Concrete is like a sponge that absorbs damp. No insulation, it’s prone to mould and crumbles like a sandcastle. It may be cheap but there are plenty of reasons why.
Brutalism is the proof that people have VERY different taste: I can't, for the love of god, understand how can anyone find brutalism beautiful. For me, it is the most grotesque, depressing, and visually aggressive style ever. Yet, I know so many people that like it. Guess I have to accept it!
To me it can look cool as a government building, museum or a building just for the general public if its well incorporated with plants and trees etc. Also if a place already looks well developed and ‘not poor’ it can break up the different architecture quiet nicely for me. But in places where there is no green at all and it is clear that a place is not well developed brutalist architecture instantly looks like a dystopian failed Communist society to me hahah
To all the people here criticizing this example of brutalism: Do know what really causes depression? Not having enough affordable housing and having a huge amount of population struggling to live by themselves. I would fucking love to live there. It's practical, efficient, and beautiful in the eyes of people who really enjoy architecture. No cars, greenery all around, a convenient density of population, a structure made 1000x better than most of the apartment complexes made in the last 30 years. What else would you want? If you don't like the stains in the concrete, paint it or pressure wash it. Bur really, dont talk abour depression knowing how people is really struggling to find affordable and DECENT houses to live in with a typical salary.
As someone who grew up in a Victorian property, and still live in a home built just before WW2, brutalism is soulless and ugly. You don't have to make buildings ugly, as has been proved in the past.
It says enough that they were seldom occupied by the people who designed them. They have a dispiriting quality that feels designed to keep the common folk “in their place”, figuratively as well as literally.
You've hit it in one: 'sculptural'. But architecture it ain't. New Brutalism is typical of the failure of architecture to understand people, how they live, move, shelter and interact. Architectural 'theory' as you mention, is not really a theory, but a set of fashion driven visual habits that reduce buildings to 'walk-in' sculptures neglecting their inherent social function to provide meaningful shelter. NB, I don't mean 'social' in a political sense, but in a human sense: social as in people living in community in peace and comfort, served by their shelter economically, pleasantly and practically. . Just think of the 'design theory' tripe of 'honesty of materials'! Materials do not have moral properties. 'Function over form'. The greatest lie of modernism. 'Function' would be driven by occupants' true human/social needs for shelter, privacy, community, convenience, peace, pleasure, practicality, economy'. As has been said by others, where is a flat roof 'functional'? I like the asinine neglect of Hume's guillotine: that one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
Although I like in some ways the two examples of brutalism shown here, concrete is an ugly material. As it ages it stains and looks dirty, and these massive, unadorned buildings would be depressing. Contrast them to Victorian terrace houses faced with warm brick and decorative stone and wood embellishments.
They are hideous. Had friends who lived in both. The homes themselves are nice to live in. But it is so depressing visiting and walking around. Interesting the first time. But not after that. Bring back beauty please.
Wow just wasted five minutes of my life watching the comment section talking about their fantastic "vision" About their taste. I don't really see how victorian architecture, can be any better than brutalism. Defining brutalism ugly is more than legit such as opinions are subjective But the "its objectively hideous". Argument yes. Crap no. The only objectively hideous thing i am seeing is the comment section.
Is this read by a bot? There's something really unnatural about the speech of the video that makes it difficult for me to enjoy. I'm out after 2 minutes
@@HistoryandTheoryofArchitecture that's fair, and I'm sure many people would be OK with it. It's too obviously artificial for me and it gets in the way. I'd prefer to hear a natural accent and read subtitles if it's unclear, myself. No disrespect intended. I just wanted to provide some feedback. I wish you well
No I completely agree, these are made by students, and many of them are really shy to even talk about those projects in class, this gave them a sort of comfort zone to present their work without being worried about possible mistakes, errors… But definitely I’m on your side
You know what really causes depression and oppression? Not having enough affordable housing and having a huge amount of population struggling to live by themselves. I would fucking love to live there. It's practical, efficient, and beautiful I'm the eyes of people who really enjoy architecture.
Thank you for mansplaining that to me@@DunkDuncan. I am not simply stating my personal opinion but also referencing a paper put out by a South African University in the 80s where a friend researched the effects of high-density living in brutalist-inspired blocks, (a particular favorite of the Nazu inspired government of the time) as opposed to free-standing simple dwellings on the lower-income families and the findings were objectively assessed. The results showed an alarmingly high rate of depression in the brutalist buildings by comparison. I appreciate the iconic nature of the Barbican architecture but I feel that what followed was a sad and poorly interpreted mass-produced interpretation that delivered poorly conceived housing. The bottlenecks in the clustered designs led to the exploitation of gangs and bullies and the anonymity of being one of that number housed in a box in the lines of identical austere spaces led to a lack of identity in the individuals. It is some time since these numbers were crunched and the inevitable conclusion drawn and I ask all architects to give pause to the thoughts that whilst there is beauty in rugged functional design, there should be more thought for the family unit. At this time with climate change challenges and economic hardship new ideas have emerged like the Hockerton Housing Project in the Netherlands or Lemmer - Seestadt Aspern in Austria where one can work and be housed in one family-friendly space. Perhaps we should be abandoning the icons for ideals that are more sustainable and promote happiness.
Each home should have it's own garden, people thrive much better with their own private green space, especially in large town's or cities were there is a large density of people.
Concrete is like a sponge that absorbs damp. No insulation, it’s prone to mould and crumbles like a sandcastle. It may be cheap but there are plenty of reasons why.
Love the inclusion of landscapes and proper balconys ,today's high-rise are a total no go area to me a person needs greenspace nearby.
They should be painted with bright colors...
♥️
Concrete is like a sponge that absorbs damp. No insulation, it’s prone to mould and crumbles like a sandcastle. It may be cheap but there are plenty of reasons why.
Fantastic and brutally beautiful! Thank you!👌🙂❤
Brutalism is the proof that people have VERY different taste: I can't, for the love of god, understand how can anyone find brutalism beautiful. For me, it is the most grotesque, depressing, and visually aggressive style ever. Yet, I know so many people that like it. Guess I have to accept it!
To me it can look cool as a government building, museum or a building just for the general public if its well incorporated with plants and trees etc. Also if a place already looks well developed and ‘not poor’ it can break up the different architecture quiet nicely for me. But in places where there is no green at all and it is clear that a place is not well developed brutalist architecture instantly looks like a dystopian failed Communist society to me hahah
To all the people here criticizing this example of brutalism: Do know what really causes depression? Not having enough affordable housing and having a huge amount of population struggling to live by themselves. I would fucking love to live there. It's practical, efficient, and beautiful in the eyes of people who really enjoy architecture. No cars, greenery all around, a convenient density of population, a structure made 1000x better than most of the apartment complexes made in the last 30 years. What else would you want? If you don't like the stains in the concrete, paint it or pressure wash it. Bur really, dont talk abour depression knowing how people is really struggling to find affordable and DECENT houses to live in with a typical salary.
As someone who grew up in a Victorian property, and still live in a home built just before WW2, brutalism is soulless and ugly. You don't have to make buildings ugly, as has been proved in the past.
Abbey Road Estate aka Legoland....Had some good times there 1984..
. I worked for the district housing office that looked after Rowley Way in 1986. A pretty decent estate
Presumably lots of money has been spent to upkeep the Barbican. That makes a big difference.
It says enough that they were seldom occupied by the people who designed them. They have a dispiriting quality that feels designed to keep the common folk “in their place”, figuratively as well as literally.
I would prefer a real person narration.
Kingsman Eggsy's house?
You've hit it in one: 'sculptural'. But architecture it ain't. New Brutalism is typical of the failure of architecture to understand people, how they live, move, shelter and interact. Architectural 'theory' as you mention, is not really a theory, but a set of fashion driven visual habits that reduce buildings to 'walk-in' sculptures neglecting their inherent social function to provide meaningful shelter. NB, I don't mean 'social' in a political sense, but in a human sense: social as in people living in community in peace and comfort, served by their shelter economically, pleasantly and practically.
.
Just think of the 'design theory' tripe of 'honesty of materials'! Materials do not have moral properties. 'Function over form'. The greatest lie of modernism. 'Function' would be driven by occupants' true human/social needs for shelter, privacy, community, convenience, peace, pleasure, practicality, economy'. As has been said by others, where is a flat roof 'functional'? I like the asinine neglect of Hume's guillotine: that one cannot derive an 'ought' from an 'is'.
really enjoyed your critical thinking and response
They're hideous and depressing. I still wonder how architects thought these sad buildings were ever an option.
beautiful & utopian through the lens of the 60's.
There's nothing beautiful about "utopias"
Although I like in some ways the two examples of brutalism shown here, concrete is an ugly material. As it ages it stains and looks dirty, and these massive, unadorned buildings would be depressing. Contrast them to Victorian terrace houses faced with warm brick and decorative stone and wood embellishments.
They are hideous. Had friends who lived in both. The homes themselves are nice to live in. But it is so depressing visiting and walking around. Interesting the first time. But not after that. Bring back beauty please.
The concrete does not age well and is nice at first then becomes grubby and depressing, I agree.
I only love to see it from the picture but not when I live around it or in it😂
I' d rather be homeless than live in those dreary places. Bring back beauty please 2
Go homeless, don't worry. There's a fucking lot of people out there in need of now homes
Wow just wasted five minutes of my life watching the comment section talking about their fantastic "vision"
About their taste.
I don't really see how victorian architecture, can be any better than brutalism.
Defining brutalism ugly is more than legit such as opinions are subjective
But the "its objectively hideous".
Argument yes.
Crap no.
The only objectively hideous thing i am seeing is the comment section.
Is this read by a bot? There's something really unnatural about the speech of the video that makes it difficult for me to enjoy. I'm out after 2 minutes
True my friend, this is made by a text-to-speech program
@@HistoryandTheoryofArchitecture that's a shame. The content was interesting
I think this can be a nice way of delivering a content if you are not good in reading or even speaking english? .. :)
@@HistoryandTheoryofArchitecture that's fair, and I'm sure many people would be OK with it. It's too obviously artificial for me and it gets in the way. I'd prefer to hear a natural accent and read subtitles if it's unclear, myself. No disrespect intended. I just wanted to provide some feedback. I wish you well
No I completely agree, these are made by students, and many of them are really shy to even talk about those projects in class, this gave them a sort of comfort zone to present their work without being worried about possible mistakes, errors…
But definitely I’m on your side
Dreadful, bad architecture that provoked generations of depression and oppression - each little box a prison.
You know what really causes depression and oppression? Not having enough affordable housing and having a huge amount of population struggling to live by themselves. I would fucking love to live there. It's practical, efficient, and beautiful I'm the eyes of people who really enjoy architecture.
Thank you for mansplaining that to me@@DunkDuncan. I am not simply stating my personal opinion but also referencing a paper put out by a South African University in the 80s where a friend researched the effects of high-density living in brutalist-inspired blocks, (a particular favorite of the Nazu inspired government of the time) as opposed to free-standing simple dwellings on the lower-income families and the findings were objectively assessed. The results showed an alarmingly high rate of depression in the brutalist buildings by comparison. I appreciate the iconic nature of the Barbican architecture but I feel that what followed was a sad and poorly interpreted mass-produced interpretation that delivered poorly conceived housing. The bottlenecks in the clustered designs led to the exploitation of gangs and bullies and the anonymity of being one of that number housed in a box in the lines of identical austere spaces led to a lack of identity in the individuals. It is some time since these numbers were crunched and the inevitable conclusion drawn and I ask all architects to give pause to the thoughts that whilst there is beauty in rugged functional design, there should be more thought for the family unit. At this time with climate change challenges and economic hardship new ideas have emerged like the Hockerton Housing Project in the Netherlands or Lemmer - Seestadt Aspern in Austria where one can work and be housed in one family-friendly space. Perhaps we should be abandoning the icons for ideals that are more sustainable and promote happiness.
Each home should have it's own garden, people thrive much better with their own private green space, especially in large town's or cities were there is a large density of people.
@@DunkDuncan No, you are the eye's of the people who enjoy brutalist architecture.
Concrete is like a sponge that absorbs damp. No insulation, it’s prone to mould and crumbles like a sandcastle. It may be cheap but there are plenty of reasons why.