Brutalist architecture

SO ugly

Broodle, OP. Just broodle.

I read that the style arose due to building material shortages after World War 2. Why it continues to this day is a bigger head-scratcher. The new national museum in Oslo:

I went to University of Illinois Chicago which when built one of the largest assemblages of brutalist architecture in the world. It has been gradually disassembled over the years but when I was there and I would walk on campus at night it felt like I was in “Brazil” or “1984.” Which in its own way was kind of cool.

You would hate the former Soviet countries, OP.

Barco Building at Pitt.

Litchfield Towers Dormitories at Pitt. They're round. The rooms are pie-shaped.

Hillman Library at Pitt, at an exaggeratedly acute angle.

Hillman Library at Pitt.

I hate it. Way too much of DC has that Soviet bloc feeling.

Does this count...?

Almost all of the civic and government buildings in Downtown LA have that look. Ugly.

Yes Orlando’s public library is a rare example of Brutalism in Florida

R4, you beat me to the punch. I did my graduate work at UIC, and hated the oppressive monolith architecture. Loved Chicago though.

Government Center, Boston.

Thanks r13.

I'm sort of a fan of the late Paolo Soleri, a protege of Frank Lloyd Wright. Soleri promoted an organic variety of Brutalism, at his Arcosanti town site in Arizona, and with his smaller design commissions. Arcosanti is largely considered to be a failure, but it is very interesting. It is is sort of hippy-dippy, but you will be very welcomed by the docents and residents, should you visit.

Hall Building, Concordia, Montreal

All the photos of the grand-scale projects don’t begin to tell the story of the trickle-down aesthetic that resulted in much smaller municipal holdings and public schools that went up in the 1970s, including the near windowless monstrosity of an elementary school that I work in.

“Hey, let’s create an environment for children to bloom in that’s entirely devoid of natural light!” And when the a/c is on the fritz, which is often, we have the bonus of dead air looming around 90 degrees.

Brutalism in the form of a rough-fucking top is to be admired. But in architecture, experiencing it from within feels soul-crushing.

Robarts Library, University of Toronto

It makes it much easier to film dystopian films about the future. Think of the money saved on sets.

University of Lethbridge

Russia loves it!

Has Boston done anything to improve the travesty @R15? Last time I was there, it was a barren, wind swept waste of space with trash blowing all around and weeds growing up through the numerous cracks in brick and concrete walkways.

Here is another link for R20's ugly Robarts Library

Calgary Board of Education

They did this to our local Town Hall in London in 1973.

They're about to tear it down

The hideous Newhouse and Newhouse II buildings (School of Public Communications) at Syracuse. President Johnson gave his infamous Gulf of Tonkin speech at the dedication of one of them. He should have been truthful about Vietnam and truthful about how ugly the building was.

The university has since built a prettier Newhouse 3, but still, those earlier monstrosities remain.

Just do a search if you don't believe us.

Believe it or not, Brutalist buildings often "clean up" well, and CAN become nice-looking with just a little superficial remodeling. Hang some glass & stone from the outside, correct "visually unbalanced" buildings with a skirt-like glass atrium at ground level, add landscaping, and make their entrances more visible & welcoming, and you can end up with a very nice building with just a hint of loft-like raw urban chic.

In a sense, today's postmodern buildings are just brutalist skeletons with decorative frosting on the outside to make them tasty & delicious. Re-cladding a brutalist tower might not be artistically genuine or authentic, but it's still a net improvement most of the time.

That style can be not bad if well-proportioned and put together with decent materials. Unfortunately most isn't.

We have one of these threads every year or so and they always prove that, stereotypes be damned, most gay men have terrible fucking taste and lack all imagination and think Brutalism is ugly

Brutalism = architectural hipsterism.

The old Pet Milk Building in St. Louis, circa 1967, now an apartment building.

The town hall in Bergen, Norway. It's the ugliest piece of shit architecture I've ever seen. I had to look at that shit for 6 years while I lived there.

Better pic.

Toronto again.

Brutalism IS ugly. So artless, joyless, soulless. Just a big concrete block of UGLY.

Here's an example: 4331 North Federal Highway in Fort Lauderdale.

If you follow the link, you can see the building today, as well as what it looked like back in 2007.

The building is no grand masterpiece now... but overall, I'd say it looks nice. Kind of tastefully-playful.

The original exterior was HIDEOUS. Just plain UGLY, in that "1960s south Florida, medical building for really old people" kind of way.

Was Cabrini Green brutalist?

The 1970s YMCA London

R3 Oslo has always had awful architecture, one building more hardly makes a difference, lol. I'm Norwegian and I hate Oslo. It's ugly. Ugliest capital in Europe by far. There's not even a contest. Hate that shitty city. It's different with Bergen, it's a pretty city that was ruined by an awful town hall.

The old YMCA, London.

[quote][R3] Oslo has always had awful architecture, one building more hardly makes a difference, lol. I'm Norwegian and I hate Oslo. It's ugly. Ugliest capital in Europe by far. There's not even a contest. Hate that shitty city. It's different with Bergen, it's a pretty city that was ruined by an awful town hall.

Terible problems with their weather. Too hot. Too cold. No spring.

Something in Edmonton.

Here's another example of how an ugly brutalist building can be made attractive & welcoming

R41 they tore down that gorgeous building to put up that Brutalist abortion?

Yes, R45.

You can see it far right here, still intact, in 1968.

Brutalist architecture at its best is some of the best 'modern' architecture out there.

Just so we're clear, the word 'brutalist' doesn't mean 'brutal'. It comes from the French for raw concrete which is béton brut.

Some good examples of great Brutalist architecture include the South Bank and Barbican complexes in London and anything by Le Corbusier.

Another pic of the NEW YMCA London.

The HORROR that is Boston

Indeed R44, here's a rendering of a pending addition to the Robarts Library.

[quote]Some good examples of great Brutalist architecture include the South Bank and Barbican complexes in London

Gurl, NO!

OP's photo is of the South Bank.

& THIS is the lovely Barbican you seem to admire.

Let DL decide.

Don't people think the South Bank and Barbican are ugly? They may be used for good things, but the buildings are ugly.

The London YMCA building would probably look a lot better after a good pressure-washing. Actually, lots of "ugly" British buildings would be fairly attractive if they were pressure-cleaned yearly & intensively-landscaped.

Pollution, grime, and cold & wet winters do terrible things to raw concrete.

[quote]Some good examples of great Brutalist architecture include the South Bank and Barbican complexes in London

Gurl, NO! #2

The Barbican.

R50, They should just put a big garbage can over it, or better yet, tear it down.

[quote]Some good examples of great Brutalist architecture include the South Bank and Barbican complexes in London

Oh, dear.

South Bank >

more ugly Barbican

The Barbican today is one of the most sought after residential areas in London.

The South Bank 'complex' is one of the most popular places to visit in London.

They were both criticised in the past for their Brutalist style but have been completely embraced by a public who've come to appreciate its charm. Brutalism has seen a major resurgence in terms of popularity and people looking at it in a different way than before. Good Brutalism can be astonishingly beautiful. It's bad Brutalism that's ugly.

[quote]The Barbican today is one of the most sought after residential areas in London.

Exaggerate much?

The flats are quite nice inside.

A Le Corbusier masterpiece. So beautiful.

More beauty from LeCorbusier

The old Euston Station, London.

The new Euston Stattion, London.

Is the new Euston station brutalist?

Interior of the old Euston Station.

[quote]The Barbican today is one of the most sought after residential areas in London.

Yes, "residential areas" - it is central. The building complex is still ugly.

[quote]The South Bank 'complex' is one of the most popular places to visit in London.

Yes, for the events that take place there: art exhibits, films, concerts, lectures. The building complex is still ugly.

Euston now.

There's a big difference between the post-war use of concrete in architecture and actual Brutalism. But I'm sure you all knew that already and are just pretending to be stupid.

Penn Station: Before and After

Arapahoe Community College, Littleton (suburban Denver), CO. It's actually worse than the pictures.

I remember my father taking me to see the old Euston Station, the day before they began to tear it down.

There's a gorgeous show on mid-century Yugoslav Brutalism at MoMA that just opened, coincidentally

R4, when did you attend?

For some reason, I had an affection for the old Whitney Museum in New York.

R66 - As I've tried to say before (and perhaps not very well), the general public has come round to the stark beauty of places such as the South Bank and the Barbican. These areas are protected for their importance in architectural history and Brutalism has really had a resurgence in terms of popularity. I'm not suggesting we're likely to see a load of Brutalist buildings built any time soon, but we are seeing a lot of people looking at it in a more positive light.

Actually I like Brutalist if done right. The Salk Institute is pretty cool.

Le Corbusier

Cypress City College

The opening of The Whitney, 1961

Old neglected Brutalist architecture in the UK

Same problem has continued to this day in Fine Art: An obsession with "statements" over beauty.

[quite]Old neglected Brutalist architecture ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶K̶ in England.

There. Fixed.

We don't have to use ugly words as well as put up ugly buildings.

[quote]Old neglected Brutalist architecture ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶U̶K̶ in England.

There. Fixed.

We don't have to use ugly words as well as put up ugly buildings.

One of the few brutalist buildings I have any fondness for is Hugh Casson's former elephant and rhinoceros pavilion at London Zoo. The corrugated, brush-hammered concrete walls evoke pachyderm hide, and the copper, trapezoidal head-like roof endows it with a solemn character.

It's all horrendous and should be torn down.

R84 It's rare in that it projects just enough whimsical sentimentality in form, for you to feel an emotional connection to it.

R82 Bet I could find examples just as bad in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. The places popped up everywhere. So I'm sticking with the UK description.

I liked living in the Towers at Pitt while I was in college. It was refreshing to live in such a modern environment after 18 years of my mother's miserable Fauxlonial decor. Even today, they're among Pittsburgh's most interesting looking buildings.

I love Brutalist architecture. Don’t know why but I do.

I remember when I was a kiddie, Toronto City Hall was very internationally high profile. You never hear of it now.

I don’t know why either, R89.

I like some of it. I never liked being in Government Center. But I love the look of the DC Metro.

Gund Hall at Harvard. Always a finalist in any "Ugliest building on campus" competition.

And home of the Graduate School of Design, Harvard's architecture school.

Love Brutalism, find it delicious. And this building just makes my heart soar. Jatiya Sangsad

The Aussies always seem to be so proud of the Opera House in Sydney.

And I like the initial seeming randomness of the Watergate design.

The Opera House isn't Brutalist, you cretin.

FFS can you please learn what Brutalism actually is before you decide you hate it?

Louis Kahn was so good

[quote] The Opera House isn't Brutalist,

Which is why it’s an internationally beloved icon of good taste and architecture.

Yes, it isn't ugly enough to be Brutalist.

How has no one mentioned the most splendid piece of brutalist architecture, Paul Andreu's magnificent Roissy Terminal 1?!

It's all very Chosen.

Boston University Law School Tower

Retrofitted Brutalism. They did a good job.

R101, that is a misleading image, with the pretty color - it almost looks art deco.

Here's your brutalist Roissy Terminal 1

Peabody Terrace.

Harvard University housing.

There's a lot of Brutalim in Albany, New York. First, the Empire State Plaza.

^^^

aka "Brasilia-on-the-Hudson"

More Albany, this time the University at Albany's Uptown Campus (which is located in both Albany and in the town of Guilderland.)

William James Hall, Harvard University

Departments of Sociology, Psychology, and Social Anthropology

I love it.

It reflects the True Core Values of socialism. Petty Capitalist beautification disrupts functional community standards. If one Tenant House is allowed to plant flowers or paint their home, then anarchy prevails.

You are trapped in your Petty Bourgeois Mindset of beauty.

Function is beautiful, and anyone who disagrees will be shot once I am president.

Dammit, Julie, I guess Indianapolis had some Brutalist buildings too. Hold me David

R5

Off to the firing squad. Former socialist countries have wonderful architecture! It will be standard here when I rule over the peasants.

R19

You’re the one who chose to indoctrinate kids for the government as your career.

You think the bureaucratic nightmare that created the building has any business educating kids?!?

Smith Campus Center, Harvard University.

Formerly known as Holyoke Center. Administrative HQ. Presently under reconstruction.

Science Center, Harvard University.

Gift of Dr. Land, inventor of the Polaroid Land Camera.

And designed to look like one.

Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, Harvard University

Only building in North American designed by Le Corbusier.

Countway Library, Harvard Medical School

i always thought/assumed that this style was a psychological reaction to the Cold War, providing public spaces that give one that bomb shelter feel. they probably thought it was calming to the nerves, like blinders on a horse.

[quote]The Opera House isn't Brutalist, you cretin.

I didn't say it was.

[quote]FFS can you please learn what Brutalism actually is before you decide you hate it?

You're a sourgurl bore. Fuck off.

This monster in London (London's doing well - the English always embrace the ugly) has become very popular and admired in its older age.

The former Olivetti Building in Milan

I took Organic Chemistry here in 1976 University of Missouri at Kansas City

Nothing says "Keep Out. You don't belong here" quite like the National Library in Buenos Aires.

Edificio Ciudadela, Montevideo

Why did they let them put window a/c units on the outside?

Brutalist architecture was a worldwide phenomenon.

China's still building monstrosities. From 2007.

R124: Oh, I think Banco Hipotecario does...

Buenos Aires

They look good when covered with grass.

I think Trent U. in Peterborough Ontario is trying something similar.

Eros House, London

"Ugly buildings, politicians and whores all become respectable if they last long enough."

Geisel Library, UC San Diego

Even our payphones in England in the '70s were brutal.

Nasty.

Jatiya Sangsad Bhaban

Langson Library, UC Irvine

Welbeck Street Car Park, London

On a somewhat related note, I love Karl-Marx-Allee--one feels so insignificant there; the GDR almost got it right . . .

Anything can be taken to excess

And even Louis Kahn could mishandle concrete

But only Edward Durrell Stone had the cojones to bring Paducah's sensibility to the land of the Taj Mahal!

Did we count?

R138 Kahn was so good

R60 that Le Corbusier masterpiece looks like a harmonica on chopsticks.

The Government Center Boston City Hall is one of the ugliest I've ever seen.

Josep Lluis Sert was a Spanish-born architect who served for 16 years as the dean of the Graduate School of Design at Harvard 1953–1969. He had extraordinary influence on national architecture during that period. His brutalist designs, at least at Harvard, are soul zapping, I get it that architecture does not have to elevate the human condition to be good, but by that same token, it shouldn't suck the life out of the human condition.

[quote]I get it that architecture does not have to elevate the human condition to be good, but by that same token, it shouldn't suck the life out of the human condition.

Thank you r144, and pity the poor residents and employees who have to live, or work, or transact business in these eyesores.

Architects must have forgotten that they were designing buildings, rather than coffee table objets.

I always wanted to live here.

Every one of these buildings makes me think of Nineteen Eighty-Four and fascism. Well suited to our times.

The Beehive in Wellington, NZ.

Hiw did the ugliest architectural movement in human history become one of the most globally popular?

Thanks for all the images posted above - I was mostly unfamiliar with the American examples. The Barbican is by far my favourite building in London (and for all you tasteful gays, the Dorothea Lange exhibition currently on at the Barbican is stunning).

Another one of my favourite examples of brutalism: Le Corbusier's Unité d'habitation in Marseille.

Two from Columbus

Ohio history museum

And these monstrosities at OSU (yes, there are TWO of them)

TIme for all you haters to state what you'd have preferred to see in place of the examples you furnished.

The federal courthouse in Central Islip, Long Island is shockingly ugly, both exterior and interior

Here is another one from Bergen, Norway. This is Bergen art museum.

Beautiful location, ugly building.

Sorry, I think the url was too long. Lets try again.

The interior of the Central Islip is dreadful as well

I don't think this one is too bad at all, R154. At least it's white and reflects the light rather than sucking it out of the sky.

[quote]Some good examples of [bold] great Brutalist architecture [/bold] include the South Bank and Barbican complexes in London and anything by Le Corbusier.

An oxymoron right there. Corbusier should rot in hell for all the concrete crimes he has committed.

I kind of like the Bergen Kunsthaal. If you google image it, you see a lot of different, and interesting, views. Here's just one.

Does Bergen Kunsthaal even count as brutalist?

The Marcel Breuer designed central library in downtown Atlanta (top photo). Completed in 1980. Some love it, some hate it. It replaced the old Carnegie library (middle photo), a truly beautiful structure. The city did keep some of the facade of the old library and used it to build the Carnegie education pavilion in a small city park (lower image). Some of the remaining remnants of the old facade have been lying wasted on an overgrown piece of property for decades.

I don't hate Atlanta's library. I like the old one more, though.

Espaces D’Abraxes in Marne-Le-Vallée, France

Familiar to fans of the movie “Brazil”

R45 is that you Prince Charles?

The Barbican can be quite nice and is very desirable..........

Just don't look at it from the outside.

Exactly

Of Holyoke/The Smith Center @ Harvard it has long been said that the best thing about it is being in the Smith Center is the only place in Harvard Square where you can’t see the Smith Center.

The Tower of History is Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan is my favorite. So random and built by a very old Catholic Church next door. Looks like a fucking super villain lair. Or prison. Great views of Canada and the river up there though!

I'd consider living in The Barbican. My father bought a flat there when it was first built. It was near his office. I wonder if he made use of it. I remember going to look it over as a kiddie when he was checking it out. Those photos reminded me of it. I remember there was a lot of walking outside until you reached the building. Annoying that they don't show how much it went for.

I looked at an apartment in this seeming late 1960s abomination in Notting Hill recently. The apartment was actually very nice. You could pull out partitions from the walls to create separate rooms. Plus your own garage. And the "common parts' were especially nice. Keys to and views over the private gardens. Many pluses.

Toronto city hall seems nice...until you realize there are no windows on the outside.

The old Denver Art Museum. The new one is worse.

OMG, R175.

Ayn Rand must have loved this shit.

Flat for sale in The Barbican with a hefty price tag.

What's different now though, is its proximity to trendy East London, where there is so much going on now.

University of California, Berkeley has several horrible Brutalist buildings.

I had a class in this building, Wurster Hall (1964), back in the '80s. It was depressing, both inside and out.

The irony is that Wurster Hall is the home of the College of Environmental Design.

I actually have come to love the National (in OP's post).

It's what's inside that matters most and they have made the most of it. I've had so many good memories inside that I now associate them with the building. The first Guys and Dolls when I was a kid. Seeing Anthony Hopkins and Judi Dench in Antony and Cleopatra as a teenager. Seeing the original Angels in America there in 92 and then again recently.

I like going out on the balcony and the way the building can have colors and lights displayed on it. It works for me.

These were Cold War era buildings. Interestingly enough if you are in a brutalist building after a nuclear strike and are away from windows centrally located in the building you are insulated from some fallout.

My old Alma Mata, Maquarie University Sydney.

Ah the dreaming blocks of grey concrete, so inspiring. It's like gulag meets sacraficial ziggurat, with regemented rows of gum trees to give it an Australian twist.

R149 the Cold War. The concrete structures with limited windows were deemed “safer” from nuclear attacks.

Get in one of these buildings when NK or Russia nukes your city bitches! These ugly things actually provide decent shelter from fallout.

I kind of like some of the stuff in r165, and I definitely like this building at r173. It reminds me of some buildings I like near Penn (or UPenn, as the children now call it).

Liverpool Cathedral

No wonder no one goes to church anymore.

Curious what it looks like inside. Is that stained glass in the cylinder in the middle?

Google is (or at least can be) your friend

R188 I was curious, but not curious enough to Google it myself.

So the worshippers' prayer power can be focused on the preacher in the middle so he can use it to destroy his enemies with witchcraft!

Brutalism is so inappropriate for churches because it is so obviously an atheistic/anti-spiritual aesthetic.

When I first saw the Barbican, I didn't know if it was apartments, condos, or social housing (an 'estate").

The cathedral in R188 looks kind of Vegas-y. Maybe that's what they're doing now in church: transubstantiation with a pulsing blue-violet light.

They got started in the thirties in Michigan. Here is the shrine of the little flower, where the fascist radio priest had his ministry. The place is still inciting nightmares.

Father Coughlin was brutal, but the architecture here isn't Brutalism.

My alma mater, Simon Fraser U in Vancouver.

Can't be less suited to the gorgeous natural backdrop. But I saw quite a few movie productions shoot there, movie people love it.

The library at SFU.

Mind you, this is a glamour shot. Nine months of the year the buildings are drenched in rain and permanently grey skies.

Was discussing this very issue with a designer friend this evening. Here in DC, our plethora of brutalist buildings are being replaced or removated, but all with the same unimaginative glass facades. We both dislike brutalism but are unsure how much of an improvement this is.

There is some new architecture being done in country/rural locations that looks nice/fits in with the scenery.

Went past this shithole today in the bus in London. Knightsbridge Barracks...and thought of this thread.

Not only hideous but also right next to and looming over London largest and most beautiful park.

It replaced THIS >

Gurl, NO!

The architect said he was inspired by the skyline he saw around Central Park in New York.

This shitfest has also recently gone up next Hyde Park - apartments for the mega-wealthy. Contemporary brutalism.

Not only hideous but has totally fucked with the traffic round there.

That doesn't look brutalist, r204.

It replaced this. But least the traffic flowed underneath.

[quote]That doesn't look brutalist, [R204].

I said contemporary brutalism.

It is brutal.

R208 - Brutalism doesn't mean 'brutal'.

I didn't say it did.

R210, reread r208.

I'm no expert on architecture, let alone the technical definifition of Brutalism. I think I understand that some of the images of modern or "post-modern" buildings linked on this thread are not brutalist, no matter how unattractive.

I love a lot of modern architecture, including high-rise buildings and even some concrete buildings.

But anytime a beautiful old building is torn down to make room for a bigger ugly replacement, that seems so wrong. There are hundreds of ugly buildings on some great college campuses these days, often surrounded by gorgeous older buildings. Even the tour guides for prospective students and parents know the less said about the hideous post-1960 structures, the better.

Would Northwestern's library qualify?

Or Northwestern's student center?

Oh, quite, r213 r214.

Some of the ones with lots of windows are by no means inspiring, beautiful architecture, but also not cold and off-putting. They're just utilitarian and usually boring, but not completely off-putting since they're not cold and "brutal."

Beyond the actual architecture, a lot of what makes it seem so fucking drab is that awful, dirty color of the concrete.

The insides of some of these ugly buildings are often quite nice and have interesting floor plans. Not always, but often.

[quote]Beyond the actual architecture, a lot of what makes it seem so fucking drab is that awful, dirty color of the concrete.

I agree. Add to that they often have minimal windows.

My high school wasn't too bad, architecturally, but definitely Brutalist.

I agree R220, that's not too bad.

[quote]Beyond the actual architecture, a lot of what makes it seem so fucking drab is that awful, dirty color of the concrete.

YES. And it gets even dirtier and uglier with age.

Minoru Yamasaki's buildings did not. The secret was running the quartz in a cement mixer to round off the edges before putting it in the concrete. Otherwise you could not keep moisture out. Still as white as an Osmond family reunion, after all these years.

Houston was booming in the mid-20th century and became a center for modern architecture. The Brutalist style is quite common in the city. Here's my favorite, the Chronicle Building, which reminds me of the Witch's Castle from the Wizard of Oz.

Here's the Alley Theatre in Houston.

I'll see you high school and raise you by 10x ugly. In fact, it's so ugly there are few picture of this online, I had to use one from when it was built in the 60's.

Denver had an architect design one high school (Lincoln HS) and used the same plans for 3 other schools, all of which looked better than this last one. They'd removed all embellishments by then.

I'm with r29

[quote]Believe it or not, Brutalist buildings often "clean up" well, and CAN become nice-looking with just a little superficial remodeling. Hang some glass & stone from the outside, correct "visually unbalanced" buildings with a skirt-like glass atrium at ground level, add landscaping, and make their entrances more visible & welcoming, and you can end up with a very nice building with just a hint of loft-like raw urban chic.

In a sense, today's postmodern buildings are just brutalist skeletons with decorative frosting on the outside to make them tasty & delicious. Re-cladding a brutalist tower might not be artistically genuine or authentic, but it's still a net improvement most of the time.

I like them and they are a product of their time. In 20+ years they will be fashionable again, just like MCM became in the 90's. No all we have is boring faux MCM glass boxes.

As the great Jane Jacobs once wrote, “There are fashions in building. Behind the fashions lie economic and technological reasons, and these fashions exclude all but a few genuinely different possibilities in city dwelling construction at any one time.”

― Jane Jacobs, The Death and Life of Great American Cities

^^NOW all we have ^^

I love it, personally. It's aged quite well imo. There is a timeless, neutral, industrial look to it that I really enjoy.

For a good example of what I'd classify as "postmodern Brutalism", pay attention to the architecture of the mansion's basement/underground lab in Jurassic World 2... especially the hallways. Raw concrete + brick is a dressed-up Brutalist combo that often works well together.

[quote]I love it, personally. It's aged quite well imo. There is a timeless, neutral, industrial look to it that I really enjoy.

I don't know if I can go all the way to "love," but I sure do like it more than postmodern. I posted some Pittsburgh brutalisms upthread. Here's the Highmark Building in downtown Pittsburgh, a pomo monstrosity that truly brutalizes the senses.

Another Pittsburgh PoMo monstrosity. By Philip Johnson, no less. The PPG (Pittsburgh Plate Glass) Building. Give me brutalist any day of the week.

"Brutalism in the form of a rough-fucking top is to be admired. But in architecture, experiencing it from within feels soul-crushing."

I feel that you're not presenting a convincing argument here. Seems to be an internal contradic---

You know what? Never mind.

Never mind.

brutalism ≠ brutality

It equals big brute, silly.

Wait, Brut? Was he Bruto, that Popeye dude? Bluto?

No that can't be right...

Here is some post-modern stupidity

more post modern stupidity

That's...just broodle, r236.

R186 It looks like a badminton shuttlecock.

A few of the structures posted here seem to me to be more examples of industrialist than brutalist. They look like buildings built for companies that didn't want to spend much on exterior esthetics. Just plain buildings that fit the needs of the company without concern for whether or not they were making any sort of positive statement or enhancing the look of the area they're located in.

These Yugoslav brutalist war monuments look pretty fascinating:

That Cathedral looks like somthing Sauron would have built if he'd won.

I kinda like Brutalist architecture. I must be a brute!

I think most of it is just fine. Needs to be cleaned!!! the pedestrian levels need a lot of attention - better materials for walkways, walls. Get rid of thick decorative walls. More landscaping and perhaps 1 story light constructions, pavilions, with services.

Throw up a cornice, some window surrounds, and slap on some masonry veneer and most of these buildings would look all right.

The good people of Troy, NY, did the right thing by this Brutalist nightmare and ripped it down.

One only hopes the architect was in it at the time.

Lots of mentions of Harvard, but it's neighbor MIT was just as bad with a few major buildings. It seems like universities (especially those that expanded in the 60s) embraced this style all over the country.

Though it gave MIT students the opportunity to have some fun with their surroundings.

This is one of the older buildings in the Kellogg School of Management campus in Evanston, within Northwestern's campus (it's all pretty much gigantic walls of concrete - but the windows are decent). There's another building that is no longer used for the MBA program that is similarly ugly.

I'll post the new building next.

The New (Overcompensating for past mistakes?) Kellogg School of Management

I wonder how this will age honestly. I think it's overdone with the glass alreay. Not a single exterior wall that isn't glass or steel.

MIT also seemed to overcompensate for its past mistakes...

This building was full of mold, cracks, and leaks - leading to a big lawsuit in 2007. Maybe they should've stuck to brutalism??

Some people posting have no idea what Brutalist architecture is. It seems as if they're posting modern or post-modern buildings that are lightly colored and have a minimalist design.

Brutalism refers to any building made with unfinished concrete and has a blockish quality to the design. The name comes from "beton brut", meaning "raw concrete." It doesn't mean any building that is light in color and is minimalist in appearance.

[quote]For a good example of what I'd classify as "postmodern Brutalism"

You can't classify anything as "postmodern Brutalism", because Postmodern architecture and Brutalist architecture are two completely different styles of architecture. Calling something postmodern Brutalism makes as much sense as calling a book "romantic nihilism."

I have a question: I've seen some sculptures referred to as "brutalist." They are usually made from metal and almost primitive in design. Why are they considered brutalist if that is supposed to mean "raw concrete?"

Just going to post some pics, since some people aren't understanding what Brutalism is. Sorry if some of these buildings have been posted already but the pics are slow to load in this thread and I haven't had a chance to see them all:

Vienna’s Church of the Most Holy Trinity

R252 - is this brutalist or "post-modern and lightly colored with a minimalist design."

It’s a bad name for the lay person, then r252, if people keep forgetting what it means. I think someone above who called it monstrous had the right idea. These all look like objects you might consider to be sculptures, but they've been blown up to be building-sized.

There is no consideration for the humans who have to use and live in these buildings. No windows—why? Don’t the buildings' occupants deserve any windows?

That high school at r220 is monstrous.

R252, not Brutalist, but modern (not postmodern). It has the clean, geometric look of a modern building and seems to have used stone instead of raw concrete. Plus, Brutalist buildings have a very chunky, blockish, crude look to them and that one doesn't.

This is a prison in Chicago. Maybe not Brutalist I'm not sure - but I'm going to post something next to compare.... that's worse than the prison (yet from the brutalist wikipedia page)

This is a court house in Buffalo built at the same time as the prison in r259. Compared to the prison, I'd take the prison any day.

Brutalist buildings seem to age very badly. A lot end up looking like dirty, unwashed sidewalk.

This is all reminding me of the Holocaust memorial, which was designed to make you feel like you are being surrounded / sinking in / claustrophobic as you venture further in the paths.

There's a little discussion about it on reddit's brutalism subreddit.

I maintain that the majority of contemporary "postmodern" buildings are REALLY "brutalism, brought into the 21st century and updated to take advantage of new materials that didn't exist 50 years ago".

50 years ago, "cast stone" was still in its infancy (split-face concrete blocks & pavers were pretty much IT). Engineered quartz panels (thin & light enough to put almost anywhere), inkjet-printed porcelain tile, and quartz-infused structural glass were borderline science fiction.

Most of why we think old Brutalist buildings are ugly comes down to:

* raw concrete needs frequent pressure cleaning to look nice... outside of Florida & California (where it can be done year-round & cheaply), that rarely happens.

* most prominent Brutalist architects had a real hatred of plant life & sunlight. Plants are easy to retrofit, but lack of windows is a lot harder to fix.

* Most prominent Brutalist architects held people in contempt. They LIKED making people feel small, powerless, and insignificant. They had egos the size of Albert Speer's, and the buildings they inflicted on us are generally unloved.

There ARE Brutalists who would have agreed ~97% with Christopher Alexander. You can recognize their designs... the buildings have visually-obvious & welcoming entrances, abundant natural light, have things like planters incorporated directly into the design, and generally strive to appear monumental from a distance, but human-scale up-close & inside.

That's not to say the architects didn't make mistakes (planters where almost nothing can survive, let alone thrive... design features intended to facilitate casual encounters with neighbors that accidentally made them as unsafe as a back alley, etc)... but at least they *tried*, which is more than you can say about the majority of "Modernist" architects (who held humanity in utter & complete contempt).

I think you're right r263. As time progressed, so did this style. Did it become something else that requires a new label? Maybe to architecture students / academics - who love categorizing and classifying things but for the casual observer, a lot is just branches from the same tree.

My mom was a curator for the LBJ Library in Austin. I grew up in this building. Always thought it was ugly but now I have a new appreciation for it.

Also spent time at this one down in San Antonio

R250 looks appropriately like a corporate HQ.

Don't forget about me!

Love child of two different architects having stampy feet for control. Oscar Niemeyer’s 39 story UN tower is International Style. Le Corbusier’s General Assembly is arguably brutalist but Le Corbusier's blocks are too sculptural and refined to be considered examples of the a term he applied to materials.

A number of nominations above are not brutalist, either. Just ugly contemporary blocks, such as R266.

This surprised me...

A lot of our airports were designed in the Brutalist era, but I didn't think Dulles fell into that. It just looks 70s - not soviet bloc. Anyway, this is the article. The DC metro definitely fits the bill though.

[quote]I maintain that the majority of contemporary "postmodern" buildings are REALLY "brutalism

In other words, you prefer to remain willfully ignorant on what postmodernism and brutalism are, in the face of how the architectural world defines it.

OK. It is the internet, after all.

Brutalism was very ugly - looks prison-like and ugly cheap concrete

Postmodernism is more intentional ugliness in a different way.

There is some contemporary wood architecture now in the countryside looks ok.

like some of these

It really is dreary. I wonder why it happened.

They were building a lot of buildings at that time for schools and government and concrete was quick and cheap.

At least for DC, a planning commission got together in 1961 and decided what was "efficient" and what was "wasteful" - basically. There's a lot to read here. Page 68 has some of the main arguments they made & forced upon DC. It might have been reactionary to the ornate / ornamental designs used in the past too. Architects who wrote articles like this personally found those kinds of buildings (like the beautiful YMCA in England destroyed for a concrete box) offensive and aesthetically poor choices for buildings that serve the public. This is basically what I am getting from this (though I skimmed).

They also keep talking about "dignity and strength" in design - like we don't want your frilly Victorian doll houses on our public streets for public use.

yale art gallery, new haven ct

knights of columbus headquarters, new haven, ct

pirelli building, new haven, ct

When I was a teen my cool uncle took me often to rock concerts at the NH Coliseum. The KoC was part of the superstructure with the parking garage. I found it scary and medieval looking and for that, liked it. The Coliseum was shoddily constructed and was falling apart by the 80s.

R280 that is by Marcel Breuer and is too finely detailed to be brutalist. Its neo-classical in a way.

I blame HH Richardson and his heaving frauish Romanesque in smoke-blackened purple for the undue influence heavy styles had on American architects. Concrete is just SAND they'd say, it's a dune at the beach!

I must defend Pittsburg and PPG place though. PPG Place is very appropriate for the headquarters of a GLASS company. Even the fake gothic elements have a message. And since Pburg also had US Steel built in Cor-ten steel and an Alcoa building clad in aluminum, it was hardly out of place. Indeed, Pittsburgh in general has a very harmonious downtown. Pomos can work (Houston) or fail (Dallas). And when they fail they fail spectacularly. But the condo booms overwhelming so many central cities in the last twenty years are almost uniformly abominable, which is why brutalism with its theories and snobbery, seems like a time of innocence and purity in comparison.

R280 isn't so bad. Not beautiful or inspiring architecture, but I don't get depressed or feel tense looking at it.

alternate facts R282

bauhaus on townhouse, or paul rudolph sits on katherine cornell, beekman place, nyc

I like Richardson libraries. Romantic nooks and crannies, catwalks, tiny stairs and huge staircases. There was a men's room under the grand lobby of one of these library's at al local campus and hit had glorious glow hole action through smooth marble walls. Quit, cool, empty, calm. Just you and that mouth or cock. All protected by the hulking castle above.

DC Metro may be one of the few “hits” for butalism. Always loved it. Of course - comparing to the cesspool that is NYC Subway, so hard not to beat.

Courthouse in Goshen, NY. This is not softened by surrounding buildings. It just sits there. Exposed. Ugly. Reviled.

Spellman Hall dorms, for independent students (they’re apartments with bathrooms and kitchens included). Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.

[quote]I must defend Pittsburg

You must first learn to spell it.

The (recently demolished?) Maths Building at Glasgow University - even uglier on the inside.

On the left is a looming bit of the equally hideous Boyd-Orr Building, which isn't exactly Brutalist, just really-fucking-ugly.

Did people really like this stuff when it was put up? Were there big ribbon cuttings and handshakes when these monsters opened for business? I just wonder what the mindset was back then... like - look we piled up 1000 tons of concrete in a giant hideous box with no windows- hooray for us. Or was it just so focused on "efficiency" that nobody cared to begin with. (how efficient is it to not have windows, anyway? Ventilation systems are costly to build and run)

I think a few selling points were that there was an efficiency but moreso an "honesty" in that type of construction. No fake facades, no trim/decorative/"useless" details (using quotes because some decorative details and moldings often have a very practical reason of hiding expansion gaps). Efficiency and honesty, both very desirable features for public/institutional buildings. Also notice a lot of the window-less buildings are school and municipal libraries, in line with the new-at-the-time concept that UV light damages printed materials.

Many of those buildings looked a LOT better when they were new.

Concrete is (unsurprisingly) like limestone... when it's brand new & clean, it looks kind of edgy & cool. When it gets dirty, it looks like shit.

I've seen plenty of condos under construction where leaving walls, floor, and/or ceiling seemed like it would look cool... but I can't think of a single time I've had the same thought when seeing a 40 year old condo that was gutted down to the bare concrete, because it was now grimy, cracked, and unattractive.

I've seen hundreds of old buildings in the northern US & England with filthy brick, limestone, and/or concrete that started out looking AWFUL... but were literally TRANSFORMED by mere pressure cleaning. Brutalist buildings suffer from grime more than other styles because they often lack other materials to add contrast & interest.

Hipster Art

fuck yeah to the masterpiece of Italian brutalism, Vittoriano Viganò, Istituto Marchiondi, Milan 1953

Giuseppe and Raynaldo Perugini experimental house ,Rome.

I actually like this style a lot as long as it's really brutal and exaggerated. Some of the buildings posted in here are just butt ugly.

R293, Brutalism is all post-WWII. After that boner-killer, the world was looking hard into the future. Brutalism slid in on a pass.

It was new. It was jarring. It - putatively - made a statement. People were ready for all that, but no one was really ready for Brutalism. Nor should they have been. Once the new, jarring, statement had time to be absorbed and evaluated, the general consensus was that we had been had by some untalented architectural theorists who had fomented a theory that was as flat as piss on a plate.

It was a construction technology where concrete panels could be made quickly and cheaply by low-skilled labor using wooden forms (hence the rough texture) that came into vogue during the boom years after WWII - the postwar baby boomers meant lots of new schools and public buildings built with tax money that had to be built inexpensively - no monumental columns or finely wrought details; no need for highly skilled artisans or stone cutters - and quickly here in the States. In Europe, especially, housing was in short supply in cities that had been decimated by bombing. Many social housing projects weren't of the highest quality in terms of either design or construction, but people needed somewhere to live.

Every school of design has its moment. Certainly some post-modern buildings, like the former AT&T building (now known as 550 Madison Avenue) in NYC with the split pediment on top - it looks like a grandfather clock - are as if not more ridiculous.

I think it's a combination of ugly material and ugly shape. Imaginative design makes Brutalism quite palatable. Unfortunately, most of the examples are in Europe.

More.

More.

More.

R300, the AT&T building is the very height of its ridiculous moment.

And this one, I think, is just stunning. And it's a church!

R304, I like the Roger Stevens building.

Not my favorite angle, R307.

I'm already over your disappointment, R308. You didn't even tell us what or where it was.

Sorry, R309, didn't mean to sound bitchy.

Dumbledore's grave is a good example of mortuary brutalist design.

R274 because it is the most secure type of architecture if there were a nuclear attack that’s why

Noo-cue-lur, R312.

How do these buildings hold up during an earthquake?

Just read this thread over. It's among the best of DL, with expertise, snark, good side-skirmishes, and plenty of illustrations. Crash course in public architecture. R269's linked article reminded me of how optimistic my parents were when they took us kids to visit the UN in the 60s—it was a new era of brotherhood. Also r79 with Jackie at the Whitney Museum's opening ceremony. Understanding, progress and tolerance the new order of the day.

Fairly well r314

Brutalist buildings look like prisons.

They were meant to showcase power and dominance

This is the Newhouse I building at Syracuse University, where LBJ delivered what is remembered as the infamous Gulf of Tonkin speech, 1964.

It actually looks much better in this image than it did in reality from the ground. Since then additions have been made to mitigate the severity.

Is the the Goetheanum considered brutalist or is Anthroposophical architecture a genre of its own? I believe it was one of the largest reinforced concrete structures of its era. I think its attractive.

The modern glass towers being built today won’t look much better in 50 years. Plain bland boxes.

Nothing built today looks as if it expected to last more than 30 years.

R321

The Seagram Building (375 Park Ave, NYC) is now 60 years old and considered iconic, although as modern, Mies van der Rohe minimalist "less is more" architecture; certainly not of Brutalism. Granted there have been way too many shitty knockoffs, but the idea has stood the test of time beautifully.

R323, I believe r321 was referring to this sort of new building (an apartment building in Pittsburgh, PA) rather than the Seagram's Building.

Yes, r324. I wasn't the poster above, but some "glass towers" like Seagram look majestic. That thing you posted is just some attempt to be clever that probably worked a hell of a lot better on paper or in model form than it does on the ground.

Neither being brutalist, we all understand.

The Seagram Building: SO not brutalist.

R320 is a post-modern monstrosity.

I am R323. I said it wasn't brutalism - you don't even need to click on the photo.

I don't think of R324 as a tower, or even a bland glass box. It's not bland (there's decorative detailing) and it's certainly not a tower: it's wider than it's high.

R320 is a Fuglitorium.

R320: Hardly post-modern: it was built in 1919. Wacky? Yes. Brutalism? No. Post-modern? No.

I was surprised to find that the architecture at my university is brutalist, because I love it, and thought I hated brutalism. Planet of the Conquest of the Planet of the Apes was filmed there when I was a freshman.

UC Irvine: A Singular Brutalist Vision

the brits seem to have found a way of dealing with brutalist buildings

as do the germans

I rather like that building, r331.

I guesss I'm not getting it.

Brutalism is about taw concrete and UCI doesn't took raw.

It is also called "formed" concrete, r335, which those walls most certainly are.

30 benedict place, greenwich ct

33 benedict pl, greenwich ct

Saint John’s Abbey Church, Collegeville, Minnesota. Upclose, the raw concrete actually looks organic. It was formed with 2x4s and the woodgrain embossed into concrete.

Take a look At the interior. When the sun hits the stainglass screen just right, it’s almost other worldly.

Neither 339 nor 340 strike me as brutalist. 339 looks perfectly presentable, but 340 is weird.

Did anyone else catch the story that the orange idiot is complaining about the ugly Hoover FBI building on the same block as his 'fabulous, really world-class, that I can tell you, and I built it under budget' hotel in DC?

The brute wants the brutalist building torn down.

The plate glass portico at R339 is a recent addition but the original building probably qualifies as brutalist if you pull back to see the whole thing.

I’ve seen the Hoover building so many times on X-Files I couldn’t imagine tearing it down.

R340 looks like a basketball court.

Cheeto-in-Chief's opinion on Brutalist architecture

Everyone hates the FBI Building. Get in line.

Most of it is hideous stuff, but some of it can be eye-catching.

When it was first built, the FBI building was eye-catching and very different than anything in Washington. Visiting as a kid, I was impressed by how futuristic it looked compared to boring old State and other government buildings.

The Torre Velasca in Milan is a great example of Brutalist Architecture.

Have we seen this yet?

Ayn Rand gets moist over these.

Most of the LA area Frank Lloyd Wright buildings are formed concrete bricks. Does that make them brutalist? Or is it big forms made for cheap?

Show us some examples, r351.

Frank Lloyd Wright, Millard House, Pasadena, CA

Frank Lloyd Wright Ennis House, Los Feliz, Los Angeles

I don't think they can be called brutalist, as they are made of lots of individual blocks. See this article on the Millard House.

Ugh the Wright buildings are way overrated. I do love Fallingwater but a lot of the LA stuff seems like tacky knock off cement bricks. Not particularly groundbreaking architecturally or aesthetically .

Hollyhock House, East Hollywood, Los Angeles

Bump