Why We Should Value our Brutalist Architectural History | Shaun Carter | TEDxSydneySalon
Вставка
- Опубліковано 11 вер 2024
- Ugly or beautiful - it depends on who is looking. In this talk, architect Shaun Carter puts forward a case for the preservation, adaption or reuse of brutalist architecture and demonstrates the social and cultural value of some of Australia's iconic Brutalist buildings. These include Sydney's Sirius apartment building through to the High Court of Australia in Canberra.
Shaun Carter loves the making of buildings, where the evidence of human hands is always present in the design and built fabric. He believes it connects us to who we are and what we are capable of. It allows us to understand that we are imperfect beings and that we can soar when inspired. He feels our buildings are the embodiment of these ideals. Shaun is the founding architect of Carterwilliamson Architects and NSW Chapter President of the Australian Institute of Architects. He is the chairman of the SaveOurSirius campaign to fight for heritage listing for the iconic Brutalist housing complex at Millers Point in Sydney, which is currently under threat.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
Aside from its depressive, dehumanizing, dystopian presence, Brutalism is not entirely terrible. After all, how else would we appreciate genuine beauty and the human spirit if not for these monuments to oppressive, authoritarian statism?
There is nothing wrong for wanting to live in a beautiful world full of beautiful things. It's not everything, but to act like it's nothing is a tragedy.
So true! Architects have lost touch with reality.
Did you even watch the video not everything is if something is nice or beautiful, i don’t know if someone has ever told you but a narrow idea of aesthetic is a very poor way of saying the world
@@JosephJMcAllister you can never understand it unless you are an architect
@@cgd285 You don't build buildings and cities for architects though. I don't care if architects "understand it" or not honestly, what matters is how people of the cities see the buildings, what they feel about them etc. They're the ones having to live with the awful monstrosities that architects tend to create in modern times.
@@gnawershreth again, you cannot understand it unless you are an architect.
In my opinion, most of these buildings just need to be covered in greenery, hanging gardens, whatever, then they would be beautiful... no need to destroy and send to landfill, creating more waste. The man is right, just repurpose them!
Yeah, greenery. And Egyptian Revival-style details. I'd bet it will make Brutalism look more scifi-ish.
It already exists :) It's called eco-brutalism
That’s my favourite! Eco brutalism. Why do you need a fancy facade when you can just have nature?
Best use is for testing bombs, but it is in the wrong place for that.
His opening argument makes zero sense. We don't judge people by their looks because they had no choice in the matter. Architects choose how their buildings turn out, so other people judge accordingly. Most people judge brutalist architecture to be anti-beauty and an assault on the landscape. They will never be truly in vogue because they are far too inhuman, just like the extreme egalitarian ideology that underpins them
They are in vogue right now.
@@doktergroen where and among whom?
I can't agree more with your sentiments. My university was built in the brutalist style to "blend with nature", but it does anything but that, creating these spaces that feel like academic prisons. Give me Edwardian or Beaux-Arts anyday.
@@es3359 I was amazed by the current refurbishment of the UTS main building. Its bright and airy open plan spaces which invite student collaboration was made possible by the concrete technology used in Brutalist architecture. This would be impossible to achieve within a Victorian building like that of Sydney uni, which while beautiful on the outside, its interiors are often gloomy, pokey and not particularly conducive to contemporary teaching and learning.
I love brutalist architecture though. In these day of derailed overproduction, artificial scarcity and fake nature, It gives me a sense of serenity, a cozy relaxation and, in the end, a depper connection with the human.
People would really rather a glass box than something thoughtfully and emotionally provoking?
Unfortunately yes... Something about the minimum architectural culture that is lacking from a lot of people. Uneducated i think would be a good term
@@5t3f100 smarmy and elitist are also good terms for some people
@@MushroomMagpie He's right though.
No, people want practical buildings that they enjoy being in and around. They don't want monuments to architects wet-dream fantasies of the moment that don't revolve around serving the shelter, emotional and cultural needs of people.
am i wrong for wanting to give them a good high pressure wash?
Yes you are!
Noo, don't remove the algae and grime!
I love those! It looks really good with some vegetation around it.
Yes. They deserve a wrecking ball.
Depends which ones. Some look nice brand new and some look great with the grime and algae
To be sung with an evangelical tone.
Amen amen amen amen amen amen
Just a thought, from somebody in United States. They look like Marxist prisons
The only problem is that no one wants to live in them or use them as their offices.
You should only demolish ANY building if you're going to replace it with something BETTER. Of course "better" is a matter of opinion, but unless you build something that the majority overwhelmingly feel is an improvement (including leaving the ground as public open space) then don't destroy something that can't be replaced.
Demolishing any brutalist building is a public service, whether something is built in its place or not.
@@internetguy8075 Thats what they said about a lot of Victorian architecture here in the UK in the 60s and 70s. Now its tragically lost forever.
@@internetguy8075 No. Just no. Brutalism forever!
@@EASYTIGER10 Lost? Only to be replaced by more socially useful shelter or land-use. I don't mean 'socially' in a Marxist sense, but in a human sense: something that people want and are willing to exchange their hard earned value tokens ( money) for.
Brutalism merely reminds me of dictatorial supression. It reminds me of the area where my parents are from. They are cold. Thats about it. The only thing they have going for them is that you feel safe, because they look like a bunker.
"Brutalism merely reminds me of dictatorial suppression." Speak for yourself, not all country's had that issue. for the rest of us Brutalism was modern and futuristic. inside many were warm and inviting with lots of light and tasteful use of minimal materials... it was only the outside that looked like a prison... but that means they were hidden jems to had to explore and see the beauty
A better question would be whether we can afford to keep them, they tend to be very expensive to run.
Some brutalist buildings are nice, but most aren't. But the modern glass buildings and deconstructivism are a 1000 uglier.
I had to look up what deconstructivist architecture was. I'm horrified. There is only one building that came up in my search result that was mildly palatable and that was because it used different materials and had greenery. Everything else was a twisted mess.
The brutalist buildings don't tell the stories if who we were, they tell the story of megalomaniac architects imposing their ugliness on the rest of us. These buildings were only loved by a small arrogant elite, and mostly hated by the people who were forced to use them or look at them. I see no problem erasing this from history.
Three words: Robin Hood Gardens. This was one of the high testaments to the brutalist ‘school’, a building so vile that inevitably a cabal of the usual suspects - architects and bureaucrats from the Heritage Trust - tried to have it preserved, instead of having it wiped off the face of the earth with a high yield nuclear device. For every vaguely interesting example of brutalism, (and admittedly there are a few) you’ll find 20 that sacrifice every human sensibility on the altar of an architect’s ego and dime store philosophy. Hatred is too tepid a word for my loathing of these concreted bowel movements. ‘Part of our culture’? Whose culture? Given birth by the shortages of the post war period and the desperation of UK procurement committees, they found their vile toehold through necessity, not cultural aspiration. Anyone who favours brutalism should be made to live and work in the representative examples that scar the urban landscape.
I genuinely hate this argument. We shouldn't keep brutalist buildings because they physically fill a gap within architectural history, we have pictures. We should keep them because they are good/meaningful architecture.
they don't even fill a gap. sky scrappers were developed before "brutal" architecture was developed. Early Skyscrapers are of course better looking than modern ones.
They are furthest from meaningful architecture.
Pictures can't even begin to compare to experiencing a building in real life.
Too bad none of us will ever get to see old Penn station.
It is both good and meaningful architecture to me. Therefore, it should stay.
Haha The start of the video haha. "Think of the children!"
Yeah. No. A Human being not= to a building.
Concentration camps also contain our story, but we don't have to live and work inside them. Brutalist architecture amazes me, but it puts a tight anxiety in my chest. I don't think it should be forced upon the public.
Concentration camps should still be preserved, though, so people can see how they worked, and never forgot the horrors that were inflicted on innocents. So that this history does not repeat itself.
No ! Stop messin' the memorials, live forward.
This veteran, martyr thing and all these symbols need to stop ! They fought for our freedom not to get recognized perpetuate this state of fear.
We need to move forward, we learn from the past, we don't stick to the past
I find them to be very inspiring and very beautiful when vegetation comes in
@@ParaSpite Yes, like a museum, but not by keeping prisoners in them. In the same way people should not be forced to use these depressing bunkers.
@@boldvankaalen3896
You're right, people should not be _forced_ to live in brutalist buildings - they should be free to do so if they want to, though! And I would totally want to. I love brutalist buildings! If I ever get rich, I'll commission a brutalist castle for myself~
eroding concrete... "build to last", yeah right.
Concrete in marine environments, unless carefully designed and built with adequate protection against carbonation, has a short life.
I feel oppressed whenever I walk past a brutalist building
Strange when i walk past one (it has a lot of green surounding it) I feal greatnes like i am part of something bigger and i Love it for its simplisity its funktion and it routh beauty in contrast to the elegant beauty of nature sorounding it. But there is that over one that is grey in grey and people trying for years to make the area surounding it green but nothing has changed so far.
Strange I feal lifted up by them (if they are sorounded by green) like I and everyone around me is part of something bigger. Brutalist building in Green areas are giving a beautyful contrast with there brut beauty and practicality and by this they anhance the green surounding it and you do not need fancy floures just simple green plants but when they are places in a grey inviorment they are hidius. But what do I know I think old steel miles and old factory buildings in general are beautyful
i am reminded that i am oppressed when ...
That is the intent behind it.
Communist want to destroy beauty, culture and happiness. They want you to feel repressed. Destroy all of these post modern monstrosities.
the great thing about brutalism is that you won't regret demolishing it's structures!
I find it incredibly interesting how uncomfortable Brutalist architecture makes some people feel. But I actually really like them. It would be something if there was nothing but the brutal, but I think Brutalism stands out as something impressive in opposition to the standard. That I could see it as something aesthetically awe-inspiring, and others could see it as something deserving of destruction just shows how it's an architectural artwork that deserves preservation.
yes... i agree. i personally like the aesthetics of brutalist architecture.
it stands out as something authoritarian and that's it
I kinda get the imposing vibe but I wouldn't say they're "authoritarian" or "totalitarian." It's really bizarre to use those terms to describe architecture and makes we wonder what a "democratic," "theocratic," "oligarchic," etc building would look like.
SylemGistoe
The following is a pitiful attempt at humor.
Move to Cuba, enjoy your Marxist paradise!!!
Get a tan, in the shadow of these monstrosities.
@@idesofmarchUNIAEA Stop embarrassing yourself.
10:50 I spend a lot of time with these kind of buildings, the longer I spent time with them, the more I hated them. The best brutalist buildings are interesting as a sculpture, but still unfit for human use. It is quite typical that brutalist buildings are always photographed from far away. If you photograph them from the perspective of the people that are actually using them, they are depressing, oppressing, inhumane and miss the colour and details that the human mind craves.
Real human beings that use these buildings should not be made to suffer because some architect the building is "interesting".
Well. He is speaking about how we need to keep the cultural brutalist buildings because they are a part of our culture. Meanwhile in Sweden the social democrats demolished 70% of the city centres to build the boring budget brutalist buildings in the middle of every towns and cities centres. Isn’t it right to demolish these monstrosities that no one wanted in the first place? Also shouldn’t architecture speak for itself? Also it’s kinda lame that brutalist architecture needs someone to tel us a story every time we need to understand what’s so valuable with it. Much of other styles doesn’t need a speech every time they are represented because they don’t need it, they speak for themselves.
Brutalism is honestly my favourite design style of all time
Communist shill
That's not “the middle”. That's breakaway with the continuity of old: beauty and good taste. That's embodied revolution, soulless and devoid of anything humane. Those are abominations, built by vandals and now rightly and justly falling apart. The sooner, the better I say…
sounds like a contemporaneous description of what's come to be known as Gothic architecture haha
It would be if “Gothic” would be The Only Way™ ;}
Depressing, obnoxious, flat, gray blocks with no character whatsoever.
I don't see the value in preserving these eyesores. Demolish them. It's not like they're that hard to rebuild anyway.
For the most part, the brutalist movement was a mistake. The buildings are hideous!
You mean unorganic, geometrical, uniform ? It's a matter of perspective, I like the the architecture and even more when vegetation takes part
It's painful too watch this...
He talks like how I right an essay to meet the 5,000 word count.
I've always hated brutalism but today I looked for an argument in defense of brutalism because I didn't like how unambiguously I hated it. This clip is exactly what I needed to begin to develop an appreciation for this architecture. Thank you Carter.
Sorry to have lost you. I retain my visceral loathing. I do so unrepentantly.
I think of a brutal building as intrusive, discordant and brash, usually out of all proportion to its neighbours or isolated in a green setting like a monument to nothing. Nobody will shed a tear when it is eventually torn down.
they chose brutalism because they hate you
This
I think though that the effect of the buildings didnt match the intent within people'sexperience of it...
Some of them worked but not all
because their intent was to demolish the beauty of the past in some sort of leftist masturbatory self-flagellation.
That is true. People like only what looks gorgeous, not what gets job done and what gives you quality.
@@aleksandarvujanic7914 Beauty and quality go Hand in Hand
@@erikariehs8287 No, they don't. More often than not, beautiful structures aren't functional and functional structures aren't beautiful. That's why compromises have to be made all the time.
Ehh.. no.
i dont get how people find brutalist architecture unappealing . yes its angular and monochrome , but so are cubist paintings and macbooks , and theyre heralded as shining examples of consumer design .
are you a child ? do you only respond positively to bright colors and shiny filigrees ? do you want a little flower painted on the wall ? lmao
theyre such incredible looking buildings , and i ache for a world where this kind of striking public architecture was carried to its logical extreme
they took it to its logical extreme with pruitt-igoe. they had to demolish it because the residents kept killing themselves
It's fitting this style came after WWII. People were so traumatized by it they could not feel. It's no wonder they built buildings resembling German pill boxes :(
Why am I being shown rolex adverts
We struggle because brutalism is so damned ugly.
This seems like an incredibly banal statement tbh. What happened to the "inclusivity" and "body positivity" movements? Or do these only extend to land whales and not architecture?
While you may consider a mushroom cloud beautiful, in some sense, doesn't mean we need to see any of them.
Brutalism is the stand-out example of architecture that hates people: holds them in contempt as mere bit players in the architect's 'walk-in sculpture' fantasies.
If a building is no longer serving a social purpose (that is, cannot provide value that an alternative on the site would provide) then the only sensible thing to do in respect of people's hard earned value is to remove the blight and replace it with the alternative.
Let's not get carried away by the sentimental and poorly argued tripe in this presentation. If the building is past its use-by ( and in the case of the Sirius that occurred before it was built), it needs to go.
The best purpose for these buildings is material for a landfill.
Great job dad! You're amazing x
These buildings deserve to stay in our history........only in our history!!!
Demolish them.
philistine
demolish people who want to demolish them
Aesthetic social housing. Oh nevermind. That's
Some of these buildings remind me of Piranesi's drawings with Roman ruins.
Brutalism was a mistake and we all know it. A totally uneducated child can see it. No amount of rationalization can change that. These structures are 'non-places' not worth saving. They are inhumane and wounds on the fabric of our societies. They are places people don't want to be. Even the homeless and drug/alcohol addicted of our societies don't want to be there. We all deserve better and we can do better.
Brutalist buildings can be seen in government buildings and colleges all over. It's a painful reminder of how much our government overspends, yet under provides.
you wrote nonsense
Brutalism is just closet praising of communism. They represent depression and repression and that is all they're good for.
Guess we're lucky in the UK - we have some amazing brutalist architecture that will last a lifetime - nothing better than meandering through the Barbican on a summer's day
True. Barbican, Golden Lane etc is great.
If you care a bit about temperature in your room the Great Arthur house is utterly unliveable.
I value the history of brutalist architecture, but I can't stand the architecture.
What history? The history of closet communists infiltrating western society?
OK, I'm convinced. Keep them. Just don't spawn any more.
They'll just replace them with their deconstructionism monstrosities that nobody wants to see either.
Joseph J. McAllister and then they will preserve deconstructionist buildings 😂
More talks like this please
Ok imma vom over here in the corner
No, we shouldn't.
I don’t agree, but he makes his case v well
I like brutalism, because it looks ghetto, remind my of good old days, when people used to be poor, but share to each other. Today alot of people are gold diggers want more, to be better than others, to share their pictures on social media, and let other people be jealous. People only about money, bussines and to become rich and wanna feel like everyone are far from them in terms of their achievement and their knowledge. We forgot that today many people have no roof and they would be happy to leave even in this old rusty building. In that time all people used to have same rights.
@aleksandar vujanic Finally someone with common sense. I love brutalism, those buildings make me feel humble and think more about societies and history.
then you love a dystopian society.
@@hoppinggnomethe4154 Well every normal human likes nature on first place, nature is who created us not concrete. But Concrete Brutalism reminds me of same rights for everyone, and looks like something that is made by aliens, also shapes of brutalism buildings makes feel of something very mystic.
Some could use a wash, but they are quiet impressive massive structures. They should be protected as much as any other important structure.
There's nothing quiet about a brutalist building. They are loud imposing structures that scream an egotistical rejection of vast and proven forms of true traditional sustainability.
Burn them all to the ground. Oh wait, they're only made out of concrete, glass and depression... whatever just get rid of them!!!
freaking australia i love you guys
Ahh.... I love Sirius. It was love at first sight.
Modern, but already "artifacts". Pathetic argument. Rotting concrete boxes aren't beautiful.
After watching this video all I have to say is: brutalism is s*** and I hope all of them to be demolished
Every Visual Preference Survey of architecture has rejected Modernism including Brutalism. Every study in cognitive neuroscience reveals that the human brain is attracted to symmetry, proportion and the like. The architectural "profession" is a racket based on a fraud. Awards for these buildings are given to architects by architects. Public buildings are paid for, and used by the people. Therefore, there should be a public contest presented by 2 Modernists and 2 Traditionalists wherein the people vote for their preferred "style". Mr. Carter speaks about the people and democracy, let's see it in action.
people have such narrow minds--even the most 'brutal' building can be softened with some strategic paint/plants or other kind of feature to go from cold monolithic structures to warm & inviting enviornments
You know what would be better? Starting with something that is structurally beautiful instead of adding cheap afterthoughts.
Alli YAFF Agreed. Plus reinforced concrete will always become compromised over time.
@@AlliYAFF I think most brutalist buildings look a 100 times better then the boring glass towers that are build everywhere. These towers have no soule and burtalist are some of the most beautiful strucktures with just some simple green plants
Exactly!
Brutalist buildings can be wonderful human buildings. The two Madigan buildings in Canberra, Australia demonstrate how they go when people are considered.
Suddenly everyone has become an art critic and finds vague criteria about "beauty". Pretty ironic how the same people think brutalism was appreciated by authoritarian regimes, cause in fact all conservatives and authoritarians through history have expressed preference of classicism.
You don't need to be an art critic to know how you feel about a building. It's mostly regular people (not art critics) who end up living in and using these buildings. Their feelings about where they live matter.
Your point about conservative authoritarians loving classicism has some truth to it, but you ignore for some reason that communist authoritarians ever existed, which is something I find interesting. "All conservatives *and authoritarians* through history" preferred classicism? Factually incorrect.
I personally love Brutalist architecture, and its amazing how functional some of the buildings are, and how forward thinking their design actually is
Vastly overstated.
Forward thinking to what? A dystopian hellscape? A fascist atlantis? or a pile of rubble, which is their destiny, sooner, hopefully, rather than later.
They all should be turned into rubble and spit on for the communism they represent.
@@Averyofthemain A brighter future free of the suffering the natural world inflicts on humanity.
Surprised that a person giving a lecture as expert on Brutalism got it wrong where the term was orginated from. It's "Béton Brut" not "Breton Brut" as he confidently pronounces. 5:24
Yep, nothing to do with Brittany.
The only real reason to save it is the fact that it is going to be replaced with something worse.
A city is not an art exhibition... a museum is! A city it's a place where people work and live. If we really miss brutalist architecture in the future, we can rebuild it.
On that premise the Parisians should tear down Paris. Also, the Sydney Opera House which is not entirely functional anymore, could be torn down and replaced with a larger replica Opera House somewhere near the centre of Metropolitan Sydney (somewhere near Parramatta I guess!)
@@franceshanna3724
I personally enjoy most historical buildings in my city way more than modern the ones. I also live in a 120+ years old apparent building with high ceilings.
If people want to live in brutalist buildings I guess we should keep them for them :)
@@jessicasommer32 That would be me then. I love Brutalist buildings and can't stand most forms of "traditional" architecture. Just doesn't feel like home, which is why I'm currently designing my own home in a Brutalist fashion. The Russian State Scientific Center for Robotics and Technical Cybernetics is an example of Brutalism at its BEST!
@@jakekaywell5972 Thanks for the reference it looks fascinating! ;-) What do you aim for when designing a home in brutalist fashion? What do you think of the Wotruba Church in Vienna? And could the IKEA Westbahnhof in Vienna count as Neo Brutalist? or is it not concrete and dark enough? 😅
@@jessicasommer32 No problem. When designing a Brutalist home, the first thing to consider is how angular you want it to be. Angles and other sharp geometrical forms create visual excitement out of concrete, so the application of it has to be very deliberate. Balanced out with greenery, and the overall effect is an otherworldly monolith of progress in the natural world. Pure diametric opposition. I'm personally a Wotruba Church for its geometry and whimsical nature, although its bordering on Deconstructivism. As for the IKEA Westbahnhof, it's in the International style, not Brutalist. Too little concrete and too much glass for it to be otherwise.
The grey (or embedded) energy argument is a sunk cost fallacy. Brutalist buildings are mostly poorly insulated and require a lot of energy to heat and cool. To see if keeping the brua5alist building makes sense from an energy point of view you should compare the energy cost of renovating the brutalist building plus it's operational energy cost with the energy cost of demolishing the brutalist building, building a decent building and the lower operational energy use of the new building.
Buildings are not humans
Ye they re better
Architects should have to pay for the eyesores they create
i love brutilism,,, always have
I dont fond Amy of there bildnings particularly "brutal". At least a few of them have a curve or two. In NYC where I'm from there are buildings(that are considered landmarks btw) that have nothing but 45 degree angles. Mies Van der Rhoe's Seagram building is a perfect example as well. While I'm not doing cart wheels, I do agree that many of these are architectural masterpieces and should be cherished. To many times beautiful structures have become victims of the wrecking ball, only to be sadly lamented years later(Pennsylvania Station) while Radio City Music Hall and Grand Central Station only just escaped destruction because of the efforts of some wonderful philanthropists like Jackie O.
It is not only hideous, it is downright hostile, because concrete doesn't age gracefully.
Worse tthey used it for formats that philosophy of cheap, led to rampant decay and crime.
At least it was honest, a architecture born out of economic necessity
No
As someone who has spent plenty of time at UTS and Macquarie Uni, I think the most sensible course of action is to blow all these eyesores up.
All the hate on brutalism just makes me want to like brutalism more. LOL.
They look okay :/ just stop making more ;-;
The largest and most imposing brutalist structures were the USSR and the Third Reich. They were the most instructive and powerful structures the humanity has ever seen. Should we have kept them? Should we restore them? I’d rather not. Give me something of the quality of the Pyramids, and I’ll vote for keeping them.
What, the Pyraminds that were literally made by slaves lol? Or perhaps the beautiful Victorian and Beaux-Arts buildings of London, Manchester, New York that were also, oh, funded by slaves. Brutalism is the architecture of the people.
The government that had the pyramids built were just as (or possibly more) barbaric than the USSR.
@@dantespou6071 no thank you
Hundreds of millions of dead makes the case that you might be wrong.
@@dantespou6071 looooolllll
Most people don't even like the International Style and Brutalism. How were they the "architecture of the people" when the only ones loving them are architects with massive amounts of ego? In a similar note, 97% of the people don't even like the idea of living in these structures and city people rather wanted to stay in townhouses.
Love this talk thanks
man, you are using your daughter in a very wrong way
Brutes from Brittany ?
In my country the brutalist buildings were created at a time of great corruption and tyranny. That’s why I will never like brutalist buildings.
Brutalism is fine actually, I would agree that it deserves our protection. There is a school of thought and a discipline to it, a distinct and easily recognisable language to the form. It also happens to be cross-cultural in distribution - no one region of the world owns it, and millions of people from very different backgrounds have grown up feeling at home around the style. It can pass as 'cool' - it appeals, as a coherent whole, to a kind of wonder, and so earns my loyalty. Now what is NOT okay is the 'deconstructionist' monstrosities others in the thread have brought up. I'd like to see every one of the gratuitous, utterly incomprehensible things torn down. Google 'twisting skyscraper' for fine cases in point; I know you'll see what I mean :)
I see no problem with minimalism, but not everything should be minimalist. As for brutalism, I absolutely love it when it's in a fictional dystopian authoritarian or totalitarian society as art. Seriously, these buildings give you a feeling of total power and absolute oppression. They have a very negative energy to them. In my very opinion, this architecture only fits well on prisons and any military infrastructures. Imagine schools with this architecture...
I generally believe that brutalism is not a good thing since mental health is very important for all of us human beings. Poor mental health forms unwanted byproducts in our society. For example, mass shooters. In order to prevent as much poor mental health, I believe that brutalism should also be reduced. We better leave the historic ones alone. They are history. Let's not build more of them.
Very good points, I’m in agreement!
Brutalism does not harmoniously fit in with nature.
Sheer nonsense - he is explaining away the socialist underpinnings of this style - which for the most part has been rejected by most people
Minimalism is the best tool for highlighting an Element with Value (natural Material, Decor, Flora, etc.)of a Building.
If there is only concrete, the boldness and the Form of the very material itself is highlighted.
While this is a coherent concept, it is not favourable for the spectator.
I personally like form, so i generally like brutalism.
no, it sucks. it would give us more depressed people
Brutalism carefully reflects the alienation of modern life without proffering any easy answers about how this can be overcome. It represents the invigorating anxiety of living in a state of awareness that the future to come is as yet undefined not beholden to the baggage of the past. In this crucial respect it is far more humane, brave, and honest than the brutal pipe dreams of fascism will ever be.
gibbering nuter.
How about NO
Brutalism is an atrocity.
OMG I'm having a hard time understanding. NOT EASY ON THE EYES =|
Demolish them all!!!
The Chadest of building styles
Lul