I used to think Brutalism was ugly, but these days I really appreciate it in a lot of cases.
I really like the hard lines, I think. My favorite examples tend to use lots of big windows, which both keeps the space from feeling cramped, and naturally lends itself to sharp lines. Not to mention bright spaces allow for sharper shadows which itself creates new opportunities for lines.
I think most people's imagery of Brutalism is bunker style, though. Which I don't really love as much. But I think it's one of those cases where now that I've found versions of it that I love, even the "gross" versions are much more palatable.
Nah, I can’t wrap my head around giant slabs of rectangular concrete.
The most pleasant versions with a lot of greenery attached at best just look like earth is reclaiming them, but reclaiming them from some kind of dystopian nightmare where they stand as a stark warning of a history we must fear and avoid.
I dont know how Id feel about mound type landscapes where the earth has totally reclaimed them, but I think itd be cool to have something like mayan pyramids or terraced hillsides, where the sides are concrete but the tops have plants and stuff. Standing from the top itd be like youre just seeing grass and plants, but from the base it looks like a brutalist building.
I think that my primary problem with brutalism is that it seems that every time I see it, it's not because there was some grand artistic vision to choose the style, but because it's less expensive to have exposed concrete than it is to make it look good. There are ways to make concrete forms more beautiful, but it seems like that's not usually happening.
I also hate when a building is entirely concrete. No matter how much shaping you do with it, it's going to look boring. It's the real-world equivalent to making a 3D model and never bothering to apply textures or edit the default material properties. And no, mixing grey concrete with grey bricks does not count. Color variety is important, regardless of what the building is for.
Perhaps the most important thing that I think shouldn't be in a brutalist style is outdoor spaces, such as courtyards or the spaces between buildings. They have the effect of making real plants look artificial, and anyone who is building those painful awkward concrete benches and seating elements that are always freezing and wet in the morning must have never had to live with the aftermath.
I would argue that not all brutalist designs are created equally.
Contemporary Brutalist design integrates complementary or contrasting elements. Early examples are 70s projects like the Barbican estates in London by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon with large gardens and water features or the renovated Pharaoh House in Germany, by Karl Helmut Bayer that incorporated a lot of color and plant life into its stepped balconies. The current trend is Eco Brutalist. Examples would be Jungle House by Mk27 in Brazil which represents a structure that's sunken into its environment. Its made of wide horizontal lines but can be opened from end to end so it seems like the the environment can almost pass through the building.
Alternatively there's the Cornwell Gardens House in Singapore by CHENG Architects where creeping greenery is incorporated into the design obscure the hard geometry.
I'm a bit of a Brutalist style enjoyer. Did not like the movie though. Not enough buildings.
Hot take - every architectural style has a few exemplary structures, perfectly situated in their surroundings, that are thoughtfully and beautifully designed inside and out. The style degrades with replication - poor, badly built imitations that are dropped anywhere. Sturgeon's Law applies.
Second hot take - I love the idea of biophilic structures, but many of them look like standard modern apartment buildings that got mossy.
Third hot take - the Arts and Crafts movement and Craftsman-style architecture were protest movements against the homogeneity of mass production. We need more of this - modern production methods don't require bland uniformity.
Case in point, the oldest operating movie theater in the USA is an exemplary piece of OG Art Deco. (street view) That's the original 1929 facade. They take great pains to preserve and replicate every ounce of Deco when they change things, I can't even imagine the expense of it all. The interior is wild, it's like stepping into Bioshock / Metropolis in real life. Every light fixture in that place is a work of art. If you want to get your architecture geek on, this will serve as a tour of the interior.
The facade was meant to shine at night. Usually you see black terracotta used as edging, here they made a massive mirror out of it that throws light all over the street. Night or day that building catches and holds every single eye that passes by.
They have five screens now, bought out the adjacent buildings and turned them into theaters, so it's rather like a small multiplex except you're walking outside to go between them. It's one of the top night life spots in the city. Best film selection you'll ever find.
America needs to start making buildings (especially residences) with an eye towards them being around a thousand years from now. I shouldn't have to spend 30 years re-tacking the walls up on my shit shack because it was so poorly constructed to begin with that it started falling apart almost immediately. If I can't hand my home down to some version of my family that's long since forgotten my name and my deeds, what's the point of buying?
Oh! I have a hot take related to this one! So the Canadian Wood Council (not exactly a neutral organization) surveyed a bunch of buildings back in 2004, and they found that most structures were being torn down before they even met 50 years old -- but not because they're falling apart! Quote: "Reasons for demolition were instead related to changing land values, lack of suitability of the building for current needs, and lack of
maintenance of various non-structural component". This dovetails well with the thoughts of some internet building folks (e.g. Steven Baczek) who put forward the notion that beautiful, intentional homes will last dramatically longer than ugly-but-sturdy habitation cubes (paraphrased).
IMO my take-on-your-take, if you will take it, is that:
In North America, among industrialized nations in particular, we really need to step up our game on code enforcement and incremental improvement. The IBC/NBC has tended to lag very far behind best practices, and it's only very recently that they've adopted bare minimum requirements we've known about for decades to keep buildings from rotting out (e.g. rain screens and ventilation requirements).
Buildings need to be designed intentionally, and with their present and future contexts in mind. In urbanity: we have to stop towers which fail to create neighbourhoods. Urban planning is dramatically more critical when population density and capital costs ratchet upwards, but I've seen so many towers spring up without a thought of e.g. "how will people get groceries", "where do your deliveries go", "where can I meet up with friends", etc. It's so bad that, often, rezoning permits will render out their proposed structures on featureless white planes. My dude/architectural firm, you're bulldozing a community garden in the middle of a historic neighbourhood. At least pretend to consider how you're going to make the block more beautiful.
In rural/suburban areas, I have a thesis that I'll probably post in another comment 😅 but suffice it to say, we should build usable houses that growth with their occupants! Older homes are beautiful because they tell a story, told over generations. An addition there, a nursery here, a shed in the yard that grows to be a garden retreat. That sort of flexibility isn't aimed for, and handing down your McMansion would be a bit of a mixed blessing!
Everyone needs to understand how to operate their homes more! Lack of maintenance is a massive factor in the durability of anything, and houses are no exception. If that's too burdensome for folks (which is understandable, given how awful things are getting), we've arrived at a point in history where peppering the entire building with sensors -- to monitor for early signs of damage, before it becomes expensive to mitigate -- would only add a couple thousand to a new construction home, total. That shouldn't even be seen as optional, tbh, but please see point #1 for where I think building codes should be headed 😅
One thing that disappointed me about 80s architecture in retrospect is that most of the really exciting Memphis-style “postmodern”stuff was temporary. At least in Southern California there are almost no examples of it around that aren’t a bland corporate adaptation.
Right there with you and one of the things I loved about my trip to Tokyo. So many Showa Era buildings, so much diversity in styles, no two buildings the same.
I like it when all the buildings in a place have a consistent aesthetic. When I see a neighborhood where all the houses look the same I dont think its dystopic or depressing, I just think its a pattern, and sometimes patterns can be appealing.
Conversely when a neighborhood is filled with houses that are all trying to look unique and distinctive it can come across as gaudy and discordant.
It also gives the area as a whole a distinctive look that emphasizes cultural unity instead of individualistic style.
I think I'd feel differently about it if the "look" was tied to a real community or cultural heritage, but here in the US, we have miles of suburban development that are basically the "mcdonalds" of neighborhoods - mediocre, safe, and predictable. Unfortunately unless you happen to be particularly wealthy or particularly handy, there are not many alternatives.
I see what you're getting at, but I think that look still is tied to our culture, if not cultural heritage.
The aesthetic is certainly very modern and eschews the kind of embellishments you might see in an old European town, but thats because America is a modern country which was shaped by modernist ideals.
Back in the 50s or whenever this style developed America was building lots of cheap affordable housing and suburban development because thats what the society of the time saw as their ideal of the American dream: a simple goal of a humble home for you and your family.
During World War II America emerged as a leading world power through mass production and logistics, and so started applying that same philosophy to peacetime development as well.
When people talk about the past now they romanticize that time when you could support a family and buy a house off a grocery clerk salary. That was the case back then because society went out of its way to prioritize simplicity and efficiency, and the minimalist aesthetic of suburbia is a reflection of that.
Granted, you might not like McDonalds, but its undeniable that its a part of American culture. Its one of the most recognizable cultural exports in the world.
Economic inequality, workmanship issues, and possible money-laundering aside, the new generation of supertalls on Billionaires' Row in New York are cool as fuck. Steinway Tower, 432 Park, even that crazy-ass Big Bend proposal -- they're visually striking and make the skyline feel daring and futuristic:
"Classic" or "old school" architecture line neoclassicism or art deco is superior in looks to almost everything built today, and even faux historic architecture that is often objectively imperfect in its representation of a time/style period and slightly kitchy is superior to most.
And a second part of this not so hot take is that most people agree with this and the other reason why other, worse architectural styles are being built (after money) is that most architects have a dislike of faux historical styles that is based on nothing but snobbery.
I can tell you for a fact that returning home each day into a flat in a beautiful 100 years old house with statues on its facade in a street full of such houses is awesome.
I do like well made brutalism though, nothing against that, I just think it's rare. The Japanese seem to be able to do it pretty well.
I disagree with the National Heritage Act 1983 and think it should be abolished, or at least relaxed in regards to Grade II listed properties. It's led to some derelict buildings staying up in my city and being stuck in limbo because they're too expensive to redevelop and cannot otherwise be knocked down.
unkz | 17 hours ago
Thats funny, I despise brutalist architecture. Why surround ourselves with ugliness?
F13 | 16 hours ago
I used to think Brutalism was ugly, but these days I really appreciate it in a lot of cases.
I really like the hard lines, I think. My favorite examples tend to use lots of big windows, which both keeps the space from feeling cramped, and naturally lends itself to sharp lines. Not to mention bright spaces allow for sharper shadows which itself creates new opportunities for lines.
I think most people's imagery of Brutalism is bunker style, though. Which I don't really love as much. But I think it's one of those cases where now that I've found versions of it that I love, even the "gross" versions are much more palatable.
One of my favorites: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/Wichita_Public_Library_-_Main_Branch2_NRHP_100005629_Sedgwick_County%2C_KS.jpg
unkz | 6 hours ago
Nah, I can’t wrap my head around giant slabs of rectangular concrete.
The most pleasant versions with a lot of greenery attached at best just look like earth is reclaiming them, but reclaiming them from some kind of dystopian nightmare where they stand as a stark warning of a history we must fear and avoid.
Grayscail | 4 hours ago
I dont know how Id feel about mound type landscapes where the earth has totally reclaimed them, but I think itd be cool to have something like mayan pyramids or terraced hillsides, where the sides are concrete but the tops have plants and stuff. Standing from the top itd be like youre just seeing grass and plants, but from the base it looks like a brutalist building.
Cycloneblaze | 11 hours ago
There are ugly brutalist buildings. But brutalism is not ugly. It's not the intent of the architectural style and it's not the inevitable result.
Akir | 2 hours ago
I think that my primary problem with brutalism is that it seems that every time I see it, it's not because there was some grand artistic vision to choose the style, but because it's less expensive to have exposed concrete than it is to make it look good. There are ways to make concrete forms more beautiful, but it seems like that's not usually happening.
I also hate when a building is entirely concrete. No matter how much shaping you do with it, it's going to look boring. It's the real-world equivalent to making a 3D model and never bothering to apply textures or edit the default material properties. And no, mixing grey concrete with grey bricks does not count. Color variety is important, regardless of what the building is for.
Perhaps the most important thing that I think shouldn't be in a brutalist style is outdoor spaces, such as courtyards or the spaces between buildings. They have the effect of making real plants look artificial, and anyone who is building those painful awkward concrete benches and seating elements that are always freezing and wet in the morning must have never had to live with the aftermath.
carrotflowerr | 16 hours ago
It's too bad someone figured out that "minimalism" is great for corporate overhead.
SloMoMonday | 7 hours ago
I would argue that not all brutalist designs are created equally.
Contemporary Brutalist design integrates complementary or contrasting elements. Early examples are 70s projects like the Barbican estates in London by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon with large gardens and water features or the renovated Pharaoh House in Germany, by Karl Helmut Bayer that incorporated a lot of color and plant life into its stepped balconies. The current trend is Eco Brutalist. Examples would be Jungle House by Mk27 in Brazil which represents a structure that's sunken into its environment. Its made of wide horizontal lines but can be opened from end to end so it seems like the the environment can almost pass through the building.
Alternatively there's the Cornwell Gardens House in Singapore by CHENG Architects where creeping greenery is incorporated into the design obscure the hard geometry.
I'm a bit of a Brutalist style enjoyer. Did not like the movie though. Not enough buildings.
patience_limited | 9 hours ago
Hot take - every architectural style has a few exemplary structures, perfectly situated in their surroundings, that are thoughtfully and beautifully designed inside and out. The style degrades with replication - poor, badly built imitations that are dropped anywhere. Sturgeon's Law applies.
Second hot take - I love the idea of biophilic structures, but many of them look like standard modern apartment buildings that got mossy.
Third hot take - the Arts and Crafts movement and Craftsman-style architecture were protest movements against the homogeneity of mass production. We need more of this - modern production methods don't require bland uniformity.
Amarok | 54 minutes ago
Case in point, the oldest operating movie theater in the USA is an exemplary piece of OG Art Deco. (street view) That's the original 1929 facade. They take great pains to preserve and replicate every ounce of Deco when they change things, I can't even imagine the expense of it all. The interior is wild, it's like stepping into Bioshock / Metropolis in real life. Every light fixture in that place is a work of art. If you want to get your architecture geek on, this will serve as a tour of the interior.
The facade was meant to shine at night. Usually you see black terracotta used as edging, here they made a massive mirror out of it that throws light all over the street. Night or day that building catches and holds every single eye that passes by.
They have five screens now, bought out the adjacent buildings and turned them into theaters, so it's rather like a small multiplex except you're walking outside to go between them. It's one of the top night life spots in the city. Best film selection you'll ever find.
Narry | 16 hours ago
America needs to start making buildings (especially residences) with an eye towards them being around a thousand years from now. I shouldn't have to spend 30 years re-tacking the walls up on my shit shack because it was so poorly constructed to begin with that it started falling apart almost immediately. If I can't hand my home down to some version of my family that's long since forgotten my name and my deeds, what's the point of buying?
skybrian | 15 hours ago
The kids will sell it and the new owner will tear it down and build a McMansion.
Narry | 14 hours ago
Only if I don't put god's perfect wall covering in there... shiplap. Painted white. With brass metal trim. And a real stone fireplace for some reason.
inner_vision | 10 hours ago
Pfft. Shiplap is the paupers white oak.
Narry | 4 hours ago
Fine. I'll make my own dignified wood. With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the dignified wood!
kacey | 2 hours ago
Oh! I have a hot take related to this one! So the Canadian Wood Council (not exactly a neutral organization) surveyed a bunch of buildings back in 2004, and they found that most structures were being torn down before they even met 50 years old -- but not because they're falling apart! Quote: "Reasons for demolition were instead related to changing land values, lack of suitability of the building for current needs, and lack of
maintenance of various non-structural component". This dovetails well with the thoughts of some internet building folks (e.g. Steven Baczek) who put forward the notion that beautiful, intentional homes will last dramatically longer than ugly-but-sturdy habitation cubes (paraphrased).
IMO my take-on-your-take, if you will take it, is that:
In North America, among industrialized nations in particular, we really need to step up our game on code enforcement and incremental improvement. The IBC/NBC has tended to lag very far behind best practices, and it's only very recently that they've adopted bare minimum requirements we've known about for decades to keep buildings from rotting out (e.g. rain screens and ventilation requirements).
Buildings need to be designed intentionally, and with their present and future contexts in mind. In urbanity: we have to stop towers which fail to create neighbourhoods. Urban planning is dramatically more critical when population density and capital costs ratchet upwards, but I've seen so many towers spring up without a thought of e.g. "how will people get groceries", "where do your deliveries go", "where can I meet up with friends", etc. It's so bad that, often, rezoning permits will render out their proposed structures on featureless white planes. My dude/architectural firm, you're bulldozing a community garden in the middle of a historic neighbourhood. At least pretend to consider how you're going to make the block more beautiful.
In rural/suburban areas, I have a thesis that I'll probably post in another comment 😅 but suffice it to say, we should build usable houses that growth with their occupants! Older homes are beautiful because they tell a story, told over generations. An addition there, a nursery here, a shed in the yard that grows to be a garden retreat. That sort of flexibility isn't aimed for, and handing down your McMansion would be a bit of a mixed blessing!
Kale | 16 hours ago
No decade will top the 80s.
Give me all the Memphis design and neo-expressionism.
I desperately want a conversation pit.
I also want the brown + plants that were leftover from the 70’s and all the neon at the same time.
blivet | 7 hours ago
One thing that disappointed me about 80s architecture in retrospect is that most of the really exciting Memphis-style “postmodern”stuff was temporary. At least in Southern California there are almost no examples of it around that aren’t a bland corporate adaptation.
AugustusFerdinand | 5 hours ago
Right there with you and one of the things I loved about my trip to Tokyo. So many Showa Era buildings, so much diversity in styles, no two buildings the same.
nemo | 10 hours ago
Brick is the most visually interesting building material.
Grayscail | 11 hours ago
I like it when all the buildings in a place have a consistent aesthetic. When I see a neighborhood where all the houses look the same I dont think its dystopic or depressing, I just think its a pattern, and sometimes patterns can be appealing.
Conversely when a neighborhood is filled with houses that are all trying to look unique and distinctive it can come across as gaudy and discordant.
It also gives the area as a whole a distinctive look that emphasizes cultural unity instead of individualistic style.
first-must-burn | 10 hours ago
I think I'd feel differently about it if the "look" was tied to a real community or cultural heritage, but here in the US, we have miles of suburban development that are basically the "mcdonalds" of neighborhoods - mediocre, safe, and predictable. Unfortunately unless you happen to be particularly wealthy or particularly handy, there are not many alternatives.
Also, it makes me think of: Malvina Reynolds
Grayscail | 8 hours ago
I see what you're getting at, but I think that look still is tied to our culture, if not cultural heritage.
The aesthetic is certainly very modern and eschews the kind of embellishments you might see in an old European town, but thats because America is a modern country which was shaped by modernist ideals.
Back in the 50s or whenever this style developed America was building lots of cheap affordable housing and suburban development because thats what the society of the time saw as their ideal of the American dream: a simple goal of a humble home for you and your family.
During World War II America emerged as a leading world power through mass production and logistics, and so started applying that same philosophy to peacetime development as well.
When people talk about the past now they romanticize that time when you could support a family and buy a house off a grocery clerk salary. That was the case back then because society went out of its way to prioritize simplicity and efficiency, and the minimalist aesthetic of suburbia is a reflection of that.
Granted, you might not like McDonalds, but its undeniable that its a part of American culture. Its one of the most recognizable cultural exports in the world.
Jordan117 | 11 hours ago
Economic inequality, workmanship issues, and possible money-laundering aside, the new generation of supertalls on Billionaires' Row in New York are cool as fuck. Steinway Tower, 432 Park, even that crazy-ass Big Bend proposal -- they're visually striking and make the skyline feel daring and futuristic:
https://i.imgur.com/UUl5WnR.jpg
https://newyorkyimby.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/unnamed-2-777x1125.jpg
https://i.redd.it/l38z7v32es0d1.jpeg
first-must-burn | 10 hours ago
I dislike tudor-style houses. They are too busy and the details don't seem well connected. Every time I see one, I think "ugh".
V17 | 8 hours ago
"Classic" or "old school" architecture line neoclassicism or art deco is superior in looks to almost everything built today, and even faux historic architecture that is often objectively imperfect in its representation of a time/style period and slightly kitchy is superior to most.
And a second part of this not so hot take is that most people agree with this and the other reason why other, worse architectural styles are being built (after money) is that most architects have a dislike of faux historical styles that is based on nothing but snobbery.
I can tell you for a fact that returning home each day into a flat in a beautiful 100 years old house with statues on its facade in a street full of such houses is awesome.
I do like well made brutalism though, nothing against that, I just think it's rare. The Japanese seem to be able to do it pretty well.
Bullmaestro | 7 hours ago
I disagree with the National Heritage Act 1983 and think it should be abolished, or at least relaxed in regards to Grade II listed properties. It's led to some derelict buildings staying up in my city and being stuck in limbo because they're too expensive to redevelop and cannot otherwise be knocked down.
Two examples in my city (Bristol)
The George and Railway Hotel (Grade II listed) and the Grosvenor Hotel next to it had remained derelict for decades and was torched in 2023, now just being covered up by billboards. Its grade II listed status is part of the reason it's become so difficult to do anything with the site. It's been stuck in regulatory limbo due to a long saga involving a property firm run by an asshole who snapped up the hotel and just sat on the property for decades, an Indian scam artist who fooled property developers into investing money for student flats that didn't exist on land that he did not have planning permission for, and a ludicrously incompetent local council (trust me, the Bristol City Council suck.)
The White Hart Hotel (also Grade II listed) in Brislington used to be a great pub, but closed in 2007 as a result of the indoor smoking ban passed by Labour, which heavily reduced footfall. It became a performing arts school until they moved location mid-COVID, and since then it's been derelict. It was also set on fire two years ago in an arson attack. There are plans to redevelop the former hotel/pub into a nursing home for dementia patients, but as things stand, the garden and car park are currently being used as a caravan site. Did I forget to mention that we have an epidemic of people living in caravans parked (often illegally) across the city because of our housing crisis?