Why do so many dislike Brutalism?

dttq

I'm talking of course about Brutalist architecture, commonly built and in use in postwar cities across Europe/ North America after WWII. Examples of Brutalist architecture would be (within Dublin) - Hawkins House, Liberty Hall, the bank on Dame Street etc. I believe that this brand of architecture hasn't been given enough of a chance by the public, and that both the public and government are quick to demonise brutalism and call for the demolition of brutalist structures with very little opposition, or sympathy from the public. It seems that if anybody dared suggest we demolish structures from the 18th century, even though most of it was poorly constructed with shoddy workmanship, then their would be a public outcry. Not so for brutalist structures. There would be outrage were an 18th century structure or building to be taken down, and yet there seems to be little support or a voice in defense of buildings such as Liberty Hall, Hawkins house etc.

I for one think that Dublin, or any other Irish city has very little in the way of brutalist architecture, and yet we seem hellbent on erasing the memory of such buildings from our streetscapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

stoneill

Because it looks crap.

ChunkyLover_53

Damn...thought this thread would be about freaky porn.

Seanchai

dttq wrote: »

I'm talking of course about Brutalist architecture...

Of course, like.

dttq

Seanchai wrote: »

Of course, like.

This photo sums of my view of your post, as well as 99.9% of the stuff you post on this forum.

http://www.rustyzipper.com/full/112932-M39576L.jpg

kowloon

It looks brutal.

My name is URL

I don't hate it...

I just don't care

A Primal Nut

It's called Brutal for a reason.

Red Alert

I'm a huge fan of Brutalist architecture. It's much better than the faux-period and/or glass-fronted creations that we see recently. Each to their own I suppose.

mike65

The problem is not so much the architecture style but what it represented and that much of it was built having flattened perfectly fine sympathetically designed buildings that had been allowed to fall into ruin.

Sound of Silence

Because they're the kind of buildings you would expect to appear in a dystopian Film.

They're basically the personification of depression.

Truley

I don't want to feel like I'm living in North Korea

WoollyRedHat

Well would you drive a box like car?

cml387

I thought an example of brutalism is the arts block in UCD or the Central Bank.

Hawkins house is just a monstrosity (see also old science block UCD).
I think this style is known as Stasi Headquarter Realist.

dgt

I like it, in a weird utilitarian twisted sense of humour.

Emeraldy Pebbles

dttq wrote: »

I'm talking of course about Brutalist architecture, commonly built and in use in postwar cities across Europe/ North America after WWII. Examples of Brutalist architecture would be (within Dublin) - Hawkins House, Liberty Hall, the bank on Dame Street etc. I believe that this brand of architecture hasn't been given enough of a chance by the public, and that both the public and government are quick to demonise brutalism and call for the demolition of brutalist structures with very little opposition, or sympathy from the public. It seems that if anybody dared suggest we demolish structures from the 18th century, even though most of it was poorly constructed with shoddy workmanship, then their would be a public outcry. Not so for brutalist structures. There would be outrage were an 18th century structure or building to be taken down, and yet there seems to be little support or a voice in defense of buildings such as Liberty Hall, Hawkins house etc.

I for one think that Dublin, or any other Irish city has very little in the way of brutalist architecture, and yet we seem hellbent on erasing the memory of such buildings from our streetscapes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

Some Brutalist architecture is great, much of it is not. Liberty Hall and Hawkins House fall into the latter category.

Lapin

Not a huge fan of the style but I'd love to own one of the flats at the top of the Trellick tower in west London.

kowloon

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Well would you drive a box like car?

Volvo?

Lapin wrote: »

Not a huge fan of the style but I'd love to own one of the flats at the top of the Trellick tower in west London.

Best way of not having to look at it.

Sky King

WoollyRedHat wrote: »

Well would you drive a box like car?

Hells yeah.

Emeraldy Pebbles

Now THIS is a class Brutalist building:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buffalo_City_Court_Building.JPG

kupus

They look like what a commie architect would build on different type of drugs.
All drab, all grey, all boring.

kupus

Emeraldy Pebbles wrote: »

Now THIS is a class Brutalist building:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Buffalo_City_Court_Building.JPG

oh sweet jesus i give up.

Brain Stroking

Lapin wrote: »

Not a huge fan of the style but I'd love to own one of the flats at the top of the Trellick tower in west London.

Would love that too.

Alas, we are but left with our dreams.

Emeraldy Pebbles

kupus wrote: »

oh sweet jesus i give up.

You don't like, I like it. Meh.

Heroditas

cml387 wrote: »

I thought an example of brutalism is the arts block in UCD or the Central Bank.

Hawkins house is just a monstrosity (see also old science block UCD).
I think this style is known as Stasi Headquarter Realist.

Hawkins House looks like an oversized prefab.
As does the Science Block in UCD.

holystungun9

Jeez, Pittsburgh is fairly brutal.

Greentopia

Because most of it-that I've seen anyway- looks ugly and depressing, and doesn't age very well.

Buildings made from natural materials and vernacular style architecture appeal more to me anyway.

B0jangles

Because it is a celebration of ugliness as an end in and of itself.

Because brutalism is unlike any other architectural movement in the past in that is accepts that it is profoundly ugly as a base marker.

Brutalist buildings tend to be constructed out of shoddy post-war concrete which were built with a view towards an idea instead of structural integrity.

Look at N. Korea as as the ultimate of the idea of Brutalist architecture:



Whether or not the building fuctions as a building is irrelevant, as long as it adheres to the ideal of the state.

the_syco

[QUOTE=Sound of Silence;81330681They're basically the personification of depression.[/QUOTE]
Of depression, and of the depression.

bluto63

It's a very hit and miss style. The Barbican in London looks great, but Robin Hood Gardens I don't think so much. As well, it led to all sorts of problems, particularly crime which is common in brutalist high rises.

dttq

B0jangles wrote: »

Because it is a celebration of ugliness as an end in and of itself.

Because brutalism is unlike any other architectural movement in the past in that is accepts that it is profoundly ugly as a base marker.

Brutalist buildings tend to be constructed out of shoddy post-war concrete which were built with a view towards an idea instead of structural integrity.

Look at N. Korea as as the ultimate of the idea of Brutalist architecture:



Whether or not the building fuctions as a building is irrelevant, as long as it adheres to the ideal of the state.

I have never heard of brutalist architects or supporters use this form of architecture as a celebration of ugliness, I can't imagine architects would erect buildings which they deemed ugly, let alone celebrate the fact that they'd inflicted ugliness on others. Brutalism has many supporters, it's not ugly to everybody.

dttq

A Primal Nut wrote: »

It's called Brutal for a reason.

Actually I think the brut in brutalism comes from the French "raw", or "raw concrete" to be exact. I don't think the meaning of Brutalism has anything to do with brutality. I suppose the name can give rise to confusion, particularly among people who would dislike the brand of architecture itself.

dttq

Red Alert wrote: »

I'm a huge fan of Brutalist architecture. It's much better than the faux-period and/or glass-fronted creations that we see recently. Each to their own I suppose.

Well said. It's ironic we as a society have such an affinity for twee pastiche Georgian crap, and yet are so quick to dismiss one of the most important movements in architecture during the 20th century.

dttq

Also could the mods move this thread to the Art & Architecture forum. Thanks

El Weirdo

dttq wrote: »

Also could the mods move this thread to the Art & Architecture forum. Thanks

Probably best to start a new one over there, OP.

Locked.