As far as I know more brutalist buildings are getting knocked down than built right now. I know Birmingham council is trying to get the Ringway Centre demolished, and that's literally a listed building lol.
There were just a lot of cheap shitty buildings built that mar the whole style. When done well and properly maintained brutalism can lend itself to some really beautiful architecture, especially when juxtaposed with nature / lots of greenery.
I don't see the point in tearing down buildings just to replace them with something equally soulless.
Adequate maintenance should be baked into planning for styles of buildings that require clean lines or surfaces to not look like a riot. All those buildings featuring gleaming white render that fades to dirty grey with skids of rust and green slimy patches spring to mind.
There's an apartment building near me with an off-white render. Under every window frame, pipe etc that sticks out is a disgusting brown weep mark. I don't know if it's rust or a reaction in the render or what but it's horrendous.
Inadequate maintenance is literally the only reason I'm glad we don't paint out houses or brick buildings like they do in France and other places. If you've ever strolled in a rougher part of France where all the houses have paint cracking and peeling of the walls that's what most of Britain would look like given are current levels of building maintenance
> in a rougher part of France
Judging from my travels, that's the vast bulk of France. It's a pretty country, but their building maintenance is dire. Every village is so plagued by cracking painted walls coming apart from the seams that it's basically a hallmark of the "French village style" alongside boulangeries.
And the thing is we have buildings that never age, no matter how much algae and traffic fumes build on them. Go to Bristol and look at the old quarter. every Georgian era neo-classical building still looks good and ages in a mellow way but because its stone its kept its sharp lines.
At the same time wandering up the high street and there's a lot of minimalist cubes that went up in the 60's, that look vacant. decrepit, the bad kind of aging. The thing is, they're made with the same stone. The reason is lack of the right kind of detailing, blank spaces.
If you have lots of large flat blank surfaces, its almost certain it will look bad if its not kept clean. And the building will look more over-baring even when it isn't all that big.
I completely agree; I look at the National Theatre as a great example of brutalism done well. Meanwhile they are throwing up these new high rises in a more modern style all around my local area and I worry about how they’ll look in 20 years’ time.
It really feels like we just traded in concrete boxes for glass or metal boxes in many cases, rather than truly learning from the valid criticisms of monolithic styles.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder yadda yadda.
Personally I really like [this building](https://www.reddit.com/r/brutalism/comments/muxs5f/quite_possibly_my_favorite_building_in_the_world/). Maybe you won't.
And you've probably already decided that you *don't like* the barbican, but a [photo like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/brutalism/comments/nj3anr/barbican_london/) is a perfect example of that juxtaposition I am talking about. And after all, a great building isn't just something that looks pretty from afar, but something that is meant to be *moved* through and around. Whether you like it or not it's still a fantastic example of architecture.
There are quite a few brutalist buildings that I will freely and happily accept are good architecture; there are also loads that are absolute rubbish.
No accounting for taste and all that, but to be honest I think I could probably count the number of brutalist buildings I actually liked and thought were beautiful on a couple of fingers. Even so, I don’t think we should destroy every last one of them. We should definitely preserve some of the most excellent examples of it for historical preservation purposes, if nothing else. (Even if that purpose is making sure we never revive brutalism!)
Yeah the real problem with brutalist architecture isn't the design, it's that they were built in the postwar era when resources were scarce (even in the 70s and early 80s) and concrete was a cheap solution. They kind of fed each other.
I've worked in a grade 1 listed brutalist building. It was wonderful inside - big windows, high ceilings etc. Downside was everything was broken and you had to get English Heritage to approve all repairs due to the listing. There has to be a better way to preserve and manage these buildings - they were built for working in.
This book [brutal north](https://septemberpublishing.org/product/brutal-north/) is full of amazing buildings.
Brutalism gets a bad rep, and there are a hell of a lot of UGLY brutalist buildings but just because something is brutalist doesn't automatically make it ugly
The bad reputation of Brutalism was borne of its use as a catch-all excuse for councils and developers to throw up large numbers of cheap and terrible concrete buildings with the thinnest veneer of architectural legitimacy. Nobody is arguing that every Brutalist building is in this category.
I think part of the problem is that it's keenest advocates do claim every brutalist building is beautiful and worth saving. I've seen them bemoan multi story car parks being taken down.
They've no sense of picking their fights and it leeches them off credibility.
I loved the Rodney Gordon multi story car park in Gateshead before they tore that down. Iconic for the area too, but like others said the maintenance was virtually nonexistent and ultimately the cause of it's eventual demise
And rightfully so. They're ugly as shit, and only enjoyed by those who can't see past their own nostalgia.
The anti brutalist campaigns is likely less to do with building new brutalist buildings, and more a response to pro-brutalist campaigners who are depriving future generations of nice buildings by turning these shitholes into listed buildings.
I am not direhard about brutalism, I do see why people dislike it and I would be happy to see quite a lot of it knocked down.
But I will say that some of them create spaces that are super well set up for humans to exist in. When I think back to brutalist designs I have spent time in (Essex Uni, the Southbank, the Barbican), the unifying thing is that they create spaces that people flock to spend time in, and the designers of had a clear and intentional purpose in doing so.
Reflecting on what makes them work so well, imo, is the fact that they didn't jam roads and parking spaces into them, prioritising cars over people.
If I could choose, I would exclusively live, work and socialise in brutatlist spaces (that were built in that way) over 90% of the carfucked urban environment that exists everywhere else. The facts it's grey and a bit shabby wouldn't really come into it to me.
I quite like brutalism but recognise there are a lot of cheap knock-offs (literally).
I saw a fantastic modern art piece in Berlin. I'm not huge on art so I can't remember the artist or the exact details, but the artist had been asked to do something to mark the Festival of Berlin(?) and agreed but hated the subject matter which included a lot of brutalist architecture. He found a load of these buildings and then fenced in some of the spaces around staircases etc and filled them with rendered fat and left them to set. He then had them lifted out and displayed them to represent the empty spaces created by brutalist architecture. These massive blocks of fat are decades old now and have to be held together with straps. I absolutely loved the insanity of it but also that you can totally picture the spaces he was talking about.
I had to find out more about this because it sounds absolutely unhinged in the best way. The artist is Joseph Beuys and I think the exhibition you're referring to is called 'tallow' and it's every bit as insane as you made it sound, I love it.
They can do that.
The Ringway in Birmingham is explicitly "carchitecture". So was the former paradise circus. What your saying is a good design style, but it's by no means inherent (or exclusive) to brutalism.
I’m not a brutalist fan by any means, but the Barbican proves that when it’s done right it’s an incredible, beautiful style of building. It’s just a shame when it’s soulless and as you said, and the way the best Brutalism is built with people in mind is incredible. I’ll always think of the way the Barbican has literally everything a person could need within its walls, and I think it shows how when done well, Brutalism is a really interesting architecture style!
Well, the same happened during the Renaissance, some people randomly decided that Gothic buildings sucked and decided to demolish them. We lost lots of valuable and historic Medieval buildings only because some people at that time had a particular subjective and superficial distaste for Gothic/Romanesque buildings.
The same could be happening if lots of Brutalist/Modern buildings from the 20th century are demolished just based on personal taste or preference, instead of taking into account their historical and æsthetic value. Moreover, it's way more ecologically friendly to reuse and recycle perfectly good buildings and renovate them, instead of tearing down huge moles of concrete to built another huge mole of concrete.
I'm not saying that absolutly all buildings should be preserved, but more aspect than just personal æsthetic taste should be taken into account.
It's not that these buildings are ugly, it's that they're still fully functional and its a complete waste of money. The Ringway Centre literally just needs a tidy up and refurb for a just portion of the price and inconvience for it to be a fully functional and well-incorperated set of offices. The old library was fine and a key part of Birmingham's industrial identity, and knocking it down has been a huge logistical inconvinience in the city centre until recently. This doesn't go to mention how shit it is for the environment.
All of this goes on whilst completely non-functional buildings like [Five Ways Tower still exist ](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/demolition-signs-five-ways-tower-112104180.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKUKdJd3bP54xn2PxDu1PBSCQ3HHKB75hFmnZ-_YLJn56F7YTRw05eI37qxWPduLD1IKhK-GERbLGbuAsHh6UDLRT8LEYq0-1BNzb9K97LHck8g8LfuzuSKs4eZWZJsyeG4UaKW5-vbiqIhKJ1SI7lpEOWQLemqlq9uaqHKS1gQ-)and look completely derelict, and whilst the new constructs are completely devoid of taste, character to the city they're within, and too expensive for the city and it's people.
I dunno if disliking Brutalist architecture is a political thing lol I grew up surrounded by brutalist estates like Ferrier in Kidbrooke and they strike a fear and disgust in me like nothing else can. Couldn't name a more ugly style of building.
Personally never understood Barbican's appeal. Always felt like it was middle class people wanting to live in what I felt was a very working class looking environment, just without the issues that may come with it.
100% agree with this. However, my wife used to live I Trelik Tower and says that the design was really fantastic. I think they look ugly as hell but I do have a soft spot for practical, good design over aesthetics. I'm on the fence on this one
I love how the Barbican uses water and greenery on the outside, it's the only brutalist building I've ever liked. In fact, it’s the only brutalist building that I’ve not hated.
It's one of the few brutalist buildings that I can think of that actually had a concept to it beyond "cheap and sturdy". Like I said - the whole idea behind it is really cool and somewhat achieved too. The reason it's still ugly to me on the outside is because it would work just as well with almost any other architectural style... But just be better (as long as it's still conceptually kept the same).
Loads of Brutalist buildings had concepts behind them were around supporting communities and building cohesive communities. It is from a political period that tried to create (or 'force' from some perspectives) communities through the design of the space. The current political movement behind the modern 'fancy' tower block is an individualistic philosophy which is designed to impose nothing on people but often makes it impossible for a community to exist in these spaces.
Brutalist designs often degraded because while they were designed with a lot of features to support communities and an enjoyable living space they were gutted of the sort of funding that supports these (the Barbican has been able to keep an upkeep of these features) or the community spaces were treated as a threat by law enforcement and heavily policed. Many had spaces that offered some level of privacy from the space that was otherwise well covered by community eyelines, but these were treated as dangerous places for criminals to congregate by law enforcement which lead to them being blocked off or policed which left teenagers with less spaces they can occupy.
Also, there is a difference between a Brutalist design that combines various aspects of Brutalist philosophy and design and the square concrete tower blocks scattered across cities to concentrate the poorest members of society into one place.
I'd argue that part of what made the barbican interesting is also the idea of isolation and self containment, rather than cohesive community and support. Its architecture is deliberately designed to make it difficult to enter from outside and the whole thing is built like a keep. That's what makes it kinda work. It is actively meant to seem monolithic and impenetrable from the outside.
Saying that - while there's a difference between brutalist design with philosophy and just brutalism in concept, there isn't much in outward appearance. For example the Birmingham Ringway (that a different comment brought up). It's terrible. There's no two ways about it. It has prime placement within the centre and could be so much more. However it exemplifies the whole brutalist approach to the buildings outside of unique conceptual ones (a-la barbican) - build something out of cheap and sturdy contemporary materials. Limited efforts towards visual appeal, if any.
> 'd argue that part of what made the barbican interesting is also the idea of isolation and self containment, rather than cohesive community and support
That is the community it is trying to create. A community of the residents, with a space they can escape from the city to.
I'm still sad that they've knocked down the 5 Links Estate in Basildon. My all-t8me favourite piece of Brutalist architecture, and I loved growing up there. You aren't wrong about the community spaces having funding withdrawn and police seeing them as places for criminals to congregate, even when they weren't.
Some Brutalist tower blocks are better designed than others IMO, and I think that they do have their niche in Social Housing provision, given how many people are desperately waiting for it now. If they kept up with the maintenance and community areas like playgrounds, I don't see a problem tbh. I've lived in 3 different tower blocks, 2 as a kid, one as an adult. Better than being homeless, which I've also been.
They're also in the process of knocking down the Craylands estate, another Brutalist estate in Basildon that I've also lived in. And IMO, they were a LOVELY place to live.
The City I live I now doesn't really have the same type of Brutalist architecture, and IMO Basildon has lost a LOT by not preserving at least a couple of examples of each style, as certainly the 5 Links Estate was a very unique design.
I don’t like the Barbican and I’ve been a lifelong Republican.
Don’t try to hide your personal aesthetic preferences behind the idea that they’re the only way to be socially progressive.
Not having seen it before, my first impression on looking it up is that it looks absolutely ghastly.
There are some brutalist buildings where I like the aesthetic but that's on the other end of the scale. Nice that they put some greenery in/around it at least.
Fair, maybe Google Images didn't do the place justice. If it's a controversial one then maybe the worst pics of it are the ones that get the most clicks/shares and ended up at the top of my search.
I agree, the water features, cafe areas, and greenery is beautiful at the Barbican. It is, unfortunately, let down by the drab concrete building. Just about any other architecture style of last 3 millenia would significantly improve the aesthetic.
The Barbican is one of the few Brutalist buildings which is surrounded by enough beauty to mask its repulsiveness. Most brutalist buildings do not enjoy those same priveleges.
Just googled it and it still looks like random concrete slabs thrown together. It’s more attractive than most other brutalist works I’ve seen, but I still can’t help but feel that literally any other style would be more attractive than what it is.
I can understand that impression from just looking at it in 2D. It doesn't do it justice though - it's really quite an experience seeing it, being surrounded by it, in real life.
As with others, I'm no fan of the style in general - but find the Barbican is an exception.
Fair enough I can understand it’s different in real life. Still though, I can’t imagine on a rainy day that this building looks anything other than dark, intimidating, and unwelcoming. I don’t think that’s what I want from a reasonably public university building.
I appreciate the Barbican for what it is - an example of a large housing project done right with amenities and open spaces. I think it would be even better if it was built in an attractive style, rather than Brutalism. I don’t want to knock it down or anything I just think it’s a missed opportunity.
[Dunelm House](https://www.ribapix.com/images/thumbs/036/0363209_RIBA19209_600.jpeg) and [Kingsgate Bridge](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/34679ea672851d8a6baf4f48ba457157505a1815/454_419_4010_2405/master/4010.jpg?width=1200&height=900&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&s=1657da6a24069dfb43b658994cd993b3) in Durham are my favourites, they just work so well with the [geography of the Wear gorge](https://durhamcity.org/our-work/campaigns/dunelm-house/).
Disgusting. Ugly monstrosities which are such a waste. You could have a timber fronted building like a boathouse with a balcony and pavillion style roof which would have fit the waterfront better than a concrete fucking bunker.
Kingsgate Bridge is a great way to cross the river. Unlike the other bridges it’s high, so you get great views in either direction. The slimness of the structure is also quite thrilling.
The street front of Dunelm House was partly designed to mimic the buildings on either side, some of which have since been demolished. On the river side it very much makes the most of its position, with several terraces and big windows to take in the view and the natural light. It’s a nice place to be.
There are several boathouses along the Wear, in fact there’s one at river level in Dunelm House. They don’t all need to look like Victorian pavilions, although one does.
And the new one has failed to achieve its aims. Not an inherent fault of the building, I’m sure, but you wonder if giving the old one a spruce up might have been the better option in retrospect.
I quite like Southbank in London, maybe just for memories of screwing around there.
Just reminded me of the movie High-Rise too, has some great brutalist architecture.
I think the estate in Clockwork Orange would count too?
It’s usually developers wanting prime land cheap for more profit that are behind attempts to demolish large buildings. But there’s always useful idiots around who know what they like.
I grew up looking at the Barbican centre buildings, and there's no nostalgia there for me. I feel like the people who like those buildings have the luxury of not having to look at them beyond their passing curiosity. My heart sinks whenever I see these horrendous square concrete eyesores.
Brooke House in Basildon got listed recently and it dominates the skyline in the worst way 🤢. It's not pleasant to be around and needs so much work done residents have been moved out as the building literally is unsafe (stairwell railings I think we're part of the issues).
They have been trying to reverse it for years but Birmingham city centre was ruined by state/council planners. Putting big roads through the city centre admittedly some in tunnels was a disaster and did way more damage than Hitlers bombers.
The sheer amount of brutalist buildings/flats that have been knocked down in Glasgow over the past 20 years is unreal. Skyline looks very different to the early 2000s
It's only locally listed, which doesn't really mean anything if the council who gives out the local listings decides to change it's mind.
It's also run down, crumbling and a pretty useless eyesore, so no real loss if it were to come down.
The quicker that thing goes, the better. The fucking thing is heinous. It's like a cancer on the city centre, sticking out as a massive shithole in an otherwise developing and improving location. Other than the disgusting looks, it's a deathtrap too. Too expensive to actually fix and do something with, but can't be demolished because it's listed.
It's not a campaign against brutalism. It's a campaign against boring buildings. The campaigners have 're-imagined' (their words not mine) iconic UK landmarks, using generative AI, using modern architecture.
Brutalism is one example of 'boring', they've done bog standard glass buildings as well.
Gotta love the irony of people trying to prove Brutalism is boring and uncreative, by generating a fictional building using AI - a method with no creativity whatsoever.
It's a bad faith argument. Brutalism has a whole architectural history beyond just block utility building in the 60s. It would take anyone the briefest of googles to see the degree of variety that's been achieved in its style over the world, but there's a contingent that only see Brutalism as one thing and want to drain it of all cultural merit and erase it because it's not to their tastes. People like The Humanise Campaign.
Am I supposed to believe then that a group like that have it in their interest to present Brutalism authentically? I'm not a betting man, but I can't imagine they kept their biases out of the AI prompts, and that's on top of the already inherent derivative nature of generative AI.
I was once told that building styles have a specifc life cycle, at least in the uk.
Anything new is mildly controversial or pretty, but after about 20 years or so it begins to age badly.
By the time it gets to about 40-50 years old it is near unanimously considered hideous, and will be the main target for demolitions and rebuilding.
But as it gets to around 60 years the perception shifts (maybe because the worst examples are all gone and we're nostalgic) and people start wanting these buildings preserved, restored and kept around. It becomes iconic, and many start surviving and being restored.
By 150 years its considered historical and part of our identity. we will condemn those who tore down so many other similar buildings.
And sometimes we start recycling the same styles in a mock/neo fashion
Most of these buildings are 50-70 years old now... It's become a debatable subject again..
The whole country is riddled with these abominations. I believe the arguement is to make beautiful buildings that actually inspire going forward rather than raw concrete boxes that give everyone depression.
It’s not the buildings that are giving people depression. Just like it’s not the buildings that are making people poor. Let’s stop blaming man-made problems on inanimate objects.
You dont think the buildings and architecture have the ability to influence human emotions? Why not just build everything the same out of lego or something then?
It doesn't help to live in an ugly environment. I don't agree it \*gives people depression\*, thats a bit of hyperbole, but it does make me feel a bit down being around big ugly concrete blocks.
They absolutely do contribute to depression, that’s an incredibly poorly thought out comment. Thats why living in tower blocks is even more depressing… they’re ugly as fuck. It hurts the soul. Pretending they have no impact on how people feel is literally childish.
People: “we’re struggling. We need healthcare, jobs and a strong safety net”
The enlightened ones: “best I can do is destroy your home because I think it’s an eyesore and that’s the root cause of your problems”
When rich people are gleefully buying up and (sometimes) living in tower blocks, I think it's not the tower block lifestyle in and of itself that's the problem.
How much are flats in Trellick Tower going for these days?
https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/136612391#/?channel=RES_BUY
I guess people are really keen on being depressed.
Horrible architecture is absolutely on the rise! For a while, the hideousness was kept a bit in check by their obsession with large amounts of glass and semi circular features, but now the grim cardboard box look is coming back. I have seen the plans for numerous buildings that are verging only the hideously brutalist, and some have also been built. There's a spate of high schools, for example. Here's some examples:
[https://www.bimacademy.global/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/queensferry-high-school.jpg](https://www.bimacademy.global/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/queensferry-high-school.jpg)
[https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/UserFiles/Image/Projects/Currie%20Community%20High%20School/Currie%20community%20school\_Architype\_2021%20FEB\_Render.jpg](https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/UserFiles/Image/Projects/Currie%20Community%20High%20School/Currie%20community%20school_Architype_2021%20FEB_Render.jpg)
[https://www.scottishdesignawards.com/2020/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scottish-Design\_OHS\_Featured-Image-1680x1120.jpg](https://www.scottishdesignawards.com/2020/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scottish-Design_OHS_Featured-Image-1680x1120.jpg)
Here's some newly planned or built flats in Edinburgh:
[https://www.urbanrealm.com/images/news/newspic\_11742.jpg](https://www.urbanrealm.com/images/news/newspic_11742.jpg)
[https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimg/legacy\_elm\_77139416.jpg?crop=3:2,smart&width=990&quality=65&enable=upscale](https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimg/legacy_elm_77139416.jpg?crop=3:2,smart&width=990&quality=65&enable=upscale)
[https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/uploads/Comprehensive%20Design%20Architects%20Willowbrae%20Road.png](https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/uploads/Comprehensive%20Design%20Architects%20Willowbrae%20Road.png)
The Humanise Campaign is a hustle of the design house Heatherwick Studio, the company behind the Garden Bridge and the new Routemaster bus. Basically an AstroTurf campaign.
lmaaaaaaaaaooooooooo
my goodness, hustle from the arts design CEO
how does the GOV build affordable social housing if they have to hire his firm to get skinned to have it painted in rose colour and have some plants on it
Tbh this is just a reminder that Edinburgh Castle is ultimately a military building. The bits we find most aesthetically pleasing were designed for defence, not beauty. It's just that our cultural sense of aesthetics means that if a defensive structure is old enough it's considered beautiful. We're half way there with how we see Cramond Island.
Many of the buildings which make up Edinburgh Castle are quite plain and utilitarian, the result of it being a garrison rather than a residence for much of its history. It’s not an especially attractive building, but the setting masks that.
It was also a sign of prestige though, surely? It's not exactly a palace but it was built-- and most historically significant-- in an era when one laird impressing another could be the difference between a pleasant dinner and a civil war. All these old buildings have some architectural artistic flair to them.
I vaguely know someone who lives in a stunning, grade I listed country manor, which his family had built hundreds of years ago. It’s astonishingly beautiful.
He showed us a book which was a series of drawings of Italian villas. The first one is identical to his house.
As he phrased it - his ancestor had tons of money, zero patience and no taste. He opened the catalogue and didn’t even make it to page 2 before telling the builders, “I want that one”. Tacky horrible gaudy ostentatious wealth which would have been seen much like footballers mansions at the time, but the house has survived the past 400 years so we now think of it as a _stunning example of classical architecture_ or whatever.
I love old buildings and any buildings with character - including brutalism! - but I do find that story very funny.
I've been round Abbotsford, Sir Walter Scott's house. He was hugely influential in causing the Scottish Baronial revival & it's a beautiful house, but is absolutely a Victorian gentleman cosplaying medieval architecture in a way that we'd find really tacky if done now.
It’s a fairly loose interpretation of Romanesque Revival, which took inspiration from the buildings of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Most of Durham Cathedral is original Romanesque, for comparison.
"Bro I swear we're still building it, that's why there's a metre of rebar sticking out of the roof, we just haven't finished the top floor yet, please don't tax me"
Roman and greek architecture has survived more than 2000 years and is now spread across the globe to places romans never even imagined. I would say that's pretty fuckin timeless and universal
Surely a beautiful city would have a mix of all styles? A bit of something for everyone, I would even argue we need plain or boring buildings to act as a foil to the more flamboyant and important ones.
Most of what you see at Edinburgh was constructed when it was a garrison, not a royal residence. These buildings were mostly built for practicality, rather than beauty.
No I'm not, I specifically addressed this in my comment.
When people talk about Edinburgh castle it's the defensive walls they are impressed by not the living quarters, a lot of people think they ruin the look
We already know that they have the capacity to make less hideous buildings than this, even if it impacts on profitability, cheapness is not an excuse for ugliness. Plus a huge amount of the buildings being made hideously are not even supposed to be affordable in the first place. To say that affordable houses have to be hideous to look at is actually going against the needs of the people who deserve to have houses that are both actually good to live in and not depressing to look at.
I find it rather charming, but I take it this was designed by an opponent of Brutalism? Actual Brutalism is usually rather striking rather than domestic like this, and the windows look later 20th century to me. \[ETA: no it's just AI apparently, so without any design intent\].
Reading the full article, it seems they're arguing against modern, 'sick' buildings. So why target Brutalism, which ran from 1950s-1980s and was largely about quickly replacing post-war devastation?
Also to flag 'Brutalist' isn't a criticism in anyway, the term derives from 'beton brut' meaning 'raw concrete'.
That's what I was thinking, a couple of them on the page are big glass cubes which definitely doesn't scream brutalism to me. Doing it with AI seems to kinda hurt their point cause it takes away the intent like you said, it's just digital noise not actual human design.
Yeah I'm probably in the minority on this, but I do quite like brutalist architecture. I also like the castle how it is now, and glass-and-steel buildings. And seeing then all together. They all have their own form of charm that makes wandering around a British city very pleasant.
Yeah targeting Brutalism seems a bit…unnecessary? Like I get that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea from an aesthetic point of view but people forget that the aims of Brutalism were to turn housing for working people into futuristic moments and places of community. They were built to last and had the requirements of the people they were built for in mind.
It’s a shame that a lot of Brutalist buildings have not been properly cared for and have fallen into a state of neglect, which does nothing to help its popularity. But I agree with you, dragging Brutalism into an argument against contemporary architecture just feels a bit silly and pointless esp when it was a way to quickly replace many of the homes that had been destroyed by WW2 in a revolutionary way
I'm hardly a brutalist fan, but it can look okay when maintained imo. The biggest issue for me is the fact raw concrete just shows off the dirt like nothing else. It's odd too, we have a lot of old buildings in limestone, which gets similarly dirty, and yet still looks alright.
In my opinion that's due to the detailing on limestone buildings, as the decorations are designed draw the eye. Where in brutalist architecture it's the form that's the focus if anything, so the entire building suffers more from the impact of dirt as there is less to distract from it.
Though I am a fan of Brutalist architecture so may be biased.
Brutalism is an integral part of architectural history, has contributed both to aesthetics and utility, and as such its prominent examples must be preserved, as for any other style. It’s culture and history even if you personally don’t agree with aesthetics.
By now architecture moved on and brutalism isn’t a thing.
What does the campaign pursue?
As a student studying Architectural Technology, I can tell you we are advised against brutalism at every step. Brutalism is seriously advised against as it is not seen as eco-friendly which is getting a real push in the course (at least in Edinburgh)
I like boring buildings.
Some buildings should stand out, like corner buildings, pubs, parliament, museums, whatever.
But if every building stood out then we’d live in a wilderness of architect’s egos. Sometimes refinement, or buildings that whisper rather than shout is right.
Some of our most beautiful streets- Regent Street, Royal Arcade, Grey Street in Newcastle- comprises repetitive elements with a dialogue of constraint. This is correct.
This Humanise Heatherwick marketing vehicle is simply decorating ‘iconic’ or deliberately loud buildings with ‘soft’ or boring architectural forms- as if we would. He only needs to look to the Scottish Parliament to see that his entire thesis is misguided
Heatherwick comes across as a charlatan anyway. B of the Bang, the Routemaster, the Garden Bridge, the New York Vessel -- skilled at sifting off public works funding and building (or not) faulty, deficient or not fit for purpose designs.
I see that some people love Brutalist buildings, but I find them to be terrible, drab, grey concrete monuments to depression. They look like a cross between a military bunker and something from dystopian films.
If you love them, great, we're all different.
I think the intention was to make the brutalist building look worse, but by even vaguely capturing the form of a more traditional building, it would have been one of the best of the brutalist buildings, but still far worse than the building it replaces in this view. In my view, having looked at some of the best brutalist and other modern architecture (not sure there's much difference), the obsession with simplicity and plainness / meaning almost invariably makes the building uglier and age faster (and not in a good way, for you can have aging that makes a building more attractive), whilst the best examples put a lot of effort into adding purely unnecessary details which add complexity, and are consciously composed using broadly the aesthetical principles as is found in traditional formal architecture, so don't support brutalism per se, which is supposed not to do such things and let the essential functional form and materials do all the talking (which is funny, because the materials have turned out to be poor quality and age badly), so that in fact it makes more sense just to build a traditional style to be beautiful because at least won't want to rip it down and from a sustainability point of view, classical and even gothic, are thereby superior and clearly age well.
Yet many modern architects would claim this as the more meaningful architecture.
Thomas Heatherwick is a self promoting arsehole. He's shit at architecture, he's certainly no genius like Gaudi, his designs are just gaudy, unnecessarily complicated, yet oh so boring and exorbitant to maintain. Thankfully, his will definitely not stand the test of time but for now, they must still be tolerated and endured.
As for this latest campaign, what if famous landmarks from a bygone age were designed in architectural styles that didn't exist till modern times, it's so bloody unimaginative and unconsidered, founded on a false premise and oh so typical of Thomas Heatherwick. Please stop supporting him and more than that, stop commissioning him!
If this rendition of a castle is Heatherwick's concept of iconic Brutalism, he's obviously as shit and boring at Brutalism as he is with his usual dross
People might scoff, but they fail to recognize that with just adequate maintenance and much nicer weather than Edinburgh historically has had, this concrete beauty could easily last upwards of 40 to 50 years. That's 4–5 decades!
As others have pointed out, many Brutalist buildings are being torn down in the UK and further afield right now. I do wonder if, like with many other buildings torn down as they did not accord with contemporary tastes (Penn Station in NYC for example), we will eventually miss these buildings when they are gone?
.
.
.
.
They do mostly look like shit though...
Interesting reading everyone's comments, but can I point out that brutalism, is not specifically the actual design of the barbican, for instance, but mostly due to the fact that concrete is used....the architects who designed the building never intended for it to be a brutalist building as so many have mentioned.
It was the intent of the architects to have a Mediterranean, swedish, Roman feel to it. And designed accordingly. It was NEVER intended to be a Brutalist building
The building was intended to be clad with white marble, mosaics and other decorative material. This, in the end, was rejected due to cost implications. So this would void it from being a brutalist building due to said mentioned materials being used.
It's a very contentious debate to weather it is in fact a brutalist building but I fear it is classed as thus due to the expanse of concrete on view.
If anyone queries this view, then they are wrong as most of these points are taken from the barbican website and the experienced curator of the barbican building.
A new campaign against brutalism, very timely. When was the last time a major building was made in that style in the UK? Early 90s?
As far as I know more brutalist buildings are getting knocked down than built right now. I know Birmingham council is trying to get the Ringway Centre demolished, and that's literally a listed building lol.
I googled brutalist buildings and the mad geometric ones it showed me were great. Would love more of that
There were just a lot of cheap shitty buildings built that mar the whole style. When done well and properly maintained brutalism can lend itself to some really beautiful architecture, especially when juxtaposed with nature / lots of greenery. I don't see the point in tearing down buildings just to replace them with something equally soulless.
Adequate maintenance should be baked into planning for styles of buildings that require clean lines or surfaces to not look like a riot. All those buildings featuring gleaming white render that fades to dirty grey with skids of rust and green slimy patches spring to mind.
There's an apartment building near me with an off-white render. Under every window frame, pipe etc that sticks out is a disgusting brown weep mark. I don't know if it's rust or a reaction in the render or what but it's horrendous.
Inadequate maintenance is literally the only reason I'm glad we don't paint out houses or brick buildings like they do in France and other places. If you've ever strolled in a rougher part of France where all the houses have paint cracking and peeling of the walls that's what most of Britain would look like given are current levels of building maintenance
> in a rougher part of France Judging from my travels, that's the vast bulk of France. It's a pretty country, but their building maintenance is dire. Every village is so plagued by cracking painted walls coming apart from the seams that it's basically a hallmark of the "French village style" alongside boulangeries.
And the thing is we have buildings that never age, no matter how much algae and traffic fumes build on them. Go to Bristol and look at the old quarter. every Georgian era neo-classical building still looks good and ages in a mellow way but because its stone its kept its sharp lines. At the same time wandering up the high street and there's a lot of minimalist cubes that went up in the 60's, that look vacant. decrepit, the bad kind of aging. The thing is, they're made with the same stone. The reason is lack of the right kind of detailing, blank spaces. If you have lots of large flat blank surfaces, its almost certain it will look bad if its not kept clean. And the building will look more over-baring even when it isn't all that big.
I completely agree; I look at the National Theatre as a great example of brutalism done well. Meanwhile they are throwing up these new high rises in a more modern style all around my local area and I worry about how they’ll look in 20 years’ time.
It really feels like we just traded in concrete boxes for glass or metal boxes in many cases, rather than truly learning from the valid criticisms of monolithic styles.
Please show me 1 beautiful brutalist building
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder yadda yadda. Personally I really like [this building](https://www.reddit.com/r/brutalism/comments/muxs5f/quite_possibly_my_favorite_building_in_the_world/). Maybe you won't. And you've probably already decided that you *don't like* the barbican, but a [photo like this](https://www.reddit.com/r/brutalism/comments/nj3anr/barbican_london/) is a perfect example of that juxtaposition I am talking about. And after all, a great building isn't just something that looks pretty from afar, but something that is meant to be *moved* through and around. Whether you like it or not it's still a fantastic example of architecture.
There are quite a few brutalist buildings that I will freely and happily accept are good architecture; there are also loads that are absolute rubbish. No accounting for taste and all that, but to be honest I think I could probably count the number of brutalist buildings I actually liked and thought were beautiful on a couple of fingers. Even so, I don’t think we should destroy every last one of them. We should definitely preserve some of the most excellent examples of it for historical preservation purposes, if nothing else. (Even if that purpose is making sure we never revive brutalism!)
Come on you really don’t know any? That’s a seriously narrow minded take.
Yeah the real problem with brutalist architecture isn't the design, it's that they were built in the postwar era when resources were scarce (even in the 70s and early 80s) and concrete was a cheap solution. They kind of fed each other. I've worked in a grade 1 listed brutalist building. It was wonderful inside - big windows, high ceilings etc. Downside was everything was broken and you had to get English Heritage to approve all repairs due to the listing. There has to be a better way to preserve and manage these buildings - they were built for working in.
There's a brutalist chapel where I live but it's built with red brick.
This book [brutal north](https://septemberpublishing.org/product/brutal-north/) is full of amazing buildings. Brutalism gets a bad rep, and there are a hell of a lot of UGLY brutalist buildings but just because something is brutalist doesn't automatically make it ugly
The bad reputation of Brutalism was borne of its use as a catch-all excuse for councils and developers to throw up large numbers of cheap and terrible concrete buildings with the thinnest veneer of architectural legitimacy. Nobody is arguing that every Brutalist building is in this category.
I think part of the problem is that it's keenest advocates do claim every brutalist building is beautiful and worth saving. I've seen them bemoan multi story car parks being taken down. They've no sense of picking their fights and it leeches them off credibility.
I loved the Rodney Gordon multi story car park in Gateshead before they tore that down. Iconic for the area too, but like others said the maintenance was virtually nonexistent and ultimately the cause of it's eventual demise
And rightfully so. They're ugly as shit, and only enjoyed by those who can't see past their own nostalgia. The anti brutalist campaigns is likely less to do with building new brutalist buildings, and more a response to pro-brutalist campaigners who are depriving future generations of nice buildings by turning these shitholes into listed buildings.
I am not direhard about brutalism, I do see why people dislike it and I would be happy to see quite a lot of it knocked down. But I will say that some of them create spaces that are super well set up for humans to exist in. When I think back to brutalist designs I have spent time in (Essex Uni, the Southbank, the Barbican), the unifying thing is that they create spaces that people flock to spend time in, and the designers of had a clear and intentional purpose in doing so. Reflecting on what makes them work so well, imo, is the fact that they didn't jam roads and parking spaces into them, prioritising cars over people. If I could choose, I would exclusively live, work and socialise in brutatlist spaces (that were built in that way) over 90% of the carfucked urban environment that exists everywhere else. The facts it's grey and a bit shabby wouldn't really come into it to me.
I quite like brutalism but recognise there are a lot of cheap knock-offs (literally). I saw a fantastic modern art piece in Berlin. I'm not huge on art so I can't remember the artist or the exact details, but the artist had been asked to do something to mark the Festival of Berlin(?) and agreed but hated the subject matter which included a lot of brutalist architecture. He found a load of these buildings and then fenced in some of the spaces around staircases etc and filled them with rendered fat and left them to set. He then had them lifted out and displayed them to represent the empty spaces created by brutalist architecture. These massive blocks of fat are decades old now and have to be held together with straps. I absolutely loved the insanity of it but also that you can totally picture the spaces he was talking about.
I had to find out more about this because it sounds absolutely unhinged in the best way. The artist is Joseph Beuys and I think the exhibition you're referring to is called 'tallow' and it's every bit as insane as you made it sound, I love it.
Ah it's Beuys. Makes sense now
They can do that. The Ringway in Birmingham is explicitly "carchitecture". So was the former paradise circus. What your saying is a good design style, but it's by no means inherent (or exclusive) to brutalism.
I’m not a brutalist fan by any means, but the Barbican proves that when it’s done right it’s an incredible, beautiful style of building. It’s just a shame when it’s soulless and as you said, and the way the best Brutalism is built with people in mind is incredible. I’ll always think of the way the Barbican has literally everything a person could need within its walls, and I think it shows how when done well, Brutalism is a really interesting architecture style!
Well, the same happened during the Renaissance, some people randomly decided that Gothic buildings sucked and decided to demolish them. We lost lots of valuable and historic Medieval buildings only because some people at that time had a particular subjective and superficial distaste for Gothic/Romanesque buildings. The same could be happening if lots of Brutalist/Modern buildings from the 20th century are demolished just based on personal taste or preference, instead of taking into account their historical and æsthetic value. Moreover, it's way more ecologically friendly to reuse and recycle perfectly good buildings and renovate them, instead of tearing down huge moles of concrete to built another huge mole of concrete. I'm not saying that absolutly all buildings should be preserved, but more aspect than just personal æsthetic taste should be taken into account.
It's not that these buildings are ugly, it's that they're still fully functional and its a complete waste of money. The Ringway Centre literally just needs a tidy up and refurb for a just portion of the price and inconvience for it to be a fully functional and well-incorperated set of offices. The old library was fine and a key part of Birmingham's industrial identity, and knocking it down has been a huge logistical inconvinience in the city centre until recently. This doesn't go to mention how shit it is for the environment. All of this goes on whilst completely non-functional buildings like [Five Ways Tower still exist ](https://uk.news.yahoo.com/demolition-signs-five-ways-tower-112104180.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKUKdJd3bP54xn2PxDu1PBSCQ3HHKB75hFmnZ-_YLJn56F7YTRw05eI37qxWPduLD1IKhK-GERbLGbuAsHh6UDLRT8LEYq0-1BNzb9K97LHck8g8LfuzuSKs4eZWZJsyeG4UaKW5-vbiqIhKJ1SI7lpEOWQLemqlq9uaqHKS1gQ-)and look completely derelict, and whilst the new constructs are completely devoid of taste, character to the city they're within, and too expensive for the city and it's people.
The Barbican is absolutely gorgeous and anyone who thinks otherwise can't see past their own royalist notions.
I dunno if disliking Brutalist architecture is a political thing lol I grew up surrounded by brutalist estates like Ferrier in Kidbrooke and they strike a fear and disgust in me like nothing else can. Couldn't name a more ugly style of building. Personally never understood Barbican's appeal. Always felt like it was middle class people wanting to live in what I felt was a very working class looking environment, just without the issues that may come with it.
It's very imposing, feels like you're in a sci-fi movie. Which is fitting, since it was actually used for a few shots in a recent star wars show.
Nah it just looks cool
South East massif
100% agree with this. However, my wife used to live I Trelik Tower and says that the design was really fantastic. I think they look ugly as hell but I do have a soft spot for practical, good design over aesthetics. I'm on the fence on this one
The barbican is really cool on the inside and conceptually it's great. It's also fucking hideous from the outside.
I love how the Barbican uses water and greenery on the outside, it's the only brutalist building I've ever liked. In fact, it’s the only brutalist building that I’ve not hated.
It's one of the few brutalist buildings that I can think of that actually had a concept to it beyond "cheap and sturdy". Like I said - the whole idea behind it is really cool and somewhat achieved too. The reason it's still ugly to me on the outside is because it would work just as well with almost any other architectural style... But just be better (as long as it's still conceptually kept the same).
Loads of Brutalist buildings had concepts behind them were around supporting communities and building cohesive communities. It is from a political period that tried to create (or 'force' from some perspectives) communities through the design of the space. The current political movement behind the modern 'fancy' tower block is an individualistic philosophy which is designed to impose nothing on people but often makes it impossible for a community to exist in these spaces. Brutalist designs often degraded because while they were designed with a lot of features to support communities and an enjoyable living space they were gutted of the sort of funding that supports these (the Barbican has been able to keep an upkeep of these features) or the community spaces were treated as a threat by law enforcement and heavily policed. Many had spaces that offered some level of privacy from the space that was otherwise well covered by community eyelines, but these were treated as dangerous places for criminals to congregate by law enforcement which lead to them being blocked off or policed which left teenagers with less spaces they can occupy. Also, there is a difference between a Brutalist design that combines various aspects of Brutalist philosophy and design and the square concrete tower blocks scattered across cities to concentrate the poorest members of society into one place.
I'd argue that part of what made the barbican interesting is also the idea of isolation and self containment, rather than cohesive community and support. Its architecture is deliberately designed to make it difficult to enter from outside and the whole thing is built like a keep. That's what makes it kinda work. It is actively meant to seem monolithic and impenetrable from the outside. Saying that - while there's a difference between brutalist design with philosophy and just brutalism in concept, there isn't much in outward appearance. For example the Birmingham Ringway (that a different comment brought up). It's terrible. There's no two ways about it. It has prime placement within the centre and could be so much more. However it exemplifies the whole brutalist approach to the buildings outside of unique conceptual ones (a-la barbican) - build something out of cheap and sturdy contemporary materials. Limited efforts towards visual appeal, if any.
> 'd argue that part of what made the barbican interesting is also the idea of isolation and self containment, rather than cohesive community and support That is the community it is trying to create. A community of the residents, with a space they can escape from the city to.
I'm still sad that they've knocked down the 5 Links Estate in Basildon. My all-t8me favourite piece of Brutalist architecture, and I loved growing up there. You aren't wrong about the community spaces having funding withdrawn and police seeing them as places for criminals to congregate, even when they weren't. Some Brutalist tower blocks are better designed than others IMO, and I think that they do have their niche in Social Housing provision, given how many people are desperately waiting for it now. If they kept up with the maintenance and community areas like playgrounds, I don't see a problem tbh. I've lived in 3 different tower blocks, 2 as a kid, one as an adult. Better than being homeless, which I've also been. They're also in the process of knocking down the Craylands estate, another Brutalist estate in Basildon that I've also lived in. And IMO, they were a LOVELY place to live. The City I live I now doesn't really have the same type of Brutalist architecture, and IMO Basildon has lost a LOT by not preserving at least a couple of examples of each style, as certainly the 5 Links Estate was a very unique design.
Brutalism being hideous is not a political stance.
Exactly, it’s just having working eyes.
I don’t like the Barbican and I’ve been a lifelong Republican. Don’t try to hide your personal aesthetic preferences behind the idea that they’re the only way to be socially progressive.
Not having seen it before, my first impression on looking it up is that it looks absolutely ghastly. There are some brutalist buildings where I like the aesthetic but that's on the other end of the scale. Nice that they put some greenery in/around it at least.
It is an utterly breathtaking experience walking through the Barbican.
Fair, maybe Google Images didn't do the place justice. If it's a controversial one then maybe the worst pics of it are the ones that get the most clicks/shares and ended up at the top of my search.
Because its such an ugly shitty concrete dump?
I agree, the water features, cafe areas, and greenery is beautiful at the Barbican. It is, unfortunately, let down by the drab concrete building. Just about any other architecture style of last 3 millenia would significantly improve the aesthetic. The Barbican is one of the few Brutalist buildings which is surrounded by enough beauty to mask its repulsiveness. Most brutalist buildings do not enjoy those same priveleges.
The Roger Stevens building at Leeds Uni is stunning.
Just googled it and it still looks like random concrete slabs thrown together. It’s more attractive than most other brutalist works I’ve seen, but I still can’t help but feel that literally any other style would be more attractive than what it is.
I can understand that impression from just looking at it in 2D. It doesn't do it justice though - it's really quite an experience seeing it, being surrounded by it, in real life. As with others, I'm no fan of the style in general - but find the Barbican is an exception.
Fair enough I can understand it’s different in real life. Still though, I can’t imagine on a rainy day that this building looks anything other than dark, intimidating, and unwelcoming. I don’t think that’s what I want from a reasonably public university building. I appreciate the Barbican for what it is - an example of a large housing project done right with amenities and open spaces. I think it would be even better if it was built in an attractive style, rather than Brutalism. I don’t want to knock it down or anything I just think it’s a missed opportunity.
[Dunelm House](https://www.ribapix.com/images/thumbs/036/0363209_RIBA19209_600.jpeg) and [Kingsgate Bridge](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/34679ea672851d8a6baf4f48ba457157505a1815/454_419_4010_2405/master/4010.jpg?width=1200&height=900&quality=85&auto=format&fit=crop&s=1657da6a24069dfb43b658994cd993b3) in Durham are my favourites, they just work so well with the [geography of the Wear gorge](https://durhamcity.org/our-work/campaigns/dunelm-house/).
Disgusting. Ugly monstrosities which are such a waste. You could have a timber fronted building like a boathouse with a balcony and pavillion style roof which would have fit the waterfront better than a concrete fucking bunker.
There's one just round the river bend
Kingsgate Bridge is a great way to cross the river. Unlike the other bridges it’s high, so you get great views in either direction. The slimness of the structure is also quite thrilling. The street front of Dunelm House was partly designed to mimic the buildings on either side, some of which have since been demolished. On the river side it very much makes the most of its position, with several terraces and big windows to take in the view and the natural light. It’s a nice place to be. There are several boathouses along the Wear, in fact there’s one at river level in Dunelm House. They don’t all need to look like Victorian pavilions, although one does.
You need some glasses I think
Demolishing the brutalist Birmingham library was a tragedy. It was a gorgeous building.
And the new one has failed to achieve its aims. Not an inherent fault of the building, I’m sure, but you wonder if giving the old one a spruce up might have been the better option in retrospect.
they could have literally stuck those silly hoops cladding on anything, couple of shrubs on the roof, job done
I quite like Southbank in London, maybe just for memories of screwing around there. Just reminded me of the movie High-Rise too, has some great brutalist architecture. I think the estate in Clockwork Orange would count too?
It’s usually developers wanting prime land cheap for more profit that are behind attempts to demolish large buildings. But there’s always useful idiots around who know what they like.
I grew up looking at the Barbican centre buildings, and there's no nostalgia there for me. I feel like the people who like those buildings have the luxury of not having to look at them beyond their passing curiosity. My heart sinks whenever I see these horrendous square concrete eyesores.
Brooke House in Basildon got listed recently and it dominates the skyline in the worst way 🤢. It's not pleasant to be around and needs so much work done residents have been moved out as the building literally is unsafe (stairwell railings I think we're part of the issues).
They have been trying to reverse it for years but Birmingham city centre was ruined by state/council planners. Putting big roads through the city centre admittedly some in tunnels was a disaster and did way more damage than Hitlers bombers.
Ringway centre is a abandoned stain on the city centre
The sheer amount of brutalist buildings/flats that have been knocked down in Glasgow over the past 20 years is unreal. Skyline looks very different to the early 2000s
It's only locally listed, which doesn't really mean anything if the council who gives out the local listings decides to change it's mind. It's also run down, crumbling and a pretty useless eyesore, so no real loss if it were to come down.
Ugly as hell
The quicker that thing goes, the better. The fucking thing is heinous. It's like a cancer on the city centre, sticking out as a massive shithole in an otherwise developing and improving location. Other than the disgusting looks, it's a deathtrap too. Too expensive to actually fix and do something with, but can't be demolished because it's listed.
It's not a campaign against brutalism. It's a campaign against boring buildings. The campaigners have 're-imagined' (their words not mine) iconic UK landmarks, using generative AI, using modern architecture. Brutalism is one example of 'boring', they've done bog standard glass buildings as well.
Gotta love the irony of people trying to prove Brutalism is boring and uncreative, by generating a fictional building using AI - a method with no creativity whatsoever.
Isn't that the point?
It's a bad faith argument. Brutalism has a whole architectural history beyond just block utility building in the 60s. It would take anyone the briefest of googles to see the degree of variety that's been achieved in its style over the world, but there's a contingent that only see Brutalism as one thing and want to drain it of all cultural merit and erase it because it's not to their tastes. People like The Humanise Campaign. Am I supposed to believe then that a group like that have it in their interest to present Brutalism authentically? I'm not a betting man, but I can't imagine they kept their biases out of the AI prompts, and that's on top of the already inherent derivative nature of generative AI.
I was once told that building styles have a specifc life cycle, at least in the uk. Anything new is mildly controversial or pretty, but after about 20 years or so it begins to age badly. By the time it gets to about 40-50 years old it is near unanimously considered hideous, and will be the main target for demolitions and rebuilding. But as it gets to around 60 years the perception shifts (maybe because the worst examples are all gone and we're nostalgic) and people start wanting these buildings preserved, restored and kept around. It becomes iconic, and many start surviving and being restored. By 150 years its considered historical and part of our identity. we will condemn those who tore down so many other similar buildings. And sometimes we start recycling the same styles in a mock/neo fashion Most of these buildings are 50-70 years old now... It's become a debatable subject again..
The whole country is riddled with these abominations. I believe the arguement is to make beautiful buildings that actually inspire going forward rather than raw concrete boxes that give everyone depression.
It’s not the buildings that are giving people depression. Just like it’s not the buildings that are making people poor. Let’s stop blaming man-made problems on inanimate objects.
There is not a singular cause, it is a compounding effect. Peoples physical environments do definitely have an effect.
You dont think the buildings and architecture have the ability to influence human emotions? Why not just build everything the same out of lego or something then?
Cancelling my trip to Rome. A buildings a building and slough is cheaper
It doesn't help to live in an ugly environment. I don't agree it \*gives people depression\*, thats a bit of hyperbole, but it does make me feel a bit down being around big ugly concrete blocks.
They absolutely do contribute to depression, that’s an incredibly poorly thought out comment. Thats why living in tower blocks is even more depressing… they’re ugly as fuck. It hurts the soul. Pretending they have no impact on how people feel is literally childish.
People: “we’re struggling. We need healthcare, jobs and a strong safety net” The enlightened ones: “best I can do is destroy your home because I think it’s an eyesore and that’s the root cause of your problems”
That's a very specious claim, absolutely nobody is saying that.
When rich people are gleefully buying up and (sometimes) living in tower blocks, I think it's not the tower block lifestyle in and of itself that's the problem. How much are flats in Trellick Tower going for these days? https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/136612391#/?channel=RES_BUY I guess people are really keen on being depressed.
A lot of the new builds going up while not *actually* brutalist aren't a million miles off
all the worst parts of brutalism with none of the awe-inspiring stuff. cheap as shit, ugly, identikit
Horrible architecture is absolutely on the rise! For a while, the hideousness was kept a bit in check by their obsession with large amounts of glass and semi circular features, but now the grim cardboard box look is coming back. I have seen the plans for numerous buildings that are verging only the hideously brutalist, and some have also been built. There's a spate of high schools, for example. Here's some examples: [https://www.bimacademy.global/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/queensferry-high-school.jpg](https://www.bimacademy.global/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/queensferry-high-school.jpg) [https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/UserFiles/Image/Projects/Currie%20Community%20High%20School/Currie%20community%20school\_Architype\_2021%20FEB\_Render.jpg](https://www.passivhaustrust.org.uk/UserFiles/Image/Projects/Currie%20Community%20High%20School/Currie%20community%20school_Architype_2021%20FEB_Render.jpg) [https://www.scottishdesignawards.com/2020/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scottish-Design\_OHS\_Featured-Image-1680x1120.jpg](https://www.scottishdesignawards.com/2020/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Scottish-Design_OHS_Featured-Image-1680x1120.jpg) Here's some newly planned or built flats in Edinburgh: [https://www.urbanrealm.com/images/news/newspic\_11742.jpg](https://www.urbanrealm.com/images/news/newspic_11742.jpg) [https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimg/legacy\_elm\_77139416.jpg?crop=3:2,smart&width=990&quality=65&enable=upscale](https://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/webimg/legacy_elm_77139416.jpg?crop=3:2,smart&width=990&quality=65&enable=upscale) [https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/uploads/Comprehensive%20Design%20Architects%20Willowbrae%20Road.png](https://www.scottishhousingnews.com/uploads/Comprehensive%20Design%20Architects%20Willowbrae%20Road.png)
not sure i'd call this brutalist, it's just flat pack modern bullshit
The co-op arena in Manchester is ugly as hell. It may not be brutalist but it certainly has elements of brutalism.
We need to knock them down faster, though
Are you getting paid to post this on every Subreddit? Swear I've seen it 5 times this morning.
*checks their post history* Yup, seems like it.
The Humanise Campaign is a hustle of the design house Heatherwick Studio, the company behind the Garden Bridge and the new Routemaster bus. Basically an AstroTurf campaign.
Fuck. Now I feel gross for having engaged in the discussion. I've helped uptick the 'engagement' in some spreadsheet somewhere.
The very human design of the bus that cooks anyone on the upper deck in summer.
lmaaaaaaaaaooooooooo my goodness, hustle from the arts design CEO how does the GOV build affordable social housing if they have to hire his firm to get skinned to have it painted in rose colour and have some plants on it
Tbh this is just a reminder that Edinburgh Castle is ultimately a military building. The bits we find most aesthetically pleasing were designed for defence, not beauty. It's just that our cultural sense of aesthetics means that if a defensive structure is old enough it's considered beautiful. We're half way there with how we see Cramond Island.
Many of the buildings which make up Edinburgh Castle are quite plain and utilitarian, the result of it being a garrison rather than a residence for much of its history. It’s not an especially attractive building, but the setting masks that.
It was also a sign of prestige though, surely? It's not exactly a palace but it was built-- and most historically significant-- in an era when one laird impressing another could be the difference between a pleasant dinner and a civil war. All these old buildings have some architectural artistic flair to them.
I vaguely know someone who lives in a stunning, grade I listed country manor, which his family had built hundreds of years ago. It’s astonishingly beautiful. He showed us a book which was a series of drawings of Italian villas. The first one is identical to his house. As he phrased it - his ancestor had tons of money, zero patience and no taste. He opened the catalogue and didn’t even make it to page 2 before telling the builders, “I want that one”. Tacky horrible gaudy ostentatious wealth which would have been seen much like footballers mansions at the time, but the house has survived the past 400 years so we now think of it as a _stunning example of classical architecture_ or whatever. I love old buildings and any buildings with character - including brutalism! - but I do find that story very funny.
I've been round Abbotsford, Sir Walter Scott's house. He was hugely influential in causing the Scottish Baronial revival & it's a beautiful house, but is absolutely a Victorian gentleman cosplaying medieval architecture in a way that we'd find really tacky if done now.
So many people think that their personal tastes are objective, timeless and universal, it’s weird.
Classical greek architecture is objectively aesthetically superior and I'll die on my gorgeous marble hill
I love whatever architecture the Natural History Museum is, fucking gorgeous building.
Classical revival I think. When we all tried to be the best European power because we did it most like the Romans and Greeks.
The NHM is Romanesque Revival, rather than Neoclassical. The British Museum is the latter.
My mistake, I was for some reason thinking of the British Museum!
It’s a fairly loose interpretation of Romanesque Revival, which took inspiration from the buildings of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Most of Durham Cathedral is original Romanesque, for comparison.
for me it's columns and arches man, huge elevated aqueducts/viaducts. If I had my way, we wouldn't have motorways. Just viaducts.
Which stands in stark contrast to Greek "architecture" from the past century
"Bro I swear we're still building it, that's why there's a metre of rebar sticking out of the roof, we just haven't finished the top floor yet, please don't tax me"
Roman and greek architecture has survived more than 2000 years and is now spread across the globe to places romans never even imagined. I would say that's pretty fuckin timeless and universal
Surely a beautiful city would have a mix of all styles? A bit of something for everyone, I would even argue we need plain or boring buildings to act as a foil to the more flamboyant and important ones.
You're acting as if castles weren't also built to be beautiful, they were homes too
Most of what you see at Edinburgh was constructed when it was a garrison, not a royal residence. These buildings were mostly built for practicality, rather than beauty.
No I'm not, I specifically addressed this in my comment. When people talk about Edinburgh castle it's the defensive walls they are impressed by not the living quarters, a lot of people think they ruin the look
[удалено]
Exactly this. Campaigning against 'boring buildings' is campaigning against affordable housing in disguise.
Yep. It's never "why can't buildings serve an important purpose (while as a bonus, looking nice)", it's always just "why can't buildings look nice".
Because buildings already serve important purposes, but a lot of them are needlessly ugly?
We already know that they have the capacity to make less hideous buildings than this, even if it impacts on profitability, cheapness is not an excuse for ugliness. Plus a huge amount of the buildings being made hideously are not even supposed to be affordable in the first place. To say that affordable houses have to be hideous to look at is actually going against the needs of the people who deserve to have houses that are both actually good to live in and not depressing to look at.
[удалено]
additionally Thomas Heatherwick isn't an actual architect with accreditation. simply a designer.
Looks like Cumbernauld Castle.
I find it rather charming, but I take it this was designed by an opponent of Brutalism? Actual Brutalism is usually rather striking rather than domestic like this, and the windows look later 20th century to me. \[ETA: no it's just AI apparently, so without any design intent\]. Reading the full article, it seems they're arguing against modern, 'sick' buildings. So why target Brutalism, which ran from 1950s-1980s and was largely about quickly replacing post-war devastation? Also to flag 'Brutalist' isn't a criticism in anyway, the term derives from 'beton brut' meaning 'raw concrete'.
That's what I was thinking, a couple of them on the page are big glass cubes which definitely doesn't scream brutalism to me. Doing it with AI seems to kinda hurt their point cause it takes away the intent like you said, it's just digital noise not actual human design.
Yeah I'm probably in the minority on this, but I do quite like brutalist architecture. I also like the castle how it is now, and glass-and-steel buildings. And seeing then all together. They all have their own form of charm that makes wandering around a British city very pleasant.
Yeah targeting Brutalism seems a bit…unnecessary? Like I get that it’s not everyone’s cup of tea from an aesthetic point of view but people forget that the aims of Brutalism were to turn housing for working people into futuristic moments and places of community. They were built to last and had the requirements of the people they were built for in mind. It’s a shame that a lot of Brutalist buildings have not been properly cared for and have fallen into a state of neglect, which does nothing to help its popularity. But I agree with you, dragging Brutalism into an argument against contemporary architecture just feels a bit silly and pointless esp when it was a way to quickly replace many of the homes that had been destroyed by WW2 in a revolutionary way
I'm hardly a brutalist fan, but it can look okay when maintained imo. The biggest issue for me is the fact raw concrete just shows off the dirt like nothing else. It's odd too, we have a lot of old buildings in limestone, which gets similarly dirty, and yet still looks alright.
In my opinion that's due to the detailing on limestone buildings, as the decorations are designed draw the eye. Where in brutalist architecture it's the form that's the focus if anything, so the entire building suffers more from the impact of dirt as there is less to distract from it. Though I am a fan of Brutalist architecture so may be biased.
Swear that’s Rebirth Island
In Leicester we / they painted the brutalist PO / Telecom building. It looks much better now.
One of those buildings is definitely a flat roof pub.
Monstrous…
Cumbernauld--On-Hill
Thanks, I hate it.
Brutalism is an integral part of architectural history, has contributed both to aesthetics and utility, and as such its prominent examples must be preserved, as for any other style. It’s culture and history even if you personally don’t agree with aesthetics. By now architecture moved on and brutalism isn’t a thing. What does the campaign pursue?
Thanks, I hate it
I actually really like this. I wouldn’t actually want it to replace the castle, but I like it. I do have a soft spot for Brutalism.
As a student studying Architectural Technology, I can tell you we are advised against brutalism at every step. Brutalism is seriously advised against as it is not seen as eco-friendly which is getting a real push in the course (at least in Edinburgh)
The only people who like brutalist are the stuck up 60s generation who hate to see anything positive in the world
That’s so fucking cool to me idk
I unironically love this, but then I'm a fan of Brutalist architecture. It looks like something Chris Nolan would build for a Bond villain.
I like boring buildings. Some buildings should stand out, like corner buildings, pubs, parliament, museums, whatever. But if every building stood out then we’d live in a wilderness of architect’s egos. Sometimes refinement, or buildings that whisper rather than shout is right. Some of our most beautiful streets- Regent Street, Royal Arcade, Grey Street in Newcastle- comprises repetitive elements with a dialogue of constraint. This is correct. This Humanise Heatherwick marketing vehicle is simply decorating ‘iconic’ or deliberately loud buildings with ‘soft’ or boring architectural forms- as if we would. He only needs to look to the Scottish Parliament to see that his entire thesis is misguided
Heatherwick comes across as a charlatan anyway. B of the Bang, the Routemaster, the Garden Bridge, the New York Vessel -- skilled at sifting off public works funding and building (or not) faulty, deficient or not fit for purpose designs.
Yeah this is how we get shit like the golden jobby hotel at the st James centre in Edinburgh.
Big brother is watching you.
Hows this a good use of time
A what campaign?
Why aren't the windows boarded up !? 😬
Looks Soviet old skool Imo
Looks like a council estate in Glasgow
NGL I love it, more brutalist castles pls
We’re literally nothing without history
And anyone who believes this is a bigger bell end than the publisher of this post
Wtf is the humanise campaign?
I see that some people love Brutalist buildings, but I find them to be terrible, drab, grey concrete monuments to depression. They look like a cross between a military bunker and something from dystopian films. If you love them, great, we're all different.
Looks like a fascinating dystopia. A perfect urbex spot.
To look like a Chinese concentration camp?
Looks like a government research station.
I was scrolling past and thought "ooh that reminds me of Edinburgh Castle!". Must be more observant than I thought.
That looks terrible. Absolutely horrid, makes me want to cry. I love this r/ because it really makes me appreciate what we have!
Hahaha I love this!
I think the intention was to make the brutalist building look worse, but by even vaguely capturing the form of a more traditional building, it would have been one of the best of the brutalist buildings, but still far worse than the building it replaces in this view. In my view, having looked at some of the best brutalist and other modern architecture (not sure there's much difference), the obsession with simplicity and plainness / meaning almost invariably makes the building uglier and age faster (and not in a good way, for you can have aging that makes a building more attractive), whilst the best examples put a lot of effort into adding purely unnecessary details which add complexity, and are consciously composed using broadly the aesthetical principles as is found in traditional formal architecture, so don't support brutalism per se, which is supposed not to do such things and let the essential functional form and materials do all the talking (which is funny, because the materials have turned out to be poor quality and age badly), so that in fact it makes more sense just to build a traditional style to be beautiful because at least won't want to rip it down and from a sustainability point of view, classical and even gothic, are thereby superior and clearly age well. Yet many modern architects would claim this as the more meaningful architecture.
Unbelievably depressing and prison-like
May it burn in hell
I want to shoot myself
does it come with padded walls too?
The public school version of Hogwarts.
This looks like some sort of building built in a former Eastern-Bloc country that was abandoned in the 90s after the fall of communism
Looks like the rest of Edinburgh
It's like a stone prison
Brutalist architecture is just nihilism
When you photograph those 'lovely old buildings' when they're blackened with pollution and with a drab grey filter, they look pretty shit too.
I actually really like it
Architectural vision or not, 80% of the time being surrounded by Brutalist architecture makes me feel bloody miserable
Thomas Heatherwick is a self promoting arsehole. He's shit at architecture, he's certainly no genius like Gaudi, his designs are just gaudy, unnecessarily complicated, yet oh so boring and exorbitant to maintain. Thankfully, his will definitely not stand the test of time but for now, they must still be tolerated and endured. As for this latest campaign, what if famous landmarks from a bygone age were designed in architectural styles that didn't exist till modern times, it's so bloody unimaginative and unconsidered, founded on a false premise and oh so typical of Thomas Heatherwick. Please stop supporting him and more than that, stop commissioning him! If this rendition of a castle is Heatherwick's concept of iconic Brutalism, he's obviously as shit and boring at Brutalism as he is with his usual dross
Thought they looked alright tbh. If they wasn’t brutalist architecture, come to the University of York.
Looks like Cumbernauld 😂
People might scoff, but they fail to recognize that with just adequate maintenance and much nicer weather than Edinburgh historically has had, this concrete beauty could easily last upwards of 40 to 50 years. That's 4–5 decades!
Lazy post. This is just Cumbernauld town centre before it started falling apart.
Thanks, I hate it...
Yup, looks horrible 👌
What in the ai is this?
It's giving me bond vibes.
I'm a fan of Brutalism but this just looks awful
Put a satellite on that and you have the same location from the tv Netflix show “3 body problem “
As others have pointed out, many Brutalist buildings are being torn down in the UK and further afield right now. I do wonder if, like with many other buildings torn down as they did not accord with contemporary tastes (Penn Station in NYC for example), we will eventually miss these buildings when they are gone? . . . . They do mostly look like shit though...
Interesting reading everyone's comments, but can I point out that brutalism, is not specifically the actual design of the barbican, for instance, but mostly due to the fact that concrete is used....the architects who designed the building never intended for it to be a brutalist building as so many have mentioned. It was the intent of the architects to have a Mediterranean, swedish, Roman feel to it. And designed accordingly. It was NEVER intended to be a Brutalist building The building was intended to be clad with white marble, mosaics and other decorative material. This, in the end, was rejected due to cost implications. So this would void it from being a brutalist building due to said mentioned materials being used. It's a very contentious debate to weather it is in fact a brutalist building but I fear it is classed as thus due to the expanse of concrete on view. If anyone queries this view, then they are wrong as most of these points are taken from the barbican website and the experienced curator of the barbican building.
That’s beautifully harsh
Ellis Island?