The term brutalist has been misapplied over the past few decades. Originally "concrete brute" was meant to signify the strength and heroism of mankind itself. The thought was that our buildings should be raw expressions of the power and capability of the builders. Mirroring this movement was modernism, which strove for honesty and integrity of materials. Concrete may be the best example of a modern (modern in terms of design and usage of materials-not chronologically modern-ancient Romans had concrete technology). What's most ironic about brutalism is that many of these structures have been left to decay, indicating the decay of the institutions themselves which were once regarded as heroic and sacred.
If you ask the "average" person (is there such a person?) they may not swoon over Brutalist architecture anywhere near as much as some architects in search of the next retro style du jour. The massive bus station in Preston, Lancashire, UK was a piece of brutalist work (although I don''t recall it being referred to as brutalist at the time). Its on the UK's National Register of historic buildings. I'm sure that Boston City Hall would fall under a similar consideration. Can't say that the "style" (is that what it is??) is all that appealing to me but it did represent an era when some innovative building design and construction methods were being tried out. The structures will certainly outlast the flimsy stick frame and stucco structures so beloved by the banking fraternity eager to extract as much profit from a project as possible.
When I was growing up Brutalism was extremely popular but as Phillip stated, it wasn't called that. I loved it. Even before I was in architecture school I was obsessed. I enjoy the raw, massive and in-your-face nature of this style. I also enjoy the fact that architects were "going there" (out of the box) with it. It was our own little take on Futurism and it has survived to now show this generation of architects what cool is. I think because the use of raw materials is hugely popular now and we are obsessed with VINTAGE things, it was inevitable that we start looking at what kind of architecture fits into that idee fixe. There is a mood that Brutalist buildings have and essence they contain which can a perfect backdrop to any motif or theme.
We used to create "Brutalist" concrete structures using rough sawn timber and although the finished effect is raw and "brutal" it did require considerable care and attention to designing the form work, possibly more so than cleaner line design ?
Extraordinary stuff. They certainly knew how to build in the "old days!"
The term brutalist has been misapplied over the past few decades. Originally "concrete brute" was meant to signify the strength and heroism of mankind itself. The thought was that our buildings should be raw expressions of the power and capability of the builders. Mirroring this movement was modernism, which strove for honesty and integrity of materials. Concrete may be the best example of a modern (modern in terms of design and usage of materials-not chronologically modern-ancient Romans had concrete technology). What's most ironic about brutalism is that many of these structures have been left to decay, indicating the decay of the institutions themselves which were once regarded as heroic and sacred.
If you ask the "average" person (is there such a person?) they may not swoon over Brutalist architecture anywhere near as much as some architects in search of the next retro style du jour. The massive bus station in Preston, Lancashire, UK was a piece of brutalist work (although I don''t recall it being referred to as brutalist at the time). Its on the UK's National Register of historic buildings. I'm sure that Boston City Hall would fall under a similar consideration. Can't say that the "style" (is that what it is??) is all that appealing to me but it did represent an era when some innovative building design and construction methods were being tried out. The structures will certainly outlast the flimsy stick frame and stucco structures so beloved by the banking fraternity eager to extract as much profit from a project as possible.
When I was growing up Brutalism was extremely popular but as Phillip stated, it wasn't called that. I loved it. Even before I was in architecture school I was obsessed. I enjoy the raw, massive and in-your-face nature of this style. I also enjoy the fact that architects were "going there" (out of the box) with it. It was our own little take on Futurism and it has survived to now show this generation of architects what cool is. I think because the use of raw materials is hugely popular now and we are obsessed with VINTAGE things, it was inevitable that we start looking at what kind of architecture fits into that idee fixe. There is a mood that Brutalist buildings have and essence they contain which can a perfect backdrop to any motif or theme.
We used to create "Brutalist" concrete structures using rough sawn timber and although the finished effect is raw and "brutal" it did require considerable care and attention to designing the form work, possibly more so than cleaner line design ?
I have a soft spot for Brutalism. It can look uncompromising
but it does have a solid feel to it. Reassuring.
They look fantastic and get better with age. Solid materials left raw and natural, just the way they should be.