context of its environment into account. I certainly think the style works much better as a solitary “object in a field”.
I also think Brutalism works best when it can take advantage of its strong appearance, monumentality and sculptural character – that is, when it serves as a focal point for the public and its neighborhood, and as foci within a city. Museums, civic buildings, churches and other iconic structures fit the bill.
It’s hard to say whom the buildings are built for – the audience changes with every situation. The best practices I’ve seen analyze the building through a sort of role playing: what happens when the CEO uses the building? the janitor? the visitor? the person on the street walking by? what do they do and what do they want to see? etc. I believe Rem Koolhaas does this – not sure if any Brutalists did. And I wonder if Whyte would approve?
Styles come and go, and I appreciate any architect who weathers criticism and innovates, rather than capitulates to dissent. I can’t think of any 20th century movement that wasn’t reviled. Right now, Postmodernism has it worse than Brutalism, I think; the International Style and High Modern architecture are making a comeback. Early 20th c styles (Expressionism, De Stijl, etc.) are seen more as novelties.
We’d love to hear your thoughts on Brutalism vis-a-vis the city!