Your theory may be bollocks, but if so, you are not the only bollixed-up one: William Whyte made that exact point in City: Rediscovering The Center
(1988). He complained that architects make nice pretty white models of their buildings, but never get down and look at them from eye level, or look at them in situ. Or make sun studies, to see the effect of the building on the street.The results are buildings that cut off sun to parks, or reflect glare down the street; he has an example of both in the book.
I Made French Toast For You, I hope you are still on this thread, because your explanation of the principles behind Brutalism is really interesting.
If you are, I have a question: When designing a building, do architects consider the people who will use the building? This is not hidden snark - I really am curious if the use of the building and the comfort of the people who use it are considerations for an architect. (And I mean an architect like I.M. Pei or Mies van der Rohe, who is consciously trying to create art, not the guy who designs strip malls in the 'burbs).
[QUOTE=CalMeacham]
Is there anything sadder and more depressing than the look of cast concrete in the rain?
[/QUOTE]
For those of you that dislike concrete’s aesthetics (because you see cheapness, dreariness, sadness, etc.), there’s not much hope for your liking Brutalism. I can only point to its earliest incarnations: Hunstanton School (Smithsons), Maison Jaouls (Corbusier), Ham Common (Stirling). These building used mixed materials while staying true to the movement’s aim, and before it became almost entirely about beton brut.
I understand that raw concrete is a “lower class” of material (if you care about that sort of thing), but it also has unique qualities that don’t deserve to be covered up. (For example, seeing the impressions made by bolts, woodwork, fingers and hands of workers – it’s remarkable, if you think about it.)
You’re absolutely right – I studied it in school, and it’s used as a best practice for successful urban environments. And I’m actually very shocked to hear it’s so unpopular! I wonder – do people still use it (even though they hate it), or is it just a barren wasteland?
The gulf between architects and the general public is massive, I agree; which is why I cringe when I see threads like this, or hear about the problem with your square. It reminds me of what Barry Bergdoll said about Brutalism (paraphrasing): “It’s the biggest public relations disaster in architecture’s history.”
Things change though. People used to hate ironwork and steel. The Eiffel Tower was an eyesore. Glass facades were indecent. Brutalism could be in vogue a few decades from now. The worst work of Architecture is always better than the best building, IMHO.
I hesitate to say this… Postmodernism is my favorite architectural movement. But let’s save that discussion for another thread. Frank is ridiculous though! Gehry House is the only good building he’s made.
Clearly they consider the people–but it seems to me that their reasoning failed. The “formal legibility” was supposed to be a great benefit to the people by allowing the purpose of the structure to be obvious.
This sounds nice in some strange theoretical way, but it seems counter to everything we know about how humans behave. Why do we paint or wallpaper our walls? Why do we use tablecloths? Why do we wear clothing styles that go beyond their utilitarian nature? And so on.
Humans like façades. We instinctively cover up ugly things. Arguably, even animals do this; one might argue that it’s really sexual selection or camouflage at work, but at any rate the idea of covering up a cheap thing with a pretty/expensive thing is nearly universal to life itself.
Even if one argues that some functions should have functional transparency, such as the basic layout of a building, I don’t see how this extends to elements that typical users don’t care about at all, such as rainspouts or piers or whatever. Exhibiting them gains nothing except a kind of purity of form that exists only in the architect’s mind.
That’s not to say that transparency is always a bad thing. The ubiquitous glass and steel structures are reasonably attractive and often show off their structure. But glass and steel are pretty and can be kept clean. That’s mostly not true of concrete monoliths.
I’m beginning to suspect you’ve been personally wronged by a Brutalist building at some point in your past. Suggesting, along with casdave, that the architects of Brutalism were knowingly hurtful or Machiavellian is strange. And as I’ve already pointed out, the opposite is true – it was formed as a more human alternative to then current building trends. I do sympathize with casdave, though, as I do whenever good buildings are torn down.
[QUOTE=Slow Moving Vehicle]
I Made French Toast For You, I hope you are still on this thread, because your explanation of the principles behind Brutalism is really interesting.
If you are, I have a question: When designing a building, do architects consider the people who will use the building?
[/QUOTE]
Thanks. To answer your question: yes, but to varying degrees. Alvar Aalto, for instance, was obsessed with how the human body interacts with space, and so designed buildings accordingly, with handrails that fit the hand and were easy to grasp, chairs that fit the body, calming colors and materials, lots of light – “healthy” spaces. Mies cared more about spatial harmony and proportion, sometimes at the expense of function, believing that architecture should be visually perfect (which would inherently make for pleasing spaces within which to live/work).
Brutalism argued for a building that was honest, humble, yet heroic: clearly layed out, with exposed structure and utilities when possible, using building materials without ornament, and making a monumental, emotional impression through its size and sculptural effects. A true popular architecture. It’s quite sad that many people ended up hating it.
It’s been over half a century. If brutalism was going to catch on, it would have by now. It hasn’t because it is brutal to people, and that isn’t going to change.
A question for those of you who with actual knowledge about this stuff: Did Le Corbusier reallywant to raze Stockholm? (And replace it with his own stuff.) Because if so, that’s just monstrous. I was in Stockholm for a week or so this April, and it truly is an “astonishingly beautiful” city.
It’s because the Brutalists were making Popular Architecture rather than one which would be popular. They were engaged in making ARCHITECTURE FOR MAN - but not architecture for mankind. The ideology came first, never the people.
I would submit you’ve demonstrated some of that same attitude here. The intellectual history of a movement can be quite interesting. That doesn’t really excuse its mistakes. And architects come dangerously close to denying that they even can make mistakes. Worse yet, they seem positively, perversely proud of just how obnoxious and public they can make their mistakes - and how they can force others to inhabit and use their mistakes.
There’s a reason why good architecture borrows so much from the past. The sum of the human use of even a single building is far too immense for anyone to truly understand. Borrowing from the past and using it as a guide gives us immediate access to eons of wisdom concerning how to create actual, usable public spaces. Or handsome buildings. Or comfy houses. Or temples to the divine.
The problem with Brutalism - and many other schools - is that they try to boil all of that down to an ideal. But the ideal is always either too large, or more commonly, too small for humanity.
I have been anally gang raped by a couple of brutalist builings. I had offices in this rat’s maze disguised as a bunker and in this Klingon war bird at the same time, which is more than a soul can take. The former was designed as a maze on the inside, such that I often had difficulty finding my own office if I did not enter by the usual door, and my students had so much difficulty finding my office that I had to hold office hours in another non-brutalist building next door. The latter, a library, had its stacks laid out in narrow triangles surrounding elevators that had long lines due to being grossly overcrowded, rather than a wide rectilinear grid for the stacks and many more elevators, so it took more far more time than it should have to find books. In other words, there was nothing honest or simple or efficient about either place. Adding that to the lack of creature comforts such as daylight (Bat Boy must be a brutalist architect), and the overal dinginess of the structures, it resulted in brutal buildings that failed in their ostensible functions but did succeed in brutalizing their occupants such as me.
Many other brutalist buildings have inflicted themselves upon me, such as this bunker of gloom, with its interior very similar to that of a modern urban sewer, but fortunately I have only had to visit them regularly rather than inhabit them.
Some architecture works nicely, in that it provides an environment that meets the wants and needs of the people who use it. Some architecture fails due to the architects pressing forward with their vision contrary to the wants and needs of the people. Brutalist architecture usually fails for this reason, leaving it with a half-century legacy of disgust.
It’s really quite simple. Take a look at a concrete bridge or concrete sewer or concrete bunker. They are honest, simple and efficient. Would you want to live under a bridge or in a sewer or in a bunker? No. Well that is the fundamental problem that brutalism faces when trying to persuade people to inhabit bridges and sewers and bunkers disguised as buildings.
:rolleyes: Google for color pictures, if you prefer. Glad Maison Jaoul is more to your liking.
Maybe the initial architects were ideologues. Or maybe they really did believe their new movement would improve architecture for people everywhere. I take them at their word; you can do as you please.
I can’t really speak for the motivations of all the architects in this thread – certainly some were motivated by money, politics, or other untoward things. Mistakes were made, absolutely. I don’t think I’ve defended any of the buildings put up on the chopping block in this thread. What I have done is defend the movement itself, and its earliest buildings – which are historically and artistically important. And I’ve defended concrete as a building material.
But to say that all Brutalist architects get off on rubbing their mistakes in the faces of the public… it’s bizarre. You’re reading something in Brutalism that I can’t see at all.
Brutalism absolutely borrows from the past. Maybe it’s not the “correct” past. Which past should it have borrowed from?
That recently happened in my city. We used to have a truly lovely marina. After the architects had their way, the yacht club was evicted, the number of births/slips for boats was cut in half, the parking was removed, most of the green space was removed, most of the trees were removed, the ice cream stand in a historic railway building was relocated to a hut well away from the main part of the marina and the ice cream stand’s neighbouring restaurant was evicted, the pavement by the dingy hoist was replaced with dirt that gets tracked onto the boats, and a couple of rusted and bent steel columns with dozens of flashing lights were installed at the pier entrance just to disturb the tranquility that we seek on the water. Despite this, the architects are crowing about their work. Fortunately, the building they put up for no apparent reason is not brutalist (although it is concrete), but overall they have ruined what had previously been a wonderful marina.
What ever happened to “form follows function”? These buildings are ugly and depressing…yet Gehry’s abortions are even worse-they do not even provide utility, and even are a health hazard to the occupants.
So much for the architects-but people approve the construction of these things-that is the real problem.
I don’t know what people have against Gehry. His Walt Disney Concert Hall is amazing. It’s probably the best place to hear a classical music concert in the US today – the interior is stunning, and the acoustics are outstanding.
Yup, see the problem right there: in architecture world it’s considered a success. Apparently nobody ever checked to see if it actually is a success. That’s kind of strange, right? Like, if doctors were to prescribe meds without ever checking to see f they make patients better.
So I think Bergdoll’s point is a little off: the problem is that there is no public relations in architecture.
I’m sorry to have to report the square is a barren wasteland. As I said, it’s sort of dangerous to go on the square. You have to walk on part of it to get to the cinema, but people go around the edge as much as they can. I have tripped and slipped several times. I definitely go around, and if I have to go on it I have to hold someone’s hand (I’m absolutely serious, this thing is a death trap). The city sometimes tries host events on the square. I’ve never seen one that looked popular.
There isn’t any life to it. It’s dark, there’s water on the surface. It’s awkward trying to get up onto the square as well: there are parts with steps, there’s a ramp and then there are parts where you can’t get on at all.
Here is pic of part of the floor of the square. The wood gets slippery when wet, and your heels get stuck in the metal. In this picture you can see the bigger grids that your heels sink into. To the left in that picture you see the green stuff that also gets slippery when wet.
Like I said, a death trap and the shittiest square in history. And it’s only the people of Rotterdam that know; in the world of architecture it’s the bees knees.
