What's Your Opinion of Brutalist Architecture?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

Brutalism won't do that to you, for brutalism is honest. I guess that's why some people dislike brutalism so vehemently, because brutalism doesn't lie and not everybody can stomach the truth.

I dislike Brutalism because it's ugly, and human instinct towards things they find attractive is objective and way, way more truthful than whatever you are talking about. What, can you can't stomach the truth that people dislike ugly things?

you have a machine that tells you what’s objectively beautiful?

[Laasmistan]

Not a fan for the most part except for a very select few examples.

[Bewaffnete Krafte]

I dislike Brutalism because it's ugly, and human instinct towards things they find attractive is objective and way, way more truthful than whatever you are talking about. What, can you can't stomach the truth that people dislike ugly things?

you have a machine that tells you what’s objectively beautiful?

I was saying it's objectively fact that humans have an instinct towards things they find attractive, not that what they find attractive is objective. Sorry.

[Floofybit]

Pugs are pretty cute, imho.

See? People like ugly things sometimes.

Pugs were never ugly though

[Hurdergaryp]

I dislike Brutalism because it's ugly, and human instinct towards things they find attractive is objective and way, way more truthful than whatever you are talking about. What, can you can't stomach the truth that people dislike ugly things?

you have a machine that tells you what’s objectively beautiful?

In nature, symmetry tends to be a characteristic for what is biologically seen as beauty. And if there's something brutalist architecture is often very good at, it's symmetry.

[Ifreann]

you have a machine that tells you what’s objectively beautiful?

In nature, symmetry tends to be a characteristic for what is biologically seen as beauty. And if there's something brutalist architecture is often very good at, it's symmetry.

*slaps concrete cube* This bad boy can fit so many axes of symmetry.

[Hurdergaryp]

In nature, symmetry tends to be a characteristic for what is biologically seen as beauty. And if there's something brutalist architecture is often very good at, it's symmetry.

*slaps concrete cube* This bad boy can fit so many axes of symmetry.

You may not like it, but this is what peak beauty looks like.

[Ifreann]

*slaps concrete cube* This bad boy can fit so many axes of symmetry.

You may not like it, but this is what peak beauty looks like.

The platonic ideal, as it were.

[Hurdergaryp]

You may not like it, but this is what peak beauty looks like.

The platonic ideal, as it were.

We have come full circle. The very first stone buildings humans built were practical square blocks, and over the centuries we've become really good at it.

[Countesia]

I've always liked brutalist architecture. I probably wouldn't go making entire cities that way, but i've always found it beautiful in its own way. Its orderly, clean, somewhat spartan yet has the ability to look modern.

[HISPIDA]

See? People like ugly things sometimes.

Pugs were never ugly though

they look like they got smashed in the face with a frying pan

[Forsher]

you have a machine that tells you what’s objectively beautiful?

In nature, symmetry tends to be a characteristic for what is biologically seen as beauty. And if there's something brutalist architecture is often very good at, it's symmetry.

It can be symmetrical but, uh, this is a strange claim if you put in context of the Wikipedia gallery:

1. Fuente: Archivo personal Julián Varas -- I'm not sure if this is symmetrical if you used a different angle, so I'll give it a 0.5
2. Talnakh, suburb of Norilsk, located about 25 kilometers north of Norilsk -- looks symmetrical enough, 1
3. This is a photo of a Venezuelan monument identified by the ID -- not at all, 0
4. The National Theatre, South Bank, London. -- close but, alas, no cigar, 0
5. Boston City Hall, Boston, Massachusetts Stencil on the left plant pot: "Reaganomics is welfare for the Pentagon" -- that's again, a no, 0
6. Apartment block, Nalichnaya Street, St. Petersburg -- technically I think the window arrangements mean this isn't literally symmetrical but I'm not that pedantic, 1
7. Robarts Library, la biblioteca más grande de la UofT, parece un guajolote! -- tbh I'm increasingly thinking the worst Brutalist structures are the symmetrical ones! the random complications on things like this tend to obscure the fact we're looking at raw concrete, 0
8. Barbican Arts Centre -- I don't think the Barbican actually counts, but from what we can see here, it looks as if the arts centre is, assuming it's the building facing us, 1
9. Photo of concrete walkway at Alexandra Road Estate in Camden. -- right so, these could be, this angle isn't, but because these sorts of developments often actually aren't symmetrical, I'm only going to score it a 0.75
10. Villa Göth (1950) in Kåbo, Uppsala, Sweden. "New Brutalism" was used for the first time to describe this house. -- this is Brutalism in name only, but is not symmetrical, 0
11. Balfron Tower (1963), designed by Ernő Goldfinger in London, England -- No Mr Bond, I expect you to appreciate asymmetry, 0
12. Habitat 67 (1967) in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, is a Brutalist building.[36] -- not even a little bit, 0
13. Robarts Library (1973), Toronto -- I'm pretty sure I already said this building was asymmetrical but from this angle it is, 1
14. Auckland Park Campus (1975), University of Johannesburg -- I'm guessing some angles make these symmetrical, so 0.5
15. The Queen Elizabeth Square flats (1962) in Glasgow were demolished in 1993.]The Queen Elizabeth Square flats (1962) in Glasgow were demolished in 1993. -- I think this is staggered so it should fail but I'm not sure, 0.5 (note: this building was so awful it had to be torn down, but the demolition was as fucked up as the original design, with 1 spectator dying and several others being injured)
16. After two unsuccessful proposals to demolish Preston bus station (1969, Lancashire, UK), it gained Grade II listed building status in September 2013. -- it should be but everyone wants to photograph it from this sort of stupid angle, 1
17. Wotruba Church in Vienna (1974–76) was designed from a model by sculptor Fritz Wotruba and was a collaboration with Fritz G. Mayr, who continued the work after Wotruba's death. -- nope, 0
18. "Pyramide" ("Pharao-Haus" or "Terrassenhochhaus") in Munich, Germany, architect Karl Helmut Bayer, 1974. Apartment building inspired by Le Corbusier's principles of modernism.[63] -- it's easier to see from the German Wikipedia that it is not, 0
19. Tesco Shopping Centre (1962) in Košice, Slovakia; previously known as Obchodný dom Prior. -- a classic example of symmetrical and particularly ugly, 0
20. The Engineering Building (1959–63) at the University of Leicester, England. Designed by James Stirling, it is Grade II* listed. -- I do not remember this gallery being so big! 0
21. The City of Westminster's Smithson Plaza (1959–65), formerly known as The Economist Building, served as the headquarters of The Economist until 2017. On St James's Street in Piccadilly, London, it was designed by Alison and Peter Smithson. -- a formerly dismal place but still not cheerfully symmetric, 0
22. Halls of residence at the University of East Anglia (completed 1966), designed by Denys Lasdun -- one does not need a university education to tell these are not symmetrical, 0
23. Palace of Justice, Lisbon, Portugal (1970) -- no, just no, 0
24. Robin Hood Gardens (1972) housing complex in Poplar, East London. Designed by the Smithsons. -- if they weren't joined! 0
25. Al Zaqura Building, Baghdad (1975) -- if it's not, it's doing a great job of faking symmetry, 1
26. Middle East Technical University Lecture Hall, Turkey (1956) -- an interior! it seems to pass, 1
27. Middle East Technical University Rector Building, Turkey (1961–1980) -- no, though like several of these, I think the location almost preclude symmetry, 0
28. Młotek in Warsaw (1976) -- is it just me, or does this look like a harddrive? 0
29. Perth Concert Hall, in Perth, Australia (1973)-- fair dinkum, 1
30. Western City Gate (1979), Belgrade, Serbia-- please, please, please be near the end, 0
31. BYU's Franklin S. Harris Fine Arts Center-- I can see how this might not be but I'll be damned if I'm going to check, 1
32. Sofia Central Station (1974), Bulgaria -- so far, yet so fair, 1
33. National Palace of Culture (1981), Sofia, Bulgaria -- is that... a Minion!? clearly only symmetrical from some angles, 0.5
34. Kopitoto TV Tower (1986), Vitosha Mountain, Sofia, Bulgaria -- there were several things that I hesitate to call buildings so I excluded them, 1
35. The interior of the Washington Metro. -- but here I am still counting interiors, this has been a good run for symmetry, 1
36. Ferrohaus, Zürich, Switzerland, architect Justus Dahinden, 1970. Pyramid for offices and apartments, later hospital, brutalist architecture,[64] corten steel, registered as monument historique in 2021.[65] -- At last! But also the end of the streak, 0

Unless I missed an entry, that's 41% symmetrical!

I think the main takeaway here is that Brutalism is better when it's not symmetrical.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

In nature, symmetry tends to be a characteristic for what is biologically seen as beauty. And if there's something brutalist architecture is often very good at, it's symmetry.

It can be symmetrical but, uh, this is a strange claim if you put in context of the Wikipedia gallery:

most of these that aren’t just flat apartments actually look really cool

[Hurdergaryp]

Well, so much for my bold statement. Forsher corrected me quite efficiently!

[Technoscience Leftwing]

I looked at Wikipedia samples of this style... For military-police institutions (to instill fear in enemies), it is suitable. But for universities, libraries, museums, parliaments, sports facilities - probably too overwhelming for an ordinary citizen, and too depressive style. It is too monotonous for residential buildings - in the USSR it had to be used because of the cheapness of panel high-rise buildings, when the task was set to relocate people from wooden houses and barracks to urban conditions. However, after solving this problem, there was a need for decorativeness to overcome sensory hunger. This need was reflected in the screensaver of a popular comedy film in the USSR:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfTVjqlOz4M

I like the glass-metal skyscrapers of the "international style" more, they are lighter, more elegant, and also reflect the technical power of modern civilization.

[The Union of Socialist-Soviet Republics]

I live in a Soviet era apartment building irl so honestly it's normal architecture to me.

[North Macaronesa]

It sucks. I don't know if Mexico City Airport T2 counts as brutalist, but it looks like such and my experience there was horrible. The building was built recently, in the last 20 years or so, but it looks like an experiment from the post-war decades where they tried to make everything minimalist and modern, but it ended up having too much concrete and it looks like a parking garage from the outside.

TLDR: Brutalist architecture is ugly because concrete looks horrible and the entire building ends up looking like a garage

[-Astoria-]

Pugs were never ugly though

they look like they got smashed in the face with a frying pan

Technically the truth, although the method was different.

[Hannoura Az-Zengi]

Pugs were never ugly though

they look like they got smashed in the face with a frying pan

i concur

[Portzania]

brutalism sucks because it just does

[Diaboland]

Absolutely disgusting

I'm very into architecture and things like minimalism, brutalism etc are pretty much scum of the earth in my eyes. And I'm very diverse in styles I like; Gothic, Victorian, Atomic Age, Art Deco, Storybook and Sacred Architecture are all things I love. So naturally I despise anything trying to minimalize design to the point where it doesn't even look like a building anymore

[Hurdergaryp]

[Kolegei]

Its brutal to look at

[Forsher]

Well, congratulations to me for reiterating, I suppose now Forsher will have to concede I’m at least semi-literate. If you can explain what ineffable inspiration the Pantheon offers you that SIPA doesn’t I’m happy to listen; but otherwise this seems like a rather lame continuation of the same line of surface-level reactionary shoulder-rubbing you’ve been savoring for the past few pages. Is it something about the texture of Egyptian granite?

Given that I have repeatedly explained the problem with this inane line of thinking, this is just more evidence that you don't give a flying fuck what anyone else has to say.

How many times do people have to explain either (a) that they do associate different sentiments with different architectural styles or (b) how someone might associate different things with styles that look different to you?

Your whole argument is based on the notion that people can't actually distinguish between being in a Brutalist structure and being in, say, a glass skyscraper. You're not even expressing incredulity (a la Ifreann) that people don't look at glass skyscrapers and also think "oppression" because glass skyscrapers are, like Brutalism for the USSR, physical manifestations of an oppressive society. You are literally saying "it's monumental, it's beyond human scale, therefore it's a la Brutalism therefore you must think also oppression, tyranny etc" and then (sometimes) going "obviously people don't do that, therefore the difference is taste".

I again remark that it is deeply ironic that you take an architectural style literally named for its material usage and going "material is irrelevant to experience/interpretation".

Eugh, nailing themselves to the cross again. Where have I called you an anti-Semite? Considering oneself the paragon of good taste is hardly a disease exclusive to fascists, plenty of liberals suffer from it too!

When you defend Nilokeras' litmus test, you do so. You defend the litmus test.

From now on I’m going to take a shot of tequila every time someone on NSG uses the words “art” and “objective” in the same sentence; I look forward to greeting all of you from the hepatology ward in a matter of days

That isn't remotely what Duvniask just said. Which is ironic given an earlier point you raised.

Stop being so rude for no reason. It's hard to believe, but the vast, vast majority of people don't know as much about Architecture as you know (or think you know). It's not the american education system. It's that people don't know much about it. But even without knowing exactly why they would rather be surrounded by Classical or Gothic or Victorian buildings than Brutalist buildings, the point is made, and you understood the point. Beauty and preference is incredibly hard to explain for the vast majority of people, and just because you can go indepth on why one building is nice and the other isn't doesn't mean it's toddlerish to not know why. Architecture is something everyone experiences, and as such it is perfectly reasonable for someone not very acquainted with the field should have an opinion, and that opinion is not preschoolish nor is it uninformed or wrong.

Some of the things Senkaku says betray either a fundamental misunderstanding on their part about what architects think or that architects have become entirely divorced in their opinions from what contemporary urban design thinks. Which to bring it back to Brutalism specifically, the whole style is based on entirely discredited design principles... we simply no longer believe that those principles are able to achieve the goals Brutalist architects thought they might. From Wikipedia:

Brutalism as an architectural philosophy was often associated with a socialist utopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially by Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style. Indeed, their work sought to emphasize functionality and to connect architecture with what they viewed as the realities of modern life.[27] Among their early contributions were "streets in the sky" in which traffic and pedestrian circulation were rigorously separated, another theme popular in the 1960s.[34]

We can argue about whether Brutalist structures actually discredited these ideas because they were done wrong or because they were underfunded, but while traffic separation, for example, is viewed as a good thing, streets in the sky are not. Similarly, aside from the most delusional of supporters, no-one would claim that Brutalist buildings actually connect architecture with the realities of life... look at how Senkaku defends Brutalism:

standing within the monuments of these politically distinct regime types is an almost identical aesthetic experience. You’re still inside a huge concrete space that was carefully designed to show off the power and prestige of a powerful and brutal regime

Human Scale is the buzzword being violated here. Such giant buildings are condemned because when we're right up next to them, there's nothing interesting happening at the human scale and instead what you've got is a massive building on a massive concrete, or stone, or glass, or whatever material foot, that crowds the footpath and therefore the person on it. Buildings, in other words, shouldn't be made to be seen at a distance, but, again, Brutalism violates that:

He attempted to codify the movement in systematic language, insisting that a Brutalist structure must satisfy the following terms, "1, Formal legibility of plan; 2, clear exhibition of structure, and 3, valuation of materials for their inherent qualities 'as found'."[11] Also important was the aesthetic "image", or "coherence of the building as a visual entity".[11]

Brutalism does not uniquely fail these tests but it does fail them.

This guy seems to be a lawyer rather than an architect and that's not about a comparison featuring a Brutalist building (at least, not one of the concrete ones) but the aesthetic preference is (a) the same as NSG's #1 Brutalist fan's and (b) they've helpfully provided some source material showing what I was talking about above, vis a vis how architects have possibly ended up wanting something which urbanists now see as a bad thing.

[-Astoria-]

(Image)

Yes.