I actually like that - nature easily integrates it back into itself. That can't happen with glass towers.
As for the anti-human, I always read it as a reminder that there are things bigger than human, which may be why brutalism is so popular with governments.
> I actually like that - nature easily integrates it back into itself. That can't happen with glass towers.
Moss and vines look great on Britain's Georgian and Gothic architecture. On Brutalist flat surfaces, it just looks dirty.
Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses.
I don't disagree that the concrete hellholes brutalism became associated with are brutal in that sense, but if you want to see a version of brutalism this doesn't apply to see London's Barbican Estate. It was built on brutalist and modernist lines but was an aspirational development for "middle and upper middle class professionals" [1] and remains highly sought after to this day.
Only seeing it from the outside I dismissed it for many years, but once I went in I realised both how huge it is and how it shows the ideas of brutalist and modernist architecture do exist independently of the depressing concrete boxes that have often been built in their name.
It may not be to your taste, but the fact that those flats sell for millions today is a counterexample to your claim that brutalism is nothing more than an assault on the lower class. The fact is that plenty of wealthy people disagree with your aesthetic judgement enough to pay to live in those flats for sums that would easily buy them a house in a leafy, conveniently commutable part of London. It provides an alternative motive for at least some brutalist designs.
>Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses.
Yep, and they'll pull out the "umm well akshually 'brutalism' comes from the french betón brut, it doesn't mean 'brutal'", but they're wrong; the word "brutalism" itself wasn't coined by the French, it was coined by a bunch of too-clever-by-half Anglophone students. They knew exactly what double meaning it would have; it was always a mean-spirited pun.
> Moss and vines look great on Britain's Georgian and Gothic architecture. On Brutalist flat surfaces, it just looks dirty.
That's just like your opinion, man.
> Brutalism is an academic justification of the brutalisation of the working class, who invariably were the ones who ended up living in cheaply constructed Brutalist architecture. The middle and upper classes (and the architects) keep to their pretty Georgian Neo-classical houses.
That is a projection. Most brutalist buildings are not living spaces but things like bridges, university buildings, libraries, airports, museums, etc. Who do those oppress?
If you don't like the concrete because the Soviets used a lot of it, say that without the pseudo-intelecualization.
Personally I don’t like it because Britain was full of it when I was growing up (still is in places) and it was
- ugly
- dirty
- dark
- felt impersonal, not designed for people
- usually smelled of piss
- often associated with petty crime
They create spaces that are unfriendly, often cold, wet and dark. They have odd corners and cavities hidden away from view. As a result nobody felt affection or ownership of the spaces, so they would be used as a toilet, or a site for mugging.
Most brutalist buildings should be wiped from the earth. People report liking living in the Barbican, perhaps we can keep that one. Most of the rest are nothing more than an eyesore.
Brutalism, can be used well or as mere styling that copies the look, but not the spirit. The same can be said about any other design flavour. E.g. there are a thousand examples of things that try to copy the style of apple products, but do so only in style and not in spirit.
E.g. a brutalist blog is certainly usable (see for example: http://blog.fefe.de/ which uses the browsers default css and allows you to apply custom css "themes"). If you look neutral at it, it is just text and text is front and center. With clean markup it is more accessible than most sites and people are free to style their default browser template any way they like. This is not anti-human.
Brutalism can be anti-human, but so can be a friendly cushy design language that hides the truth behind fluffy words. It always depends on the execution.
>I actually like that - nature easily integrates it back into itself.
Water infiltration causes mould and other nasty problems for the people inside, and it makes the exterior physically crumble apart. It's not a thing to be celebrated.
"It looks good when it's fucked up" is the last refuge of indefensible monumentalism; reminiscent of Albert Speer's "Ruin Value", likely devised because he was smart enough to realize his buildings wouldn't survive the decade.
It shouldn't have to be said, but the main function of a building is to keep nature out.
>As for the anti-human, I always read it as a reminder that there are things bigger than human, which may be why brutalism is so popular with governments.
You can make big things to provoke feelings of awe and wonder, or feelings of intimidation and powerlessness. It's a choice. And art is only a welcome "reminder" when it's occasional. People put a skull on their shelf, so that when their eye lands on it some drowsy evening, they are reminded: memento mori. But nobody would like it if every advert on the tube said "you're going to die someday lol". You can't get away from architecture; a brutalist city is one where people cannot go about their day without being reminded that they are tiny and insignificant, and powerful people can do what they like to them.
> Water infiltration causes mould and other nasty problems for the people inside
Then build it accordingly - use water management techniques such as impermeabilization, double walls, drainage, and so many others that ensure the building is safe and sound because rain tends to fall on them anyway and it's not like things like green roofs are a universally bad thing - they even help with heat management. And suspended gardens were even a thing in Babylon.
> It shouldn't have to be said, but the main function of a building is to keep nature out.
No. It's to keep people comfortable, to foster human relationships and social activities within and around it, gently guiding people towards a goal without them realizing it. Architecture was never about buildings - it's about the people who use them.
Well, lots of things do look good like that. E.g. a cottage with roses growing round the door. But agreed that just lack of environmental control, while beautiful in its own devaying way, is not great for the people who have to use the building.
I actually like that - nature easily integrates it back into itself. That can't happen with glass towers.
As for the anti-human, I always read it as a reminder that there are things bigger than human, which may be why brutalism is so popular with governments.