so whats the theory behind brutalism? I can't imagine why commies would want their cities filled this disgusting hunks of concrete
it's total recall
it's the crisis of functionalism
it's a reminder of your place in the scheme of things
i think it's appropriate for penitentiaries or judicial systems or communist states where you want to put people in their place
Brutalism wasn't communist. It was popular in Europe and America. Soviet and Stalinist architecture was only occasionally similar to brutalism.
It was mostly driven by the cult of Le Corbusier but it had a lot to do with the ease and flexibility of concrete as a building material. It's ugliness was apparently only appreciated later. The love of concrete inspired lots of shitty, but sometimes cool architecture, such as the Sydney opera house.
So, what book do you want to discuss?
I think you'd like this one :)
>I can't imagine why commies would want their cities filled this disgusting hunks of concrete
It's cheap, ecologically sustainable, convenient. All of the world will eventually move to living in hunks of concrete, it's simply inevitable. People won't keep wasting inordinate amounts of money and non-renewable resources just for the sake of muh aesthetics.
I fucking love this shit. Plenty of it around the Lower Mainland of BC.
The Barbican Estate is some of my favourite Brutalist architecture in London.
Montreal has some nice brutalist architecture too
pic related. our university architecture is so ugly that it made for the perfect setting for a dystopian Planet of the Apes sequel
I wont post an elaborate reply since I'm lazy and actually want to go to sleep, but I will direct you in proper direction. A two part BBC documentary series by Jonathan Meades. Highly recommended.
t. archi student
Why didnt they film in the presidio modelo?
Brutalism was also a product of futurism, something near and dear to your precious namesake, you childish tripfag
Seriously, fuck off. You're the worst trip here, and that's saying something.
SFU campus is one of the few examples of brutalism that worked. Edmonton has a bunch of brutalist building also, but they all look like shit.
That pic is shit brutalism, though.
that does not look much better. I could see that building looking nice if it did not have those off shoots and got rid of that red brick base. That plaza is awful, if there was some grass and vegetation it could work.
ayy that looks like one of the buildings from my old uni
I like most of the shapes but the cement on these have really aged. A good deal of these could use a good pressure washing.
Is there any Brutalism that works with something like glass instead of cement?
The theory is to show off the 'power' of the age they were living in. Normally people would want to hide the steel and concrete that make a building and cover it with a nice, pleasing design. Brutalist designers, on the other hand, wanted people to see the brawn of the stark concrete and other materials that went into making the building, to show the strength/superiority of their technological progress. It looks ugly now though IMO
huh. I pass by this building every day to work and never knew that the design had a name to it.
does this count brutalist architecture?
Man these concrete buildings are cold as balls.
>The love of concrete inspired lots of shitty, but sometimes cool architecture, such as the Sydney opera house.
It was this love that nearly killed the opera house as the design couldn't hold itself up that well, it was inspired by rearranging the peels of an orange, I think everything else was secondary to the look.
The aesthetic really fits for courthouses
I don't think i'd want to work there though :/
This looks very similar to one of the buildings on my campus.
>those slabs and overhang blocking all the light
>rows of fluorescent lights on during the day
why did the architect even bother using glass when he could have used more concrete?
Canada gets cold; most of the building is underground anyway.
>in the cold
i literally cannot think of a building i've seen that has less of a use for windows than that one
concrete was cheap and versatile
on a stylistic level, you know when people in the past made promotional films and pictures about life centuries on. There was always the presumption that everything would be made from the same material, notably plastic. Well in this case it was unadorned concrete
if it's so bad how come london hasn't used some of its jew banker gold to build a new theatre?
>still complaining about commie blocks
They've already rectified that problem.
Shit, this post is golden. Look at how he structured the lines, guys.
utility and aesthetic are not separate
much of the idea was plain wrong, more so our enthusiasm for it as ' panacea '. it failed from an elementary understanding of street design but let it be remembered that high rises were always to be part of an all encompassing strategy that in most cases was never brought forward. although mostly because it was space agey so in those practical terms it fails too.
However the broad brush strategy required a cohesive level of control to a totalitarian degree. many of the derivatives throughout Europe failed to protect basic corporate management and lost central control/unding part way through each project.
That's not even from the USSR, it's Trellick Tower in London, though it was designed by Hungarian Ernő Goldfinger.
Whenever we'd drive past it when I was little my brother would claim it was called 'Squidgeysaurus' cos it looked like a dinosaur.
>blaming design when you should be thinking about ownership
it doesn't matter what homes you talking about. if it falls in private ownership, conditions will diverge with income/wealth
tenements in the east poor and dirty with a few tenements in the west still expensive and prestigious
flats in russia crumbling and depressing with some apartment blocks in Rio the height of luxury
same is true for houses, maisonettes, terraced, detached, semis, bungalows
The key is ownership and principally balance between different mixes of private social rent and mortgaged
So with that in mind.
OFFICIAL LIVING SITUATION POWER RANKINGS
1. Owning outright
2. Mortgaged ownership
3. Shared Ownership
4. Shared equity
5. Council rent
6. Other social rent
7. Private let
55. Living with your parents
105. Couch surfing
1000. Rogue landlords
But more damaging than either one is the ranking system itself. - the 'property ladder' encouraging aspiration, some times needless, and envy. One of those suits your circumstances. That's it.
>flats in russia crumbling and depressing with some apartment blocks in Rio the height of luxury
You're a moron. Almost every single apartment in Russia (90% or more) is privately-owned. Russia is one of the few places on Earth where almost everyone owns property. (Last I recall, something like 80% of the population owns property, 60% own more than one property, including land.)
Coming from an ex Communist country, I feel disgusted by brutalism because I have to see these old hunks of concrete everyday. You wouldn't believe how depressing they look during the winter or autumn.
Only few of the examples posted here caught my eye, rest of it is fairly meh or outright shit.
P.S. and here's a citation for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
Clearly, the places with lots of commieblocks are also the places with a high rate of property ownership.
(Ironically, the high rate of ownership is also what contributes to making commieblock cities drab and utilitarian.)
Because we all love the current theatre.
Not the same person. I called him "Evola Kid" once and he adopted the trip. A little later he added my name for some fool reason. I think he may be rightwing but still trolling with all his monarchy bs.
I agree. I've always prefered the Art Deco/Art Nouveau styles. Even when they're just halfway there.
Does this count?
>TFW people don't appreciate brutalism.
>TFW people think it's somehow oppressive.
If a building oppresses you, you must be a very sensitive person. It's a million times better than the neo-classical garbage that's so popular these days.
where you at boston friend?
I wont suck your dick but I will slap your ass
i want my library to look like a fucking STAR DESTROYER. why? because wiht knowledge you can take off for the stars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! fucking learning nerds hahahahahah
fact: the reason u guys have to settle for star destroyer libraries instead of actual star destroyers is that we don't have enough collective STEM knowledge to build star destroyers. if you truly value the humanities you will become a stem major, contribute to the star destroyer project, and then build a library on the star destroyer.
>There is a reason it's called "brutalism" yes?
It comes from a french word for raw concrete. It has nothing to do with Brutality.
I think it's strong and protective. It also looks really good when contrasted with nature.
I would love a Super Star Destroyer mock up library.
I support STEM. Material world and all that jazz.
Socialist architecture (I can't talk about communist arch. because I live among socialist arch.) is fucking beautiful, man.
And whoever said it was just "utility" was wrong. it's clearly ideological- arranging Man's living conditions into regular geometrical shapes like that, imposing on the skyline with the brute force of concrete...it's an ideological tool, same as a propaganda poster.
But generally, I find it very comfortable on the inside. The hallways are warm, it's heated by a central heating plant (which is rare in Europe), the apartments are small but very functional...I live in a townhouse, but I always feel more comfortable in these babies. Love 'em. And not just cause I'm a commie.
>Only faggots like you can appreciate overwhelming, abrasive mass of monolithic cock in your ass.
>western corporate architecture is totally not ten times more phallic than communist/socialist architecture
>westerners are not getting ass-fucked by their ideological architecture ten times more penetratingly than us with our nice square (not phallic) heavens of solidarity and comfort
New concrete is not ugly to look at. Its impressive and bold: it is the uncompromising architecture full of life force and modern urban planning.
The issue is decay. Concrete decays less gracefully than any other mainstream material; combine that with a state of neglience that follows the failure of modernist architecture and people's failure to care for their surroundings, and the modern concrete is there. Much like Evola et Co: initial force deteriorates into a sad note.