Brutalism, worth saving?

[eldondre]

everyone hates on symphony house but i don't mind it one bit. i think it looks kinda cool.

it's the "in" thing to do

[Dayman]

it's the "in" thing to do

Yep, which is why I ride a fixie and drink pbr....wait.

[Scoats]

The Brutalist aspects of Franklin Court are all underground. And yes, they are depressing and dated. But I consider Venturi's "ghost houses" up top a particularly inspired response to a unique problem, which was recreating structures that we have no knowledge of except that they existed on that site.

I love the ghost houses too. It really shows the flow of Franklin's home. I can picture him sitting under a tree there talking with admirers. But the ghost houses aren't really Brutalist, are they?

[Scoats]

You picked some nice examples.
- Habitat 67 is really freaking cool. If it qualifies as Brutalism, then it is a rare excellent example.
- I like the Erdy-McHenry buildings too. I think the verdict on those will depend on how they age.
- The Piazza seems to be the opposite of Brutalism to me. It uses many of the same materials, but it is not brutal, it's alive and fun. I like sitting there looking at the "Hipster Habitrail".

I always thought Habitat 67 was pretty freaking cool.



I also love our local Erdy-McHenry buildings. They're almost neo-Brutalist.



They're cold and foreboding, just not entirely made of concrete. I'm sure they'll all be just as reviled in 20 years as anything Penn has built in the past 20.



The massive concrete Piazza is successful, but architecturally indistinguishable from a Brutalist apartment block that was spruced up with some new glass and brick.

[Titus]

lol kahn's stuff is truly the worst



why is he so revered again?

Uh, because it is beautiful.

[DCnPhilly]

- The Piazza seems to be the opposite of Brutalism to me. It uses many of the same materials, but it is not brutal, it's alive and fun. I like sitting there looking at the "Hipster Habitrail".

I guess it depends how it ages. It reminds me a lot of London's public housing, and I don't mean that in a bad way. I think what defines the Piazza versus a Brutalist apartment block of public housing is its people and its retail.

Park Hill in Sheffield is trying to prove that by turning Brutalist projects into a mixed-use/mixed-income complex rehabbed to look a lot like the buildings surrounding the Piazza.

[John Goodman]

Uh, because it is beautiful.

yuck

[eldondre]

Uh, because it is beautiful.

can you say generation gap?

[Titus]

can you say generation gap?

Apparently. All this carping about Brutalism, one of my least favorite periods of architecture, but look, Frank Furness stuff to me is hideous - nonetheless it is important and the haste with which Victorian architecture was demolished only goes to show that it takes time for the best of any period to be appreciated. Watch out what we hope for - we may well get it in spades and what will replace these buildings? - more junk in all likelihood.

[DCnPhilly]

Watch out what we hope for - we may well get it in spades and what will replace these buildings? - more junk in all likelihood.

Post-modern stuff from architects like Michael Graves, who in my opinion better serve the public designing kitchen appliances for Target.



Who knows. I feel like architects have spent the last 20 years reinterpreting past styles instead of forging a new one. In a sense though, Brutalism hasn't died. The Barnes Museum, anything Drexel is building right now, and the quasi-futuristic Erdy McHenry designs are all closely related to Brutalism, if not outright examples of it. Being a windowless, concrete tomb isn't a requirement of Brutalism. The style is defined by its appearance, not materials.

[eldondre]

Apparently. All this carping about Brutalism, one of my least favorite periods of architecture, but look, Frank Furness stuff to me is hideous - nonetheless it is important and the haste with which Victorian architecture was demolished only goes to show that it takes time for the best of any period to be appreciated. Watch out what we hope for - we may well get it in spades and what will replace these buildings? - more junk in all likelihood.

they tore down "victorian" stuff and left grass lots. we haven't really come to that yet, and brutalism is just the worst style to come out of the midcentury (imo) not the only one. in a lot of ways, it's no worse than tearing down a wooden ****house after indoor toilets were invented. as noted, I think a lot of regular people never really liked brutalism and they never really disliked what existed then.

. I feel like architects have spent the last 20 years reinterpreting past styles instead of forging a new one.

I would imagine that's usually the case since architects are paid to design rather than create new things (that most often don't work or age well).

In a sense though, Brutalism hasn't died. The Barnes Museum, anything Drexel is building right now, and the quasi-futuristic Erdy McHenry designs are all closely related to Brutalism, if not outright examples of it. Being a windowless, concrete tomb isn't a requirement of Brutalism. The style is defined by its appearance, not materials.

much to ss's surprise I don't claim to be an architectural critic but it seems to me that brutalism is nothing more than an ugly child of modernism.

[supersupper]

much to ss's surprise I don't claim to be an architectural critic but it seems to me that brutalism is nothing more than an ugly child of modernism.

I was wondering when a Hitler reference would be snuck into this discussion. (sorry, Albert Speer was not a Brutalist).


Brutalism has nothing to do with being "brutal"- the term comes more from the "Art Brut" movement, a french term created by Jean Dubbufett to express his interest in creating art from raw experiences rather than cultural paradigms, which is why he is sometimes credited with giving rise to the current interest in "outsider art". I like Dubbufett's work sometimes, but almost always bored by "outsider art".


our very own Dubbefett- Yes I'm sure everyone hates this......


Anyway, Brutualism as architecture was interested in using raw materials as a way to toss off the roots of what was considered good architecture in order to find new forms. Concrete was perfect for this- and it was more about manipulating the surface of the concrete so that it was anything but polished and nice looking, and huge massive shapes were made possible by this thinking. The influence of Brutalism is everywhere wether you like it or not.

If critics are calling the new Barnes Museum "neo-brutalist" it might be because the architects are using the forms pioneered by Brutalism but are adding "polish" to the materials- so you get a mottled-looking stone thats also smooth and polished, and a giant shipping container/dumpster looking like glass that glows in the dark. Adding an Ellsworth Kelly sculpture seems to confuse things because it implies this building originates out of Minimalism, which does not seem correct. But then again a rich art collector chose the sculpture, not the architects.

[DCnPhilly]

they tore down "victorian" stuff and left grass lots. we haven't really come to that yet, and brutalism is just the worst style to come out of the midcentury (imo) not the only one. in a lot of ways, it's no worse than tearing down a wooden ****house after indoor toilets were invented. as noted, I think a lot of regular people never really liked brutalism and they never really disliked what existed then.

much to ss's surprise I don't claim to be an architectural critic but it seems to me that brutalism is nothing more than an ugly child of modernism.

That's a good point. I don't think residents had the kind of input they have now over what's built and what's saved. I'm not old enough to speak for the 50s and 60s, but I have to imagine it had to do with midcentury flight that left cities with few to no personal or commercial investment. The only ones investing in the cities were governments themselves and they created a playground for architects to experiment. Brutalism really is the branded style for government buildings during that era.

I think it descends from International Style, and is a sibling of other postmodern styles. I think Internal Style really screwed architecture artistically by rejecting all the artistic merits of architecture. When we tired of how boring it was, architects started at ground zero and there experiments gave us Brutalism and the postmodern crap that meaninglessly quilts together historic styles.

[eldondre]

That's a good point. I don't think residents had the kind of input they have now over what's built and what's saved. I'm not old enough to speak for the 50s and 60s, but I have to imagine it had to do with midcentury flight that left cities with few to no personal or commercial investment. The only ones investing in the cities were governments themselves and they created a playground for architects to experiment. Brutalism really is the branded style for government buildings during that era.

I think it descends from International Style, and is a sibling of other postmodern styles. I think Internal Style really screwed architecture artistically by rejecting all the artistic merits of architecture. When we tired of how boring it was, architects started at ground zero and there experiments gave us Brutalism and the postmodern crap that meaninglessly quilts together historic styles.

it's actually because of that era that we do have input and historic preservation. that era is really a mess, new deal era rules often made it difficult to get financing for homes and development, they were taking land, knocking things down, throwing up more and more projects, etc. the more it failed, the more they did it. as for brutalism and modernism, think about it, a lot of the elements are the same. if modernism were a person, modernism was young and exuberant, as it got older, bitter, depressed, and addicted to drugs it became brutalism. not that I totally disagree with your point, though post modern may just be making the best of a bad situation. modernism was the last style before modern taxation and regulation which probably allowed a lot less for extravagant buildings.
brutalism: what you're really saying is that the influence of materials is everywhere, and that's true. brutalism itself was just an adaptation of ideas that came before it with new materials. it's been pointed out that people were experimenting with materials, and they still are. it stands to reason that some things from brutalism, modernism, international, etc worked, and some things didn't. as much as architects might like to view themselves as the forward thinkers, it certainly appears they were influenced by philosophical ideas of the time(s).

[DCnPhilly]

as much as architects might like to view themselves as the forward thinkers, it certainly appears they were influenced by philosophical ideas of the time(s).

This might be the best point made so far.

[Bob_Head]

it's been pointed out that people were experimenting with materials, and they still are. it stands to reason that some things from brutalism, modernism, international, etc worked, and some things didn't. as much as architects might like to view themselves as the forward thinkers, it certainly appears they were influenced by philosophical ideas of the time(s).

That was certainly the theme of Tom Wolfe's From Bauhaus to Our House. While there is some truth to it, it's probably not a huge factor. Engineering and materials technology probably has probably been a much greater driving/limiting factor.

[supersupper]

This might be the best point made so far.

Any worthy architect (or artist) admits their work is built upon those who came before them, is in dialogue with their colleague (wether in agreement or as a counterpoint) and is always taking advantage of new materials and technique. How they do all that in accordance to their philosophy gives rise to a Style.

And that very point is the very reason Brutalism should be (will be) "saved" : its a reflection of the times and part of a continuum.

[Bob_Head]

And that very point is the very reason Brutalism should be (will be) "saved" : its a reflection of the times and part of a continuum.

Clearly (despite my earlier comment) the best of the form is worth saving. Habitat 67, to be sure. and the Salk Institute. Emile Aillaud's Cloud Tours for its impracticality. The Slovak Radio Building, to scare the hell out of aliens. Boston's City Hall for its angry frog face:

[eldondre]

- The Piazza seems to be the opposite of Brutalism to me. It uses many of the same materials, but it is not brutal, it's alive and fun. I like sitting there looking at the "Hipster Habitrail".

the success of the piazza has little to do with the architecture of the buildings and everything to do with something that is as time tested as can be but completely missing from philadelphia, a nice public private space. in fact, you could almost say the piazza succeeds despite the archtitecture which largely fails as ground level which partly why businesses have been struggling to make a go there. while they use arcades in spain to shelter people from the sun, keeping them cool while they shop, a covered walkway here would be useful in inclement weather (provide it ever starts to rain again).

Engineering and materials technology probably has probably been a much greater driving/limiting factor.

no doubt, the interplay of the economics of materials and technology available at the time define what can be done, with architects applying the idea du jour.

[thoth]

Brutalism has nothing to do with being "brutal"- the term comes more from the "Art Brut" movement, a french term created by Jean Dubbufett to express his interest in creating art from raw experiences rather than cultural paradigms, which is why he is sometimes credited with giving rise to the current interest in "outsider art". I like Dubbufett's work sometimes, but almost always bored by "outsider art".

Actually the term comes the french word for rough concrete, "beton brut", and was coined by La Corbusier well after Art Brut emerged. It specifically denotes an unrefined, rugged appearance.