Brutalist architecture. What were they thinking?

I’m sure people have touched on this before in the thread, but this speaks to why architecture can be so reviled, because it’s an artistic statement by the architect, but people have to live in and see it every day as well (as opposed to other types of art which you can avoid if you think they’re ugly*). A lot of these examples would be – I don’t know if aesthetically pleasing is the right word, but striking and worth seeing as an artistic statement – but the message they evoke is not one I want to live by. You can appreciate an artistic statement in the abstract while reviling it in real life, like you may appreciate the cinematography and humor in a Quentin Tarentino movie but would not want to live in one.

*With the exception of not being able to avoid some performance or conceptual art, which is also fairly reviled.

Hey, that gives me an idea: architects have to put on a display of their concept first. They have to have models, and show the materials (and they have to be wet too) and actors walking around on the materials etc. If it’s popular in the sense that people want to live it can be set up down town. Otherwise it can just be art in a museum. Win-win.

Well said.

Seems to me the object of much of Brutalist structures is to enclose as much space as possible within a particular budget and find some way of disguising the intent.

You can certainly see this aspect in the shopping centres that plague UK towns and cities - I know these are specifically money oriented equipment, but it exemplifies the point I am making.

I every case, those Brutalist shopping centres have more retail space than the previous structures, however those who commission these monstrosities completely misunderstand the concept of shopping itself. The idea of ‘going to town’ is so much more than the mere functional prospect of acquiring stuff - for many of us working all week, this is a day out, a time to wander around, see and be seen, look at the latest trends in clothes, furniture and design of products and perhaps even select something with the dream of improving our lives.

Now try fit that into the Brutalist scheme of things, and it is immediately apparent there is a total mismatch. The interiors of shopping centres are such that you could be in any town in any country of the world, they are so sterile, and generic. There is nothing special about visiting a ‘shopping experience’ in Manchester because its almost identical to what we have in Leeds, and that is no recommendation of Leeds at all - far from it.

The reaction to this has been pretty obvious, for those who do study retail architecture, the older more ornate and decorative humanistic architecture had been allowed to run down all through the 1960’s through to the 1980’s and now city councils are ‘rediscovering’ them - though they were there all the time.

This has caused them to refurbish many such areas and have given them a ‘heritage’ feel, and this works, those places are often crowded and full of the ‘eye candy’ product boutiques at very good retail prices - there is money in such work.

When I look at my own city centre, it is quite noticeable that the places that struggle to attract clients and rent out space are those anodyne Brutalist shopping centres, ultimately in the retail game, Brutalism does not even make economic sense, despite the increased sales floor area it produces.

If you want a stark personal experience then work out which of these shopping areas you would prefer to browse around in a Saturday afternoon with the wife and kids for a pleasant time,

Here is your Brutalist alternative

http://www.yourlocalweb.co.uk/images/pictures/13/48/st-johns-centre-car-park-132529.jpg

These two shopping areas are literally less than 10 shopping bag laden minutes apart.
I find it noteworthy that even on the website of the S John’s shopping centre, they do not have any picture galleries, I wonder why that would be?

Just for comparison, here is what the St John’s centre replaced - a run down area that had not seen any significant investment for 70 years, and yet it was still more popular than the modern alternative.(and look at all the Brutal stuff in the background)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/danielrobot/215341532/
I will moderate my comments somewhat here, because in that last image, some of those Brutalist structures in the background have been demolished, but others have been refurbished and re-clad, and in fact are acceptable enough, just a change of windows and a covering up of the awful acres of concrete have made a huge difference. In some cases these refurbished and disguised Brutalist structures are very much an improvement on what had originally poorly constructed and badly maintained Victorian buildings.

This then become less debate about architectural ideologies, but instead is about design and human environmental considerations, its about things being appropriate within their surroundings and for their function, a badly laid out structure is a failure at all levels - this is simply architectural incompetence.

Unfortunately the Brutalist architect seems unapologetic for this incompetence, and this inflexibility coupled with an inability to be truly self critical is another reason why Brutalism is so offensive to those who are forced to utilise these huge errors of judgement.

Basically, we all make mistakes and Brutalist architects refuse to do so.

Missed the edit window, that last sentence

Basically, we all make mistakes and Brutalist architects refuse to do so.

SHOULD READ

Basically, we all make mistakes and Brutalist architects refuse to acknowledge this, perhaps they think its a sign of weakness, or that it undermines their own ideology - very much Stalinesque in outlook.Live with it or die with it, the user is wrong and never the architect.

Oh, I don’t know. Maybe we also think that Victorian buildings are nice because only the ones that work are still standing?

I can imagine that some of the nice examples of Brutalist architecture that were given in this thread will last longer than the terrible examples, so that in 100 years people will think Brutalism lovely, quaintly old-fashioned and full of character…

Yup. Laver’s Law works for architecture as well as fashion. Just takes longer.

Heh, Robarts Library - truly it treats the student with the contempt he or she deserves. :smiley:

Basing a library on a triangular plan ensures that books are difficult to find; no windows creates a feeling of gloom; bare concrete completes the dungeon-like effect. I can’t think of one good thing about “Fort Book” - it gives the impression of being deliberately designed to study the effects of stress of its hapless users.

The more I look at these pictures of “brutalist” buildings, the more I see a character creeping in and around them with an arsenal of weapons fighting something like the Combine from Half Life 2.

How about, “Shut up and do this boring shit cause we paid you money, drone!”

No wonder the fellow it was named after killed himself less than a decade after it was opened.

I find about 1 in 30 appealing. I’ve long considered the Long Lines Building (aka 33 Thomas Street) among the better examples: another one with no windows (no wimpy, half-hearted Brutalism here).

Damn, that looks nice. I note that it seems to use a kind of rectangular cladding or at least break up the concrete surface into smaller shapes.

Is it polished concrete? The light doesn’t reflect off of it the way it does on most Brute buildings.

Of course it’s not an office building primarily for use by people – it’s a hardened industrial building designed for telecom switching.

Thanks for the discovery Xema. 33 Thomas Street is a very nice looking skydick:

http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1429/1331825815_7f9d465e7f_z.jpg

Muffin,
Yeah, I’m sure the people inside wish they could get some sunlight.

Does anypony know if the interior layout is easy to use?

Oh, I dunno–the exterior walls are clad in granite. That gives it a very nice, shiny, unmarred finish. Isn’t bare concrete nearly fundamental to the Brutalist aesthetic?

I was under the impression that few people work inside of it, except to service machines. Maybe that’s not true anymore though.

I couldn’t find a photo of any interior floor.

MichaelEmouse: good photos.

Yup: http://pcdn.500px.net/4129213/c6530cfcf769633ab27f319f86556c4705a3d594/4.jpg
If you look at it long enough, you start seeing the tiles as the ground. Oh, how I wish I were in Colorado or Washington!

So, do you guys thing The Ghost Writer house fits? And if so, is it a good-looking example or drab and souless to you?

Sometimes I think I’m on everyone’s ignore list.