When I was at the Univ. of California Berkeley in the early '90’s, the running joke was that the architecture department was in the Brutalist-style Wurster Hall so that the architecture students wouldn’t have to see it out their studio windows. I believe that it, too, was recently demolished.
Granted, that’s always been a big problem with brutalism. But lack of maintenance, and horrendous pollution, were not necessarily part of the architect’s plan.
Yuk. To me, that looks like an airport designed to serve the Disney castle. Different strokes, I guess.
It’s rather better when seen from the ground, I think – especially see the pics of Lovett Hall for what I’m talking about. I love the repeating columns, arches, and geometric forms that are found everywhere, and the arcades on the older buildings are excellent for slow wandering. But most importantly, these buildings don’t look like they were shat out by a rockbiter.
Well, this certainly has a certain modernist influence (and also fits my theme, looking like a prototype of London Stansted 
) In all seriousness, this shows clear bare-geometric-shape influences.
OK, I know I need to see it in real life to make a real conclusion, but from what I can see, the fake-old stuff is the most dishonest, and least satisfying. To me. Yeah, I know I’m in a minority here, I realised that a long time ago. But I’m stubborn 
I am honestly curious here: what makes it dishonest and dissatisfying? To me, the old stuff is much preferable, as it follows an old, well-established style. The newer stuff mixes that style with the architect’s personal “vision,” like they were giving a nod to the original vision of the campus architecture but then had to jazz up with their own crazy ideas.
Call me a hidebound traditionalist, but I much prefer to see old styles followed faithfully than to see what some random architect clumped together this morning, or, even worse, to have them watered down and adulterated into some sort of blended, hyperreal facsimile of the original style. (This applies to other areas as well – my favorite music style is early western sacred music, and my favorite art is classical-style sculpture and eastern iconography.) I’m also a great fan of symmetry and unnecessary decoration, and detest most architecture built after 1900.
Careful – what we assume to be “pure” historical styles, whether in music, architecture, or (perhaps especially) language, were usually themselves blends to one degree or another of previous styles that we simply aren’t as aware of. That caveat goes for racial genetics as well.
But if certain styles resonate more with you, who am I to say it shouldn’t? I love early western sacred music, myself! (Have you heard the Portuguese composer de Magalhaes’ polyphonic choral works?)
Oh, I know that there are few if any “pure” historical styles. What I like, though, are things that are the product of a long process of refinement and have stood the test of time. Too much modern architecture is all about rejecting what has been built up over centuries and replacing it with the architect’s personal vision.
Man, this thread is wandering… Alas, I have not, but shall have to check them out. I’m all about the various plainchant traditions and very early polyphony.
I’ll use this as my example, if I may 
The quadrangle idea with the arched promenade is typical of all sorts of European buildings, but particular suggests monasteries, cathedrals, etc. The proportions of the arch strike me as coming straight from Box Tunnel. The upper level of windows is probably drawn from Venice. The choice of colours chimes well with Mussolini-era ‘creations’. The top of the tower makes me think of a provincial car park. Sotty, but I can’t see what well-established style is being followed - I wonder if the architect had done one of those ‘see Europe in a week’-type tours, and got confused about which country he was in.
I’d say that this statement applies equally, if not more, to the example I’ve used.
Mine too - along with modern music. Original creation is much more exciting than nostalgic recreation.
*Sotty = sorry. That’ll be the whisky.
It looks late Byzantine to me, which had a similar amalgamated quality, and was also somewhat over-the-top and covered with geometric frippery – see the Pammakaristos, for example.
Maybe that was partly what he was going for. In which case, he failed miserably - through allowing the standard conservative elements to overwhelm. Also, in your Byznatine example, the arches are the structure of everything - with Rice, they’re purely decorative, losing the imposing role they have in the older building.
He was also designing a classroom building, not a monastery or church, so of necessity he had to tone it down somewhat and not go hog-wild.
(How is the whisky, btw?)
Again, I find it slightly embarassing to look at what he’s being ‘influenced’ by, and then to return to the terribly four-square dullness that he ended up with. This is exactly what modern architecture in all its glory, including brutalism, was a reaction against. You can’t go on recreating the past forever. And thankfully, we’ve pretty much stopped attempting that.
Sure - that’s why I highlighted these influences, which I would consider unnecessary and incongruous.
I’m also finding it interesting how the American examples being suggested are mostly university buildings - and I’m not sure what (if any) conclusions to draw from that…
Damn fine. Going down rather too well, in fact
I just thought I’d mention that there seems to be a giant kitty in the lobby of the Sacramento Superior Court building. (Zoom into the center entrance with the virtual tour.)
Carry on.
Although “Brutalism” is the very last style of architecture I could ever find a warm spot in my heart for, you never know. When applied to the underground stations of the Washington, DC Metro rail system, it incredibly turned out pretty good. The architect focused on symmetry and balance in the use of repeating hollowed concrete modules to line the ceiling of the wide arched tunnel spaces.
Look at these and tell me what you think.
http://www.john-daly.com/TwistedPhotos/albums/album19030305051515085707/dc_metro.jpg
http://www-ccs.cs.umass.edu/~cris/pix/2898/metro-station-train-017.3.jpeg
I have to admit, despite my hatred for bare concrete, that the design does have a certain massive grace. Like a gigantic honeycomb for robots or something. Almost Matrix-y in style.
Detail:
In 1988, these DC Metro stations won their architects, the Parson firm, the Excellence in Concrete Award “for the creative use of concrete.”
http://www.parsons.com/transport/urban_transit/projects/project01.asp
I loathe the odor of cement in concrete surroundings when the weather is damp. It’s a depressing smell, and too much concrete just has an oppressive, depressing effect. But in the DC Metro, by making it look lighter and giving it a rhythmic pattern, it makes it look a little less like… concrete. I didn’t like the Metro design myself when I first saw it, because of the vast amount of concrete. But I got used to it and have to admit it’s the best use I’ve ever seen concrete put to, for what that’s worth.
My favorite brutalism…Pei’s Atmospheric Research Center
Despite the ongoing argument re: Boston City Hall, there is consensus among architects and the public that the area around it is terrible. While another urbanscape, by the same architects, in the same city, is beautiful: Christian Science Center
The problem with style is that it imposses preconceptions and rules upon the design. Just as there can be good and bad brutalism, historical styles can be misapplied. Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater, and don’t think that just be cause its gothic or (whatever you prefer) that it is good.
Modernists were reacting against the very notion of style. Their break with the popular architecture of the day allowed the field to reinvent itself, to the dismay of the (at least the american) public. As I make my way through school I wonder how to reconcile tastes of everyone with Architectural progression.
Rhubarb, thanks for the shout out to John Brunner, my favorite SF writer ever. The Shockwave Rider was probably the pinnacle of his writing. It needs to be reread today.
Just wanted to mention that cubsitic, concrete-dominant buildings need not necessarily be what I’d call “Brutalist”. The churches, museums, etc. of Tadao Ando, a Japanese architect, are serene. I find much of Italian architect Carlo Scarpa’s work is elegant, especially some of his landscape details.
I don’t see it…