Brutalism is the worst architectonic style. I spent quite a bit of time in brutalist buildings and they impact you negatively. Idk why anyone would want to reference that.
Ironically physical brutalism often fails because of poor usability and discomfort, while the brutalist web design manages to be faster and more accessible than whatever the conventional (baroque?) style is.
I think we all benefit from a little bit of useless ornament. Unadorned brut concrete rapidly becomes so ugly that some buildings became notorious suicide spots.
Like any school of archeticture, there are good examples and bad. Largely, over time, only the good examples survive. The older the school, the higher percentage of it will be good, surviving examples.
I find the Barbican in London — which I walk through most days — to be a very uplifting building!
Something that I think the Barbican does well, and The National Theatre (another London brutalist building) also does well, is interesting interior spaces - openess, multi-levels, "floating" staircases, interior views, visible structural elements etc. I find both of these spaces energising and interesting to be in.
Other brutalist buildings are just horid. I worked in Sampson House (just behind Tate Modern) for a couple of years which is also brutalist but the interior is dank corridors and dingy spaces. I also worked at the brutalist IBM offices next door to the National Theatre and it was also a souless space inside. They have absolutely zero-ambition and are the polar opposite of the spaces at the Barbican and National Theatre.
I don’t like brutalist and I don’t like the Barbican. For me, brutalist architecture is defined by an extraordinary level of arrogance and disregard for well established design.
When I was last at the Barbican I found it very hard to navigate, and I was relieved to be told by the staff there about the many “alterations” they’ve had to make to try to make the building less confusing and alien.
Partly this is because the Barbican is exceptionally well kept (much brutalist architecture is associated with slum estates, whereas the Barbican is mostly inhabited by richer people). The concrete is clean, the ponds and fountains are working, the balconies overflow with plants.
There are many exceptional examples of brutalist architecture in Paris, some well kept, some not so much:
I dunno... the Yale Art & Architecture building is a classic early example of brutalism, and I've never been in a space that felt more open to creativity or so honest... it was a revelation the first time I stepped inside of it. I looked forward to classes there because it felt uplifting for my soul, and deeply envied architecture students who got to use it as their workspace, its spirit was so perfect.
Of course I'm sure brutalism can be done badly too (like anything), and I haven't spent time on the inside of too many others... but there can be something profound about it -- a modern building in balance that tries to be exactly what it is, no more, no less.
The problem I think is not so much the brut as the béton. I don't find concrete to be a wonderful material, aesthetically speaking. Even when you take into account the fact that it can be formed and poured into almost any shape. But the philosophy of minimalism/honesty/unity captures some very sound principles.
I’m not so sure about that. At my university (University of Texas at Dallas) we are “blessed” with a legacy of brutalist architecture [1], which I’ve been told won its fair share of architecture awards. [?] (I’ll assume that means it’s been done “right”.
As you can see, it’s been really great for our mental health :) [2]. I can appreciate this style of architecture from an intellectual level, but to be around these kinds of buildings daily is a little exhausting.
>I can appreciate this style of architecture from an intellectual level
Indeed. There are many things – not only architecture – that are interesting to look at for a bit, maybe on paper, but that I would never want to actually have around me in my life. It seems that some people do not consider this difference. Architecture is particularly troublesome, since others force it upon you. You cannot choose it like you can choose what music to engage with, for example.
Architecture is like high fashion -- what architects celebrate is not what's good for users, but what's fun in their art shows. Architecture-as-art uses human environments as their canvas instead of as their goal. Architecture award-winning is usually the opposite of what architecture users consider "done right".
Even so, concrete is unmaintanable and unmodifiable. That's why (self-absorbed) architects love it -- it's a sculpture or "walled garden" (with emphasis on the "wall") where the prole users can't interfere with the architect's art project by making the building usable for their own needs.
I'm surprised that so many folks here (obv not everyone) have so readily accepted the word "brutalist" to apparently mean "simple, functional, and minimal", because that's definitely NOT what brutalism entails in the architectural world!
I really like a lot of brutalist architecture, but much of it is far LESS functional/useful/practical than other styles. Brutalism was an aesthetic, largely a reaction to existing forms--many of which were characterized by their utility! A lot of brutalist architects were rebelling against the bourgeois notion of a building as merely (as they saw it) "a place intended for humans to live, work, and play", and instead asserting the notion of a building as an artistic form in its own right, which often meant intentionally disregarding or downplaying the importance of the building's utility for the humans who interacted with it! Anyone who has lived or worked in a brutalist building can aver this truth: if the building served its function w/r/t humans, it was often DESPITE its artistic intentions, which prioritized almost everything else instead.
