What's Your Opinion of Brutalist Architecture?

[Portzania]

I hate it. I get it supposed to be ugly so no one is jealous of their standing, but it makes people enslaved to one disgusting grey apartment. Also its usually set up in countries where you can't even own land, so that's another problem.

tdlr; It feels like trying to take every single part of individualism from every citizen, starting with brutalist architecture.

[Zordennox]

I want to know what people think of the style, why they like it, why they hate it, and where they think it works best. Personally, I absolutely adore the style it has a simple beauty to me that very few other styles can match, I do see people say it looks good in contrast with nature and greenery, but I disagree I think that makes the building seem dilapidated and like a ruin, I think brutalism works best when it's just plain concrete in a city, but I know I'm in the minority here.

Brutalist architecture prioritizes the function of a building over its form.

Pure functionalism reduces buildings to their material purpose and neglects the emotional, psychological, and spiritual connections that people have with buildings.

Because of its purely functionalist style, brutalist architecture is not organic and complimentary with the natural environment surrounding the building; collectively known as "place."

The standardization of building materials with steel and concrete and the standardization of design plans with sharp lines and equally proportional shapes (often square) produces little variation in brutalist buildings and means there is less humanizing creativity.

[-Astoria-]

And speaking of "cool looking"... in what way? Because "cool" can apply to a lot of things in a diverse number of ways. Cool as in scary monster cool? Cool as in awe-inspiring? Cool as in beautiful? Cool as in radical and awesome? What "cool" is this building?

I suppose "cool" in this case could be used to mean 'unique, nice-looking, etc'.

[Nilokeras]

Because you need large buildings and this way they don’t actually require huge amounts of structural steel or PCC, despite what you think. Nor do they require decorative finishing which save massively on time, materials and labor. Prior to modular system buildings, this absolutely was one of the cheapest ways to fill needs. Owen Luder, amongst other well known brutalists, has said so himself. It doesn’t matter what claptrap has been written about it them, that’s the ultimate reason. Same thing with the supposed “rejection” of decorative nostalgia in brutalism, it’s really just not possible in the medium, rather than conscious design/philosophical decision, and is also, after all, part of modernism.

I started my career as a structural engineer so I actually do know about this stuff.

I'll defer to you on the engineering side of things. Still doesn't make it a conscious response to post-war austerity.

You realize it was the people who lived in them who hated them the most. Upper middle class bien-pensants such as yourself are generally quite fond of them. It wasn’t a reaction against social housing at all because people like having a house, it was a reaction against the brutalism for brutalism itself. Maybe you think the working class shouldn’t have opinions but unfortunately they do. So there’s that.

If we pick Robin Hood Gardens as an example, again, I'll point out that a Tory councillor accused the council of purposefully neglecting the building so that the residents would be more likely to consent to it being torn down. English Heritage's executives were accused of meddling with the Gardens' heritage status assessment in the decade before, likely to prevent it from gaining that status and accessing funding that would have allowed it to be refurbished. If we compare that to Balfron Tower, which seems to be one of the more highly regarded pieces of brutalism, the tenants were simply shuffled out of the building for 'renovations' on a temporary basis and never allowed to return. I'd suspect if we had a larger sample size peoples' opinions would depend far more on how well the buildings were kept up more than anything aesthetic.

Also many of them were just badly designed - no understanding of vortex shedding, habitability, lighting etc. but what do you expect when grifting failed furniture designers get involved. It’s why so many of them were demolished.

To take the UK as an example again, the theme far more seems to be that they are large developments originally built for the state that get swallowed up by demands for redevelopment in the post-millennial real estate boom. The Preston bus station, for example, was voted the locals' favorite building in the city - but it very nearly got torn down by the council, who ran roughshod over said public opinion until a society dedicated to preserving 20th century architecture managed to get it a heritage status.

So Canadian. Doesn’t count.

Sure it does. Canada hosted the International Exposition in 1967, and we got a heap of brutalist public buildings in the resulting bit of public spending. Habitat 67, for example. The university I work at was built in the 60's in a high modernist style with lots of exposed monolithic concrete - it frequently gets called 'a prison', and is described as 'brutalist', despite not being brutalist. Like a lot of mid-century architecture it's starting to show its age, and because nobody wants to donate millions of dollars to rehabilitate concrete, beautify courtyards or do asbestos remediation the university is constantly in a race to plug holes and triage repairs, and it's getting run down.

[Forsher]

Hating brutalism is usually a good litmus test for having bad opinions about architecture and public spaces, particularly since brutalist public architecture was one of the last movements to actually incorporate any public amenities in the spaces they built. Complaints about its ugliness are usually followed by mushy outpourings about some neoclassical pile built by a guy who hated Jews and bulldozed a minority neighbourhood to build their thing of choice.

Also 'brutalism' is not about being brutal in the sense of being purposefully ugly or offensive, it's merely a translation of the french word for 'raw' - ie the unadorned concrete used in brutalist construction.

Having your heart in the right place doesn't excuse the result. Brutalism belongs to a 20th Century urbanism that is widely regarded to have both failed in its own terms and those that we might judge it by now.

Now, are we doing things better now? Sometimes. Very sometimes.

There is a charm to some Brutalist buildings in this gallery. Would they have the same charm were I to see them in person and interact with them up close? I do not know. HSB, and admittedly I do not know if it was actually Brutalist, was a horrible place inside and out. This is what they're turning it into (not sure to what extent the interior is being redone) and here's how it was while I was around. Conversely, this also reminds me of Brutalism and even the old bits of that were fine (much of the interior was substantially overhauled).

Pure functionalism reduces buildings to their material purpose and neglects the emotional, psychological, and spiritual connections that people have with buildings.

Pretty much this. But you can see from the Wikipedia gallery that Brutalism isn't pure functionalism... it's more or less an unpopular aesthetic. Which, I suppose, is just as bad as pure functionalism... the buildings in an environment should not provoke hostility.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

And speaking of "cool looking"... in what way? Because "cool" can apply to a lot of things in a diverse number of ways. Cool as in scary monster cool? Cool as in awe-inspiring? Cool as in beautiful? Cool as in radical and awesome? What "cool" is this building?

I mean, all of those. You think it's ugly, that's a fine point of view but honestly that's the extent of your point. Your point that it's a bad form of architecture rests on everyone also finding it ugly. I think Sagrada Família is a hideous building but I understand that it's a wonderful example of modernisme even if it's not for me. Not all art is for everyone, my favorite painting is Composition with Red Blue and Yellow and that's difficult explanation to go through, that architecture is art at such a scale for living in doesn't change that it still is art.

I was writing an essay but got fucked. Not in that way.
My point is a purely subjective one because it's a matter of opinion; I don't know why you bothered to point that out. I also don't think that Brutalism is a bad form of architecture; architecture that doesn't fall apart and does its job is "good"- just that brutalism is often ugly and rarely ever works. There are times when it does, yes- but those are exceptions and not the norm... and as a result I cannot consider brutalism to have any amount of beauty.
There are architectural styles that prioritize functionalism that do the same job as well or better than brutalism without sacrificing any and all artistry for a concrete slab. Architecture does not need to have grandiose decorations and engravings everywhere to look appealing; modernist architecture does a great job at looking visually appealing despite how simple and minimalistic its design often is. Brutalism simply takes "minimalism" too far- and yes, that is the point... but the point of Brutalism is niche; it serves no other purpose but to reconstruct a country from ruins such as in post-ww2 Britain. Other than that if a country is not in desperate need to ration materials there is no reason not to use another form of functionalist architecture.

[Northern Seleucia]

My City Hall is a famous and prominent example of Brutalist architecture. I don't like it tbh.

Popular news media considers City Hall the "world's ugliest building", including the Boston Globe and the Telegraph.

In the 1960s, Mayor John F. Collins reportedly gasped as the design was first unveiled, and someone in the room blurted out, "What the hell is that?"City Hall is very unpopular with some Bostonians, as it is with some employees of the building. In 2006 some described it as a dark and unfriendly eyesore. In part, such opinions are a reaction against greater Boston's numerous examples of concrete modernism from the 1960s.

So there's that...

[Northern Seleucia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall
Here is a prime example of why I hate this style of Architecture.

Boston city hall is one of the ugliest buildings i've ever seen and definitely the ugliest government building.

I have to see it almost daily. Don't remind me.

[Portzania]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_City_Hall
Here is a prime example of why I hate this style of Architecture.

Boston city hall is one of the ugliest buildings i've ever seen and definitely the ugliest government building.

I have to see it almost daily. Don't remind me.

my condolences

[Ifreann]

Brütalism, the most heavy metal architectural style.

[The Two Jerseys]

Brütalism, the most heavy metal architectural style.

Brut-alism, the most fragrant architectural style.

[Thermodolia]

That's the intent, and that's why I like it. It's cold, uncompromising, utilitarian, brutal. It does not pretend to be good, it does not pretend to be pretty; it knows exactly what it is and is proud of displaying it.

which is why I hate it especially for a government building.

Idk it works pretty well for the J. Edgar Hoover Building or the Atlanta City Central Library or the Perth Concert Hall or the Al Zaqura Building in Iraq or the interior of the Washington DC Metro

[San Lumen]

which is why I hate it especially for a government building.

Idk it works pretty well for the J. Edgar Hoover Building or the Atlanta City Central Library or the Perth Concert Hall or the Al Zaqura Building in Iraq or the interior of the Washington DC Metro

I don't care for any of those other than the DC metro.

[Portzania]

It doesn't look welcoming. The windows design looks awful and too many weird shapes in the building.

That's the intent, and that's why I like it. It's cold, uncompromising, utilitarian, brutal. It does not pretend to be good, it does not pretend to be pretty; it knows exactly what it is and is proud of displaying it.

I don't see why this is a good thing. I'd prefer government buildings at least pretending to be good and be pretty at the same time! I'd rather not want to close my eyes looking at a building.

[Varax Zwei]

I don’t like it. I find it cold, uninviting and unappealing. I vastly prefer numerous other styles of architecture.

[New North Exeter]

I hate this type. It reminds me of some dictatornship. It is just plain and looks... dead. It feels unnatural, having a giant one-color square or rectangle. Nature isnt like that, and since what we consider beautiful was set when most of people lived close to nature, It makes no sense too.
1,5/10, There is one worse type and that is modernism ( All Black or gray with lots of glass )

[Portzania]

I hate this type. It reminds me of some dictatornship. It is just plain and looks... dead. It feels unnatural, having a giant one-color square or rectangle. Nature isnt like that, and since what we consider beautiful was set when most of people lived close to nature, It makes no sense too.
1,5/10, There is one worse type and that is modernism ( All Black or gray with lots of glass )

yeah, not a fan of modernism architecture either, it's as lifeless as brutalism but without the actual usefulness.

[Enaia]

Brutalist architecture? Dont you mean b*rmingh*m pardon my language

[Thermodolia]

Idk it works pretty well for the J. Edgar Hoover Building or the Atlanta City Central Library or the Perth Concert Hall or the Al Zaqura Building in Iraq or the interior of the Washington DC Metro

I don't care for any of those other than the DC metro.

The Atlanta City Central Library is a beautiful building. It’s gorgeous in its natural simplicity

[Emotional Support Crocodile]

Brütalism, the most heavy metal architectural style.

Don't forget Irn-Bru-talism, made in Scotland from girders and concrete.

[Ifreann]

which is why I hate it especially for a government building.

Idk it works pretty well for the J. Edgar Hoover Building or the Atlanta City Central Library or the Perth Concert Hall or the Al Zaqura Building in Iraq or the interior of the Washington DC Metro

That concrete ziggurat is pretty cool.

---

Brütalism, the most heavy metal architectural style.

Don't forget Irn-Bru-talism, made in Scotland from girders and concrete.

Good for what ails you.

[Duvniask]

Hating brutalism is usually a good litmus test for having bad opinions about architecture and public spaces, particularly since brutalist public architecture was one of the last movements to actually incorporate any public amenities in the spaces they built. Complaints about its ugliness are usually followed by mushy outpourings about some neoclassical pile built by a guy who hated Jews and bulldozed a minority neighbourhood to build their thing of choice.

Also 'brutalism' is not about being brutal in the sense of being purposefully ugly or offensive, it's merely a translation of the french word for 'raw' - ie the unadorned concrete used in brutalist construction.

Bad opinions like not wanting to live in the most dreary, totalitarian-esque structures imaginable?

And sure, lump everyone who dislikes it in with anti-Semites while you're at it.

[San Lumen]

I don't care for any of those other than the DC metro.

The Atlanta City Central Library is a beautiful building. It’s gorgeous in its natural simplicity

I think its ugly. Not very welcoming for a library.

[Ifreann]

Hating brutalism is usually a good litmus test for having bad opinions about architecture and public spaces, particularly since brutalist public architecture was one of the last movements to actually incorporate any public amenities in the spaces they built. Complaints about its ugliness are usually followed by mushy outpourings about some neoclassical pile built by a guy who hated Jews and bulldozed a minority neighbourhood to build their thing of choice.

Also 'brutalism' is not about being brutal in the sense of being purposefully ugly or offensive, it's merely a translation of the french word for 'raw' - ie the unadorned concrete used in brutalist construction.

Bad opinions like not wanting to live in the most dreary, totalitarian-esque structures imaginable?

And sure, lump everyone who dislikes it in with anti-Semites while you're at it.

I mean, if you're going to associate brutalist architecture with totalitarianism then you can't really object to neoclassicism being associated with the fascist weirdos who jack off to marble statues.

[Theodores Tomfooleries]

Bad opinions like not wanting to live in the most dreary, totalitarian-esque structures imaginable?

And sure, lump everyone who dislikes it in with anti-Semites while you're at it.

I mean, if you're going to associate brutalist architecture with totalitarianism then you can't really object to neoclassicism being associated with the fascist weirdos who jack off to marble statues.

I do not object but neoclassicism still hits hard.