I’m glad I’m not the only person who thinks Boston City Hall looks terrible.
Temple Israel, by contrast…
Cat,
Why would serious business leave no room for humanity?
What do you mean by “humanity”?
Doug,
What makes you love them?
Do I remember correctly that you have depression issues? Do you tend to like them more or less during your depressive episodes?
Brutalist architecture reminds me of the concluding chapter of On Liberty by JS Mill:
“The worth of a State, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the interests of their mental expansion and elevation to a little more of administrative skill, or of that semblance of it which practice gives, in the details of business; a State which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes—will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.”
You don’t have to be either rococo or brutal. Craftsman style seems to be decorative enough for me for private residences, while neoclassical for public buildings is more my style, (and preferably light on the accoutrements at that.)
Would you count Bertram Goldberg’s Prentice Hospital in the brutalism category? It has a certain grace, yet fits most of the criteria.
But Art Deco is much more Space Mariney. Now, I don’t like the oppressive grandeur of Art Deco or Brutalism, but hey, angels.
.jpg){kind=link}
Speaking of oppressive grandeur, what the hell style is this monstrocity in downtown Orlando? The statues are vaguely rococo but are slightly too small for the scale of everything else which is about twice as big as it has to be for human use (compare the people entering the huge gateway). Yet it has far too much glass to be Brutal. But it still feels like Tim Burton’s burrito nightmare.
I studied Brutalism quite a bit in graduate school (I have degrees in both architecture and architectural history). Threads like this are absolutely painful to me, so I’ll start slow.
It started in England in the 1950s, so all of the Nazi/Revolutionary/totalitarianism rhetoric is unnecessary. The architects Alison and Peter Smithson, the influence of Le Corbusier, and the architectural critic/historian Reyner Banham all contributed to its formation. It was Banham’s “The New Brutalism” essay which formalized the movement in 1955. I recommend google-ing it – he’s arguably the greatest architectural writer of the 20th century.
Most of the building being linked to in this thread – along with your mocking rebukes and harsh, cynical words! – are of a popular style that evolved out of the original avant-garde movement. This happens a lot in architecture. The Smithsons and Banham probably wouldn’t even call a lot of these buildings “Brutalist” – there’s been a degradation in form and meaning (though I still love the style).
Early Brutalism followed three tenets: “1, Formal legibility of plan; 2, clear exhibition of structure, and 3, valuation of materials for their inherent qualities ‘as found.’” The Hunstanton School by the Smithsons was its first building. It gets its name from “breton brut” – a method of concrete construction which I find absolutely beautiful – and of course its harsh aesthetic. It is not a timid and effete architectural movement, and has been compared to Jean Dubuffet and his “low art”.
I suppose that’s a good start. Now, back to the regularly scheduled program of ridicule.
See, I have a knee-jerk dislike of brutalism because my college campus has several lovely brick buildings with ivy-covered walkways and trees around them with big wooden doors and brass handles and it feels old and immense and historic. In the 60s several of the buildings were torn down in order to make way for a bunch of concrete edifices by Breuer. They feel squat and thick and commercial. I understand that artistically, they are lovely pieces. But emotionally I cannot like them.
Thank you for the background on Brutalism. However, I still find it ugly.
A long time ago, I heard a talk about Brutalist architecture on NPR. One person made a comment about this church (also in DC) “if ever there was a building that said “GO AWAY” - this is it” (or something along those lines).
ETA: when I was at CMU, I didn’t know anything about this type of architecture, I only knew this building (Wean Hall) was ugly.
That would be postmodernism – the second most reviled architectural style. Hijack! Take it to a new thread!
In fairness, though, you have to admit that brutalist buildings are usually quite practical, in that they make efficient use of space and are logically organized inside such that you can find what you’re looking for and get about your business. That’s more than you can say for many architectural styles.
Now, Le Corbusier, that’s another story. Neither the style that he claimed to like, nor the things he actually designed (which, mind you, are two completely different things) have any merit at all. And he seemed obsessed with the assumption that everyone else on the planet had tastes as abysmal as his, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.
Wow. As a church, that looks like it belongs to a religion called Jesus Incorporated.
I love The Internet.
Here’s the article - Future Of Brutalist-Designed Church Not Concrete : NPR
I remember it wrong - it was STAY AWAY!
The more examples of Brutalism, I see, the more I think about calling back that nice man I met on a plane who taught me interesting things about the chemistry of soap.
That first link looks like the tunnel you go through right after your board Space Mountain
True. Brutalism’s initial ethos required that buildings be immediately apprehensible (as an image, at least): if you see brick on the outside, you should see brick on the inside; if you use steel columns and beams, you shouldn’t hide them. One of my favorite images of Hunstanton is of the bathroom sinks – everything is exposed, even the water, which runs into a trough on the floor.
Bolding mine. Unless you disapprove of almost all modern architecture, I don’t see how this can be the case.
Would this horror be considered Brutalism? It’s been given the nickname “The Beer Can” but I just find it extremely creepy. I’m not kidding when I say just googling the image made me queasy. <shudder>
The brutalist library is a lot more interesting architecturally than the Gothic library.
Yeah, me too.