For any Brutalism Enjoyers in the audience: I don't want you to feel invalidated or attacked, and I'd genuinely love to see examples that you like and hear what you enjoy about the style. Just because I'm an Opinionated Bitch doesn't mean you're not allowed to like what you like. My sass is pointed squarely at the architects whose works I've critiqued, never the people who use or appreciate those spaces. -B
I think what's happening here is conflating two different purposes of architecture: art and utility. I used to hate brutalism, and I still don't especially like the soviet living blocks you showed examples of. But you've gotta admit there's something intriguing about those unncessarily grand, almost megalomaniac public structures with their harsh edges and washed out concrete look. Yeah I wouldn't enjoy having to interact with them on a daily basis and being surrounded by them, but coming from somewhere else as a tourist they definitely are eye-catchers that make your attention linger. Much the same way I might prefer to hang up an inoffensive Monet in my living room, but in a museum I'd seek out a more surrealist Picasso or Dali. An example you didn't show that I really like is the ICC Kyoto; yeah it looks like a villains lair and it's conventionally ugly, but things don't have to be beautiful and perfect for them to speak to us.
vendetta. (jk) i wouldnt want a brutalist city. but i do love the extraterrestrial vibe they have especially when placed in a more conventional surrounding. an example i really like is the geology building of the university of bern. it only really woks when experienced in contrast to the biology building facing it. (best on street view or live) or a building by helmut spieker at the university of marburg which has these weird roofs. And while contemporary buildings tend to be glass cubes these are unique and pose the question why someone would chose this shape specifically. i like thinking about that. and obviously it is cool to seemingly defy phisics, which must have been more impressive when reinforced concret just came on the scene. we are spoiled with technological achievments (yay).
I feel like trying to make brutalist architecture something so avant-garde kind of violates its own premise, so I see what you mean calling those pretentious, but it's still kind of funny to me that brutalism of all things could be considered pretentious.
I once heard someone say that the main problem with brutalism is its very modern art approach: it aims to challenge, to provoke, to evoke strong feelings beyond "it looks nice", which make it a very interesting style to study and architects, when they’ve already studied other traditional styles, are fascinated by it. Except for a building you’re going to live in and walk under, "it looks nice" is exactly the feeling you should evoke, especially if the "you" isn’t an architect, like most people,
I just bemoan the missed opportunity to make medieval castles in the modern day. Give the concrete molds some large stone stone block textures like is done with fake brick walls and a bit of fake castle defense architecture for exterior ornamentation and that's a concrete slab building people would happily rent an apartment in. Stop trying to change architecture by being contrarian and feed the public's inner child by fulfilling the dreams we had while playing in a box fort at age 6.
As an illustrator and minor architecture nerd (my minor in school was art history and I spent multiple semesters in modern architecture classes) I had this fight with SO many professors.
I feel as if it's ok to provoke emotion, except when the emotion provoked is a fundamental and primal *dislike* for the structure, that was perhaps the wrong emotion to provoke.
Nah, you dont get it. Some people just love the way it looks. Not every single brutalist building, mind you (like the one without any windows) but so many of then look incredible to me. This is also true for those that I see in my daily life. Like, this discussion really boils down to "different people like different things" and just because the world of architecture is at a certain level of snobbiness by default people feel that incredibly overwhelming urge to intellectualise their feelings one way or another.
the thing is the early developers of brutalism emphasized that the raw concrete facades were not only meant to be some ode to honesty of materials because you weren't covering up what they're made of, they were meant to be a blank canvas for human intervention (ie murals, decoration, potted plants, etc). later developers were like "blank canvas, gotcha. grey forever"
Later developers misinterpreting early béton brute as meant to left unpainted has the same kind of vibe as people looking at the statues and buildings of Classical Greece and Rome thoudands of years later and misinterpreting them purposedly lacking paint.
It's the "ode to honesty" shit that has never sat right with me. The fetishization of 'authenticity' and looking down on decorations as somehow fake is just the height of wankery, imho. It's fine when you apply it to personal art, but not publically-funded public works.
Brutalism really works as a canvas for greenery. Take any brutalist structure, clad it in vines, draping flowers, and integrating nature into it. Treat it as a flower pot, essentially. The contrast between the bare, uniform concrete and green chaos is a wonderful combination. I took some courses at a community college with this aesthetic and it gave the feeling of a natural canyon, with caves and alcoves, lush with greenery, and full of life. Behind all that greenery were the stark right angles and blocky concrete forms, that allowed the natural elements to take center stage while maintaining functionality.
That's why Brazillian Modernism - which overlaps considerably in Brutalism - surprisingly works. It's brute concrete yes but with curves and blended with lush landscaping it's almost SEXY
Uh, so do most modern and many historical architectural styles. Brutalism is just so ugly it manages to add the extra layer of intrigue that kind of makes it work in way.
I've found one place where brutalism kinda seems to work: Underground. I visited the Washington DC subway system and found that the solidity of the concrete seemed like a nice counter to the fear of being a hundred feet below the surface. I can definitely imagine the pretentiousness invading the simple architecture of the arch hall, but I distract myself by imagining how LOTR dwarves would have used raw concrete to make one feel safe in a grand space below the surface.
As someone who's lived in post-Soviet apartment blocks their whole life - they actually DON'T suck as long as they are maintained, and they are accompanied by the quality of urban planning that would make a suburban American weep. My building is 11 floors tall, has 121 small apartments and I'm extremely comfortable here. The rent is cheap, I have great views from my 8th floor windows, the building is well-insulated, heated and ventilated. It's surrounded by trees, some of which are over 50 years old at this point and there's a small park right next to the building. I have public transport and basically ALL basic services and shops available within 10 min walking distance. And I do mean ALL, that includes groceries, a hairdresser, a vet, a public library, an ice cream place, a shoe store (they do repairs too!), a car mechanic, flower shop, several kindergartens and schools (all the way to high school level), a church, a post office... And there's a train station, two mid-sized supermarkets, several restaurants, a massive mall, an IKEA and two hardware/home improvement stores within 15 min walk. Is it beautiful architecture? Hell no. Is it a FANTASTIC place to live? Absolutely. And if you go beyond the basic, utilitarian housing or dirty industrial buildings and ignore the pretentious essays, there's some truly magnificent concrete architecture out there. If you look at high quality, high concept designs, you get amazing craftsmanship, thoughtful use of materials, integration of green spaces... For just one example in Poland, google Spodek concert hall in Katowice. It looks like a giant flying saucer and the surroundings were redesigned and renovated fairly recently. I absolutely love it. And it occasionally plays the Encounters of the Third Kind music in the middle of the night.
Yeah, brutalism's inception was form dictated BY function. The epitome of the saying "Form follows function" cast in concrete for the world to see. Brutalism is rooted in the idea of allowing "art" to be subservient to getting stuff to WORK. in short true brutalism is when you say f--- aesthetics I'm making this do stuff! Which as Blue points out is... not what most people DO with it. That pretentious edginess that a lot of it has... is because it's using shapes that have no practical function. 9:20 looks GREAT! 9:25 looks like a waste of concrete.
Forgive me for my ignorance- if you can not, Then pity me, I am at your mercy. Please help me understand; you are obviously bilingual (or poly) which is so wonderful to me, you were b. In Russia? Why or who influenced you to learn English- Or does everyone know English? I feel so lost and enveloped in America sometimes. I would love to know more of what is really going on… could you help? Something tells me you are the one.
@@NotThisShipSister1 I'm Polish and I've lived in Poland my whole life. I started learning English when I was around 8, the local community center offered classes for kids. I can't imagine NOT wanting to learn a foreign language, if you have the opportunity. It opens up the world for you. There's so much more information I can access, music, books and movies I can enjoy, people I can meet, jobs I'm qualified for. English is the obvious first choice given the American culture's dominant position and importance on the job market. But I also speak a bit of Russian, Ukrainian and Spanish (not fluent at all, but I can manage a simple conversation). I guess initially it was my parents who wanted me and my brother to learn English, but it was fun and I always enjoyed the lessons. And not everyone speaks fluent English here, but most people under 40, especially in big cities, know at least a little English.
@@NotThisShipSister1 My native language is actually English. I have however spent a lot of time overseas doing military stuff though, and yes, I do have some understanding of several languages, Though not conversational skills. I blame that on learning pieces of several languages, and not actually sticking to one language. I actually did at one point live in an old Russian built barracks. It had interesting architecture. Functional, simple, but not bad. Never seen skylights in a latrine before... but that style worked nicely.
@@NotThisShipSister1 yea, I think for most people the benefit of having much more open doors to some things is just very nice. Also you will be instantly much more accepted by people of that language if you speak it. "There is no bigger compliment than learning another's language". And while English is the most widely used language, Mandarin, Spanish and French will go a long way as well. (as much as I would like to promote learning german, you really don't get that much out of it) Also I think you will be surprised on how many English comments on the internet are made by people that have it as their second language.
I grew up in a Soviet era building and it wasn't soul sucking at all. When concrete buildings have normal window placement and a coat of paint they don't feel like oppressive monuments, they just feel like home.
Personal experience has a tendency to triumph over design sensibility in most areas of art, I feel like. Doesn't matter that it's "bad" when you have a positive association to it - like you said, it just registers as "home".
@@pedroscoponi4905 to be fair, most so-called commie block neighbourhoods are incredibly well designed (i mean, just look how well they held up after half a century of neglect), arguably better than the majority of modern structures, designed for the needs of the time and with a human approach towards the needs of the citizens that is severly lacking today
What you describe is THE main point of why Brutalism is NOT the endpoint. It's supposed to evolve into something more. It may start as a grey block of oppressive concrete... but it can be decorated, painted, and personalised either by individual parts or by the whole building. This is why when i see brutalist architecture ending up being vandalised and overgrown, it lifts away the emotional drain and lets it be free. At least, that is my own personal opinion.
@@pedroscoponi4905 It's art. Subjective allways trumps objective there because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is do people like it. Besides if people who live in a building like the building and it satisfies their requirments, I don't see how it's a bad building.
"I wanna give some special thanks to friends of mine who listened to the first draft of this video in the form of a very off-the-cuff diatribe on a video call a few weeks back. I know you wondered, and yes, Red and I truly are like this all the time." Relatable.
The biggest irony I can think of when it comes to things related to Brutalism is the use of it in the Metro. The two Cold War rivals, the US and USSR, both have an iconic subway system for their capital. Moscow’s stations are known for being some of the most beautiful stations in the world (following citizens deserve beauty philosophy), while DC used a Brutalist (a design philosophy that’s fits more with the Soviet ideals that the American one to the point where Brutalism is more associated with communism) design for its stations.
I think the problem with a lot of Brutalist works is that they were meant to take away all the filigree and ostentation so that all the other things, like light, water, trees, and people, could be seen clearly, rather than fuzzed out and lost in the sea of intricate details. The problem is, almost every time it's actually implemented, they don't *do* any of that. The architect *doesn't* put in the effort to catch the light and reveal the earth. They *don't* put the human element on display, except as tiny isolated specks against a featureless grey void or faceless throngs that are already shorn of detail. They don't include urban forest and lavish gardens and extensive growing things. Exceptions to this pattern are just that: exceptions. And when the pretentious boosters rant and rave about how much better their work is than all other architecture, they *definitely* don't do any of that. They take pictures under harsh, undifferentiated, often unnatural light, when there are no people present, or just one or two for that "look how vast it is" thing. The proselytizers don't *let* that greenery and those natural lines contrast against the sharp unnatural lines of efficient concrete. Brutalism can work. It's not my preference, but it _can_ work. It just so rarely _does_ because its advocates don't let the thing be a canvas and a contrast. They try to make it the only thing the eye is allowed to see, and in so doing they ruin the entire benefit of the style. Then, often, they doubly ruin even the philosophy of the style, by _adding back ornamentation_ so that the visual space actually contains something again. Random pylons and crosshatch shaped buildings are not utilitarian! Arrow-slit windows are only utilitarian if you mean to withstand a bloody siege! If the whole point is that utility alone can have its own beauty, don't ruin that by _inserting things with zero utility!_
Honestly this also captures a lot of my annoyance with the apparently-typical "brutalist" works. Build the drainage into the flooring pattern! Position the walls to leave open sunny gardens! Shape the walkways to make the wind flow where you want it and shelter people from the wind where you don't! There are so many opportunities for the architecture to participate in making the space itself more habitable. But such things just get replaced by "well, we put the foundation above the roof and made it out of concrete, so that's brutalist, right?" Or worse: "weird + concrete = brutalism".
I've renovated my home in Orkcore. The look is dominated by red, grey, and brown. Brown leather and brown wood. Grey concrete, grey iron, grey stone, occasionally grey stained wood such as my house number sign. Red leather, sedona red stained wood, a bit of red trim, red painted roof. Dark ages war/hunting weapons such as battleaxes, shields, and spears as decorations. Hide rugs and Navajo rugs. Raw materials and recycled materials such as barnwood tables. Exposed industrial elements such as large bolts where practical and industrial iron brackets. Pointiness added everywhere it can be done safely, such as pointy plants, pointy curtain-rods, pointy fencing, pyramid tacks, horns, antlers.
Such a delightful video essay. I wrote a short paper on brutalism in university. I think an important element of brutalism that's easy for english speakers to miss is that in French, the word "Brut" doesn't have the same connotation as it does in english. "Brut" is closer to the word "Raw" in French.
My favorite example of Brutalism is the DC Metro! The stations of the DC Metro are a sight to behold. The flashing lights, the hexagonal floor tiles, the waffles...chef's kiss design. Many Metro stations were designed by Chicago architect Harry Weese, and they not only have aspects of Brutalist design, but also reflect the influence of Washington's neoclassical architecture in their overarching coffered ceiling vaults! Weese worked with lighting designer Bill Lam from Cambridge, MA on the indirect lighting used throughout the system. Weese and his employees visited European cities like Lisbon, Moscow, Milan, Paris, Rome, and Stockholm, hoping to take the best elements of each and combine them into the perfect system for DC. In Lisbon, they noted the design of the ticket booth and the attendant’s uniform, as well as the minimal interruption of the subway stairs on a typical street. In Moscow, they took note of the palatial glories of the underground stations, from cut-glass lanterns to marble paneling. In Milan, they took note of its Modernist design. Weese created a proposal with dozens of views for station interiors with a simple semiellipse, with a flat bottom and curved top. For cut-and-cover stations, the vault was proposed to have straight, vertical walls supporting a curved ceiling. In Weese’s first presentations to the US Commission of Fine Arts during the spring and summer of 1967, he attempted to assimilate his European travels into something Washingtonian, stations are shallow when possible, entered through cuts in the sidewalk, as in Lisbon, with minimal interruptions between street and platform. But the CFA wanted it to feel monumental, no exposed rock walls like Stockholm, and something like the inside of a thermos bottle. So he changed his thought. He felt the necessities of each station would produce the variety, that "You don't try to make them different for different's sake. We think it's very appropriate for Washington. After all". To Weese, the sweeping, swooping, floating lines of Metro's plazas, stations and mezzanines are the system's best feature. Once they were chosen, he said, the long, long escalators and the indirect, somewhat dim lighting in stations fell into step as a result.
As a kid taking trips to DC the metro stations always reminded me of caves. Each time I hoped to see bats fly out of it but I was disappointed every time.
Yeah I was about to say, Blue makes an entire video shitting all over brutalism, complete with fictional dystopias which actually appear to feature Art Deco and an entire tangent about train station, but somehow completely ignores the entire WMATA system.
This is such an alien mindset that Blue has that it confuses the hell out of me. Not the distaste for pretentious architects, that I understand. But he shows an absolutely gorgeous building and then goes "Look at this disgusting pile of confusing garbage!" and I'm just sitting here going "...so is this another thing I like because I'm Autistic or is it just a different taste thing?" Especially that super colorful one the french dude made, it's so nice. "Why is it so confusing?" That's confusing? It's as busy to look at as all the gothic and art deco stuff out there, with all the random shit all over the place. If anything it's simpler and calmer to look at. One of my favorites is the Kyoto International Conference Center. And to be fair to Blue, I listen to weird dark ambient music and would enjoy walking through hallways that look straight out of the manga BLAME! and would happily live underground or like, inside a supervillain's lair. I'm kind of weird. The fact that it's weird is what makes it interesting. A lot of architecture just bores me, and funnily enough, most of the examples of architecture Blue brought up as his favorites, look boring or even ugly to me. Gothic stuff looks like it's covered in greebles, I don't get it.
As an Art History student who is really into the old stuff, I always dreaded having to get classes about Brutalism, it was my punching bag. HOWEVER, during the lectures on post 19th century architecture and having to endure the nonsense theories of Corbusier, aka Corby, I was actually pleasantly surprised when we got to Brutalism because even though I didn't like their buildings, the philosophy behind their design at least made sense! Yes, humans need fresh air, yes give kids some grass to touch please! Ever since I have actually jumped to the defence of Brutalism from time to time. Thus, I must apologize to Brutalism, you may not have been nice to look at, but at least you had heart!
I also studied 'old' art history in the Netherlands, but there are really some gems in brutalism. For example, Louis Kahn's project in Bangladesh - it's truly remarkable how it came about and what it looks like. I also think we don't necessarily need to build new brutalist buildings, but it's architecture we can appreciate and preserve. In the Netherlands, it was never done on a megalomaniacal scale, but it the smaller works diversify the city.
I've never seen Brutalism as edgy personally, I've always seen it as tragically optimistic. One of my favourite (and one of the most tragic) examples of Brutalism is the Park Hill Flats in Sheffield. It was invisioned a social housing complex to replace the slums that was in the area, while still maintaining the streets andthe sense of community, as the residents of the slums would be moving in there. So was invisioned "streets in the sky" where the walkways were wide and welcoming, a milk cart could drive down it, there was plenty of space for kids to play or to have a conversation, all while being efficient housing for the people living there. Becuase of that the complex is massive, one of the biggest in Europe, I believe. Yet despite that all its layed out in a way that allows natural light in, with a greenspace in the center. And thats why I like brutalism, because thats what it is to me. Not oppression and uniformity but the ability to create anything. A belief that the second half of the 20th century would mean that we could achieve comfort, community, grandeur and efficiency, without compromise. Ironically the death of said optimism in the late 70s and the rise of Thatcherism that followed would lead to its decline into an infamous symbol of how Sheffield itself suffered under the changes of Thatcherism. It would be Grade 2 listed in 98, but it took a while after that too be refurbished. Its new image lacks that utopian ideal, with its first block shrinking the size of the streets and being private housing. Later developments would keep the street size but only a small portion remains social housing. Recently the residents lost the fight to maintain that green space, and its to be replaced with parking, depressingly (arguably a necessity with the more middle class residents and the decline of public transport in the city) So though I disagree with your perspective on Brutalism, I suppose no matter which way you look at it now only seems to represent the death of the utopian mindset, whether that be through decline, gentrification or authoritarianism. What could of been a monument to a new age of equality instead represent the failings of the movements that inspired it.
I grew up in brutalist block neighborhoods and let me tell you, its not at all like the sad grey tiktok edits you see all the time. My apartment complex is well built, has a big parking lot, open green spaces between buildings with basketball courts and a playground, a supermarket, school and hospital within walking distance. You know which apartments don't have any of those comforts? The new ones, built by private investors, from cheap plaster and thin concrete.
Same. There're a lot of old, "brutalist" apartment blocks in Vietnam (mostly due to cost), but these have a lot of human touches rather than just completely grey concrete. The house and windows have different paints, flower pots everywhere, and neighbors tend to live close enough to see each other on daily basis, and the noise of all the people chatting and children playing.. It's not a work of art, but it sure feels right at home for those who grow up there.. Public buildings though, completely lack those.. so they just look cheap and boring..
There's a lot to be said about soviet housing complexes... but they achieved their objective of giving as many people as possible a home to live in. Add _life_ to a brutalist structure and that itself will make it beautiful.
I like some Brutalist architecture. I went to UMass Dartmouth and the buildings there look “Solid.” Best way I can describe it is that it looks like a bunker in the best way possible. It looks like it could survive the end of the world. A grey block of concrete designed to stand forever no matter the weather. As a university it makes a powerful statement that way. “We safeguard the knowledge of mankind, and so long as we stand, the knowledge and ideas held within the walls will stand.” Also the concrete benches inside the buildings have the perfect amount of cushion to it and are very comfortable. Maybe possibly have fallen asleep on them.
I’m a fan of gothic architecture and even a little art deco. I was to see towers, ornate designs, tasteful greenery, I want buildings that look like they’re pretending to be castles. New York had a handful of famous buildings that look like this and theirs plenty across Europe. I’m tired of the utilitarian designs of modern architecture because as Blue said it all looks depressing, oppressive and boring.
I can't believe you did the Geisel Library like that. It. Is. Beautiful. Not even a direct mention but just a brief glimpse during a rant about pretension. The GL is the real deal, it's what brutalism should be.
I think it highlights that brutalism is strongest when the concrete isn't the sole focus. It serves as a frame for the glass and unique but not oppressive shapes, to the point where looking at it from the exterior almost feels like peering into a diorama and from the inside letting plenty of natural light in
My defence of brutalism comes from the public library in my hometown. I loved it as a kid, and the massive concrete blocks it was made from gave me the sense that it was bigger and more complex than I could possibly understand. And for a place of learning and community, I think I found that really comforting. This was a powerful place, full of not just knowledge, but people who would help you find it. Like a sort of grumbly grandfather that might seem intimidating and cold at first glance, but held joy and experience in the nooks and cranies if you could find them. The other thing I associate with brutalism is university campuses and hospitals, for much the same reasons. Maybe it's not brutalism I enjoy, but places of learning and community, but regardless the two are married in my head.
Yeah, one of the universities I loved going to in my time was probably a Brutalist building. It was spiky and hard, but it was so beautiful for the things inside.
Frankly, a solid concrete brick filled with plants and children and the barking of dogs is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. All the big brutalist art pieces miss the mark, by making their designs so confusing and opaque that they're no longer utilitarian. Which is the entire point of brutalism. You're supposed to revel in the sheer practicality not spew out a slurry of hostile geometric shapes, all the while making the building horribly impractical because the architect made their design halfway up their own ass.
Exactly. How did Brutalism go from "Let´s keep this as simple and utilitarian as possible" to "Look how ornate and complicated I can make this while still keeping it butt ugly"?
It is my understanding that although similar, brutalism and functionalism are distinct movements : functionalism is about letting the practicality decide the shape of the building, whereas brutalism is about repeating patterns.
I'd like to add that no codified style before Brutalism addressed human experiences beyond "wowwowwow pretty building :o" as well deeply as Brutalism did. Did a lot of Brutalist works miss the mark? Yes. Was the style and movement a crucial point in the evolution towards more human centered architecture? Also yes. I find it curious that The Barbican was only very briefly mentioned and showcased with a picture that makes it look anonymous and similar to any other housing estate. It's a hugely ambitious attempt at designing fully for human habitation, and it goes way beyond just a few floors of apartments. In fact, I find it quite telling that the "lauded" examples were either failed concepts or things only architects really enjoy, while so so many less stark examples were completely left out.
The entertainment value of having watched Blue's last several videos where he proved his spicy takes wrong and then listening to the intro of this one fully expecting another "proved-myself-wrong" thesis, only to get "no, I'm fully right and here's why" is incredible.
One of the rare times I have a major disagreement with what this channel presents. I genuinely really liked the provided examples used to exemplify negative points here. Brutalism makes way for far easier usage of unusual geometric form In architecture
Nice to see some praise for the WTC Oculus! I know that project is controversial because of the extended delays and high costs it took to build it, but for me, I think it's a beautifully unique and perfect design for its location! Whenever I walk into Grand Central, it's a breathtaking experience, and I get that same feeling walking into the Oculus. And that was the inspiration for Calatrava, he wanted to emulate Grand Central Terminal. He wanted to give a building to the community for a place like Ground Zero, a monument to the community, something that celebrates the day-to-day with the people, not to think this part of NYC is a somber place, but a place that keeps moving forward. He intended it to resemble a dove leaving a child's hands. You can see it in the tall, crossed steel columns that make up the exterior. Inspired by the Pantheon's oculus, Calatrava took it a step further! The Oculus receives the light from above as well as the sides. It permeates the building that receives as much daylight as the street outside. At night, it reverses into giving out the light when it is lit up like a lantern. The light also bears a symbolic value, each year, on September 11th at 10:28 AM (the time when the second tower collapsed), the sunlight beams the central axis of the main hall. DC Union Station was designed by Daniel Burnham, who also worked on the iconic Flatiron Building in NYC as well as DC's National Mall, plans for Manila and Baguio during the American colonial period of the Philippines as well as the 1909 Plan of Chicago. While the latter plan wasn't fully implemented, parts of it were, including Chicago Union Station, North Michigan Avenue, Wacker Drive and Chicago's spectacular lakefront parks, and regional forest preserves. Chicago Union Station was first being constructed under Burnham, but as Burnham died in 1912, his successor firm Graham, Anderson, Probst & White took over and finished it in 1925. They worked on many Chicago icons like the Wrigley Building, Merchandise Mart, Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, and the Civic Opera House! This is the same firm that also worked on Philly's 30th Street Station, Philly's Suburban station, and Cleveland's Terminal Tower! A detail I respect and appreciate about 30th Street Station is the Angel of the Resurrection sculpture, portraying Michael the Archangel lifting up the soul of a dead soldier from the flames of war. It commemorates the 1,307 Pennsylvania Railroad employees who died in World War II and was sculpted by Walker Hancock in 1952. As my grandpa on my father's side (Irish/Russian) served on the Western Front as part of New Jersey's contribution to WWII (he passed in 2009 and passed his coin collection from his WWII travels to me), seeing such a tribute touched me deeply.
Brutalists: "Practicality, utility, and efficiency are the most important elements of architectural design. With that philosophy in mind, we will design government buildings that look like concrete spaceships and apartment buildings that look like Jenga towers on the verge of collapsing."
That bit is genuinely confusing to me. The most brutalist thing I can imagine by the given definition is just a blank cube with a door, but then all these brutalist buildings look like they're trying to make the concrete perform a creepy contorcionism show. It just doesn't scan.
@@merlintitouan6949 It's a _lot_ easier to hate brutalism when you just make up moustache-twirling, villainous and out of touch architects with idiotic philosophies.
Imo, the best example of brutalism is the barbican in london. Council housing that is absolutely brimming with public spaces, arts, and nature. It even has a old ass church and also a freakin' roman wall! Its incredible, its probably my favourite architecture of all time. Being within its "walls" made walking around it made me feel safe from the outside, from london itself, and within a community. One filled with art and people and water and plants, held safe within the concrete area and secure from the influx of cars and new builds. Not bad from an area that was devustated by german bombing during the blitz, a fortress rising from the ashes to keep its community safe. Not by force of arms, but through culture and affordable housing. Its ugliness is only present from the outside, but once youre within you find beauty in the people and what it means to be human. Its quite beautiful, in its own way. Also, living inside a modern castle is badass as hell and i wont apologise for that.
I loaded the entire comment section and liberally awarded likes to those who praised the Barbican. There's a lot of negative things that can be said about brutalism, but I adore the Barbican. One of my favourite places.
I like how Blue brought up how Brutalism is used to depict sci-fi dystopias. What he forgot to mention is how often it's used to depict utopia as well (see Star Trek, and I'd bring up another example, but there hasn't been any other utopian sci-fi anything in the last 50 years). That's the coolest thing about Brutalism; it's 70 years old and it is still how we see the future.
3:01 khrushchevkas were a miracle at the time they were built. As in, they were designed with scientific studies in mind, alowing them to be liveable while also being compact and cheap. They calculated stuff up to how wide is the space needed to wash one's face in the morning (70 cm, I believe), so you had that exact space near the sink. Khrushchevkas have gotten worse and worse rep as time went on, because they weren't designed to stick around for so long. But giving out hundreds of thousands of flats to citizens all over the country for free was an undeniable achievement
Maybe it's just the Slav in me, but I love me a good brutalist monument. There are so many amazing monuments to falled partizans in the Balkans and the ones set on hills in the middle of nowhere are my favourite. The contrast between the lush green surroundings and the rough concrete is just *chef's kiss*
To me, the monuments built by totalitarian govenments have kinda the same appeal as war machines - terrifying but also kinda cool. Also, I totally agree with the combination of grey concrete and green flora looking beautiful.
I feel so strange because so many of these buildings are absolutely beautiful and fascinating to me. Even the basic and plain utilitarian ones have such a nice minimalist aesthetic. It makes me sad that so many don't appreciate it...
I think Blue is just wrong with this one. He’s showing off some of the coolest buildings I’ve ever seen and calling them ugly? And he’s calling *us* pretentious??
@@tavernburner3066 When comparing like to like, though, they still look gorgeous. I doubt most people are viewing Renaissance domes from above, either!
When your definition of visually appealing contains "minimalism" as a plus your taste in the arts is anything but standard. To most people in history strapping feathers to spears, stacking stones to make pyramids or strapping RGBs to your PCs IS the beauty of a tool, not the bare function it is ment to do. And architecture perhaps more than any other art is for the most and not the few. It is not the educated, wealthy or few who will be pacing by your works but the many, the poor, the common aka the single group who loves ornaments and simple beauty most who've been trained to see the grey and bare as dilapidated since thats what most buildings devolve to when not maintained
@@BBP-OMO The best brutalist works don't forget that those things aren't mutually exclusive - you just don't need to build the feathers into the haft of the spear itself, to use one of your analogies. The ones that just put their foundations over their roofs are pretty silly, though.
The setup and payoff of "beauty being a thing for the rich" inspiring brutalism to "beauty being a thing for the public" contradicting brutalism was masterful
The only brutalist style buildings I've ever had regular exposure to was this one store on a military base called the commissary. Whenever my mom would go shopping there, I, as a little kid, was honestly weirdly impressed with the contrast between the harsh appearance on the outside compared with the relatively friendly and welcoming environment on the inside. It was kinda like cracking open a geode, but more like a disarmed sea mine filled with half-wilted dandelion flowers. It didn't leave a great impression on me, but not a terrible one either, just... an impression.
I'm actually a big fan of brutalist architecture, but more specifically what I refer to as "natural brutalism" which takes these stark, utilitarian spaces, large or small, and breaks the space up with plants, pipes, electrical work, or even just the chaotic messiness of human life, like drying laundry, or similar. It's what I love about it, the starkness punctuated and broken by living things or the evidence of them. Light too, like mentioned in the video, also helps create this sort of style that I find quite aesthetically pleasing
@@Foogi9000 The combat isn't great and only gets worse over time, no clue why they put in some rng rarity loot system. Control is definitely a mixed recommendation, whether the atmosphere and action makes up for poor system design and often frustrating gameplay is going to vary from person to person
Speaking as a life-long Bostonian (fun meeting y'all at Pax btw!), I fully agree with your choice to use Boston City Hall as the video's primary example of Brutalism at its worst. The running joke in my family is that it resembles the product of someone playing jenga with jersey barriers. And when your dad's father was an architect, and your mother works in the cavernous depths of the building several days out of the week, that means something!
Yeah that's other thing that is just bizarre about that building: the majority of it is way underground. So not only is the surface bit just...unpleasant and vaguely threatening, it's also completely pointless because they decided to put all the useful parts in a bottomless pit instead. Because apparently the architect was really going to dungeon vibes for some reason. It also sticks out like a sore fucning thumb because right behind it is Faneuil Hall which is actually kind of pretty. Having to go there to get a marriage license was the least romantic part of the wedding prep and I am including the hours spent on seating arrangements to account for family politics.
My university was designed by Paul Rudolph, the guy who made the Boston City Hall, and the whole place is wild. The library has the exact same aero split windows, the dorms are depressing, and the entire campus has a panopticon kind of vibe to it. Which makes sense, because the campus was originally built to look like a Fibonacci spiral from above. Apparently he never actually got to fully complete his grand vision for the campus, because apparently those spoilsports in the town planning department and the Massachusetts state government kept saying things like “No you cannot build a network of secret tunnels connecting the Engineering and Liberal Arts buildings”. Oh also he made the roofs perfectly flat because he thought that in the future, we would have flying cars, and he wanted the roofs to be flat and strong enough to serve as landing pads. It’s ugly as sin, but it’s also so batshit insane I can’t help but love it in a weird way.
Massachusetts government is just afraid of the STEAM crossovers, the cowards. ;) (Plus, if you give the engineers access to arts, what will they do to the Brutalist structures?)
The tunnels you mention are actually a feature of some campuses, interestingly enough. For a variety of reasons from the standard mid-cold-war "totally not a bunker" mentality to just being practical ways to get around when there's 3' of snow on all the walkways that fell just that morning.
It is always kind of shocking to me when people accuse brutalism of being both oppressive and pretentious while defending styles of architecture popular in fascist circles as homes of kings, emperors, and slave owners. The US using neoclassical architecture to mark them as inheritors of democracy is a bit of hagiography. The founders were famously interested in Ancient Rome, not always in ways that are flattering to the US. Slavery was extremely important to both societies. Neoclassical architecture was also VERY popular in the south, so it shouldn't be a surprise that many peoples first though seeing corinthian columns isn't liberty, its opposite. You see a plantation, others see a plantation.
"Brutalism is used in movies for dystopias in film," sure and Thanos was a utilitarian. But on planet earth, what architecture was preferred by emperors, kings, and despots? Would you rather live in the society that created neoclassicalism? Or the one that created brutalism.
@@danmccune5637frankly, BOTH societies are bad. But which would I rather? We can’t answer, because we only know what we live in. Even from the historical and anthropology studies… we don’t know what it’s like to LIVE in!
as someone who has an irrational hatred for when buildings have facades that look structural but aren't really structural, i really appreciate brutalism for how hard it goes in the exact opposite direction. to show my love for brutalism, i have ranked every single brutalist building blue put on screen in this video from worst to best: #23: that stuff at 3:14. somehow all that yellow makes it way more depressing. #22: "water tower, johannesburg," 9:33. makes me nervous to look at. i wanna nock it over. why does the big "jw" at the top look like it was attached with a gluestick? #21: "bulgarian-soviet friendship monument," 9:40. if your making something that serves no functional purpose and is just meant to look cool and you still wind up as one of the ugliest things on this list, you fucked up. #20: that thing at 9:23. this one is the one that most deserves that insult about looking like a rendering error. #19: "ship house, moscow," 3:43. even before i saw the title i went "oh, that is definitely a spaceship," so that's pretty cool, but like. why is there a giant black rectangle on the front?? #18: "national mortage bank, argentina," 9:51. if you're gonna be bigger at the top than at the bottom, fuckin commit. #17: "geisel library, san diego," 9:46. first one i like in a straight-forward, uncomplicated way. love the way the pillars start out vertical and then half way through go "actually, i think i wanna be diagonal." bit too much glass for my tastes though. #15 and #16: a tie between "33 thomas street, nyc," 4:59 and "buffalo city court building," 9:07. well, now there's too little glass, but if you're gonna make a tower with no windows that's the way to do it. #14: both of those housing complexes at 3:00. maybe if we built more stuff like this in the usa instead of endless suburbs and luxury condos, my rent wouldn't be so damn high. #13: "brezhnevka, russia," 3:09. look at how big it is!!!!! #12: that stuff at 3:17. also big but now there's lots of them! #11: "boston city hall," 4:06. blue is objectively wrong. that atrium at 4:17 kicks ass. i want to shoot at pedestrians with a crossbow from one of those little windows. #10: "boston government service center," 9:13. basically the same as boston city hall, but a little less busy and with nifty little exterior staircases. #9: "russian state scientific center for robotics and technical cybernetics, st petersburg," 3:49. i think this one is really pretty, but i'll admit that if you're gonna make purely ornamental fins like that, they probably shouldn't be made of bare concrete. #8: that thing at 0:49. looks like they forgot to build the elevator shaft until the rest of the building was done, which is ridiculous, but i dunno, i think it's charming. #7: "bank of georgia building, tbilisi," 9:27. it has a giant hole in it! it looks like a jenga tower!!! tell me that's not at least a little cool. #6: "russian academy of sciences, moscow," 3:54. oh my god i love how the concrete makes all that orange pop! #5: "dallas city hall, dallas," 8:52. dallas, don't listen to what blue said about how you should stop leering over us. you're a domineering jock who cornered me agains my locker and i'm a flustered schoolgirl with a crush on you. #4: "habitat 67, montreal," 0:51. ok, i'll give you that it looks like a rendering error, but i think it really works here. reminds me of that village from riven. #3: "salk institute, california," 5:36. even blue can't deny how beautiful this one is. #2: "russian embassy in cuba," 0:57. someone gave that skyscraper a hat!!! :D #1: "barbican estate, london," 9:20. another commenter said that brutalism works best as a backdrop for greenery and just, yes, holy shit that's gorgeous. if you live here, you should tell me exactly which apartment you live in so i can murder you and steel your identity.
I've seen brutalism be criticized many times, and while I can see where people are coming from, I've never personally agreed (on a subjective level). Maybe it's my early exposure to the kinds of sci-fi that use brutalism for the ancient aliens that I think are badass, or a fondness for the overgrown modern ruins aesthetic, or some other reason, but I've never thought too negatively about brutalism. Yeah, it's not pretty, but I do think it's cool. I like brutalism.
I like the modern ruins aesthetic as well, but i still cant get around brutalism. I much more appreciate the look of a detroit house taken back by nature or a hospital with vines growing up through the architecture. I wish someone would turn that kind of aesthetic into livable, living architecture.
So you enjoy it for its "Alien" or "Otherness"? And the overgrown city softens the Brutalist lines with natural forms, while doubling down on the out of place elements. Which is useful, in visual media, but in a day to day lived life setting... the structures feel like they shouldn't be where they are.
On a small scale, it can look interesting; but it's strength comes from efficiency, which is good. But it looks ruthless and cruel when used to make courts and parliaments.
I agree. I want to see Blue take a look at Warhammer 40k's Imperium of Man's architecture. All that sort of... neo-gothic stuff... and see how stained glass windows and sort of almost if you smushed Art Deco and Byzantine design styles together could feel oppressive. Especially if the city is like 40 stories deep and your basic person has never actually seen natural sunlight.
I can appreciate the arguments made throughout the video, but I did find it funny to have Blue saying "it's so damn ugly" while showing some absolutely gorgeous buildings. Agree with the idea that overdone it can be overbearing and restraint is important. Brutalism at its best feels very Star Trek to me, a hopeful future. I also think brutalism pairs well with plant life.
My university campus (York) has some of my favourite brutalist architecture. It is all human scale integrated with gardens and water features and at the moment is well maintained. Seems like the uni is about to go bust so not sure whether that will continue.
I personally dislike brutalism because of how it's handled. I think it can't stand on its own. Like you said, it works great with plants because it lets nature's beauty shine. I also think brutalism is enhanced with murals, graffiti or decorated with community art projects.
I’m not big on brutalism in general but I actually liked a couple of the brutalist buildings Blue showed here despite that! Mostly I think the buildings like the one at 9:29 are silly-looking like something someone created from lego, like it’s from a movie about the future and shouldn’t actually exist in real life, and I think that’s fun to look at and that I’d enjoy being inside a building like that because it would feel like I’m defying logic just by standing in one of those weird jutting shapes!
Aw heck. As soon as I saw the first image of the building when you mentioned ‘brutalism’ I immediately thought of the weird ugly buildings that I see on the way to school. I literally snapped a picture of one of them last week to diss about it to my brother.
As an architect myself this was a blast from my college years of Architecture History. Brutalism can be cool! But man does almost everyone who does is miss the cool parts! Louis Kahn was always a favorite of mine, because he got it.
@@ellien5014 To the contrary, they're considered almost completely distinct from each other in the American architectural sphere. The Bauhaus legacy fed into the "international style" that was considered something of a counterpoint to the concrete-based constructions associated with brutalism.
Ah yes, brutalism. One of those things that I just have an objectively incorrect opinion about. I love brutalism. It gives me a sense of power and awe. Balance and perfection. Practicality and starkness. *Chef's kiss.*
@@Saiyanahey, don't knock it. I've lived in those post-Soviet concrete blocks my whole life and they are AWESOME. Plus, the surrounding neighborhoods are often examples of the best urban design you've ever seen.
I liked brutalism because of the Control game. That universe intrigued me and invited me in, so the fact that it was entirely displayed in brutalist structures made me appreciate the style
So true. Brutalism might not be “in fashion” and might be harder to look upon with a historical lense than things that predate it by centuries but it’s fascinating and -crucially - worth preserving and innovating upon!
I think it's important to distinguish "looks cool and interesting" from "is pleasant". I agree that lots of brutalist architecture looks incredibly cool but I still wouldn't enjoy myself if I had to be there every day for my job or such.
At my university, most of the buildings are brick, a few are steel and glass. Two buildings stand out: one is a church made in a beautiful stone design. Unlike the uniform brick buildings that get boring to look at, the stones of the church have different size, color, texture, and the building itself has a rounded shape with pleasant details. Next to that church stands the library, an ugly mess of concrete blocks. It makes no geometric sense, as the blocks clearly serve no structural purpose and the gaps between them are just wasted space. The sides of the building are covered in disgusting streaks, like when bolts are rusting and the rust runs down from them. There are weird seams that I guess have to do with where the windows are put in, but they look out of place on the faces that have no windows. I've always wondered how someone got the go-ahead to build that library like that. The examples of Russian buildings that you showed look quite nice. They managed to find a way of detailing the buildings in a way that makes them interesting to look at. The Russian Academy of Sciences in particular makes an effort to at detailing in the form of impressions in the walls that draw the eye while emphasizing the structural might that the style already exudes. I think if more buildings made the effort to add detail to break up the monotony, brutalism could stick to its concrete roots while not being so maligned. TL;DR: Brutalism could learn something from Minecraft builder youtubers - add detail and texture.
Unfortunately, adding details is antithetic to brutalism. Brutalism is about repeating simple patterns (ideally not more than four), having no ornaments beyond the shape of those patterns.
@@tavernburner3066 I suspected as much, that is the point of photography, but even if the building overall is not as beautiful of a refrrence, the photo is.
@@merlintitouan6949 No, that's not at all the case. Perhaps to some weirdo purists/extremists, but just look at what Kahn produced! I can sure count a lot more than four "patterns" there.
@@drawndreary you know brutalist buildings just look like normal buildings from the inside right. If anything they tend to be more open and have more windows
I used to know Red's mom. I believe you two really are like this, all the time, and I'm here for it. The best thing Brutalism has done, is give some great empty space for some really cool murals. The only thing that can save it is an explosion of colour...or just an explosion. Both are good options.
I don’t know what the design is called but whatever the government wanted to use to keep people from wandering onto nuclear waste sites is probably the most stunning architecture I’ve seen
Seeing the Cincinnati Union Terminal as the first example of what Brutalism should be gave me the same glee as getting to go to that museum as a child. (The cave and ice age exhibits are the best, fight me, and that's even with the pretty overhead murals as you walk in the building.)
I really enjoy the discussion of architecture as philosophy and what it represents, because I too often forget that architecture is *art-itecture* and has its own meanings inherent, which my brain only subconsciously picks it up (like the association of brutalist style with dystopias). The example of having train stations in the U.S., fundamentally public spaces, be grand as a way of saying 'citizens deserve beauty' and as a way of welcoming people into this grand space and by extension the city, is super interesting. Or, the Hallgrímskirkja (another excellent video) and how it uses light and shapes inspired from basalt columns and the mountains in its design. TLDR: Blue please keep up the architecture and architecture-philosophy videos, I am learning about architecture as art style and love it
I love Andor's use of Brutalism in Coruscant to highlight how dystopian the Empire is while making the characters feel like everyday people with their blue milk cereal. I wonder if Coruscant was like this even during the Clone Wars.
Probably. Coruscant in particular and the Core Worlds in general have a lot of people and industry. Efficiency of space is a large part if such architecture. You can see hints of this in the opening of Solo on Corellia too.
I just finished my third year of architecture school. I’m exhausted and don’t want to see a building ever again, and somehow Blue has me watching a video about architecture. Well played.
Brutalism is astoundingly beautiful when combined with natural elements. Places like The Barbican or the University of Brasília are gorgeous, and raw concrete works super well with greenery and water
I wouldn't necessary agree with the barbican (the balance isn't right to my liking). But to add to your argument, just look at the Talos Principle 2. They made this work for their puzzle environments and it's great!
Talking about the politics of Brutalism, and not talking about how Neoclassical, for example, was built on the foundations of inter-state (city or nation) rivalry, a desire to take on the mantle of 'New Rome' which reached its zenith in the Nazi plans for Germania, and as an expression of colonialism and its power, is an incomplete picture
Agreed. Especially with the recent resurgence of the colonial and white supremist narratives surrounding Western classical architecture, I was really hoping for a more critical analysis of aesthetic standards
Not to mention that as is often the case with Brutalism, he mostly shows the most industrial examples he can find without contextualizing that by comparing it to the equally depressing nature of vernacular architecture made for industrial purposes. If it's ugly, it's because it's not meant to look pretty, as many of those buildings are not housing or government buildings, but literally factory buildings. Brutalism at least has a philosophy, whereas many of the ugly retail buildings that I have to work in have no excuse other than laziness by modern city planners and clear capitalist apathy. Most architecture isn't actually made by architects, and the blame for them looking hideous must be placed elsewhere, and that goes equally for many of the examples people always trot out for Brutalism. It wasn't expensive, so it was easy to imitate by vernacular architecture.
Yeah, I feel like it will lead to viewers coming out of it with a lens of brutalism specifically being "political", while classicism is to be regarded as being more "neutral", "natural", "aesthetic", thus ignoring the underlying philosophy of the latter or, hell, while I used it for my example, any other architectural or artistic style. Huge bloody blind spot
You weren't paying attention then. He explicitly mentioned how greco-roman styles were intended to symbolize an affinity for Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism (as opposed to the autocratic monarchies of Europe).
As someone who grew in both eastern Europe and Italy, I have become a Brutalist Enjoyer due to the practicality of it, but not only in terms of housing, but also when it comes to city planning. Eastern blocks are generally very well laid out, communities form around the tiny plazas between blocks, theres soace to walk, and theres a very hard to describe yet very homely pleasure in all the life that happens in and out of each building - because whilst nice plazas and human centered city planning is also a thing in Renaissance plazas in Italy, good old commie blocks give a sense of security thanks to how sturdily they are built, and the blank slate that is concrete really allows easy and infinite options to make a block look however you and your neighbours like, for all that that's worth
A lot of the architecture you rave about I often find boring, but the vast majority of examples you used for brutalism, I thought looked beautiful. I guess this is an example of why beauty really is subjective.
Funny thing is, almost every time I see brutalist architecture I can't help thinking it would be absolutely gorgeous dripping with greenery. Especially those Soviet block apartments -- climbing vines, trailing vines, window boxes, trees on the balconies, gardens on the roof . . . I'd want to live there _so bad._ That being said, if your goal is to celebrate labor then I'd think you should add in as much ornamentation as possible. Maybe even give your workers and artisans some free rein to put personal touches in the stuff they're working on: make buildings absolutely full of personalized works of art, of wrought iron and stained glass and tile mosaics and woodwork and brickwork and murals and (of course) landscaping with tons of trees and flowers and vine-covered arbors -- and even the guys who pave the driveway outside get to sign their names in the concrete. I'd think that would be the way to celebrate labor.
I think the central issue that comes up with Brutalism is that it's central idea/goal is to embrace practicality and utilitarianism, while rejecting pretentiousness and traditionalism; which let me be VERY clear, are valid, laudable even goals. The issue? Very often Brutalist designs end up doing the opposite. Like, how many of the architectural designs shown were inefficient blocks held in midair for no reason other than *~*aesthetics*~*? People often complain that Brutalists designs are all just a concrete rectangle, but I'd argue they are the less egregious ones, they at least understood the assignment, the ones that are truly a problem are the ones that can't decide if they want to be a functional building or an art piece so tries to split the difference and becomes neither.
I don't see how brutalism is any more snobby than other architecture style I've seen talked about, but I'm also the kind of person that doesn't assume that something having an air of pretentiousness is always, incontrovertibly, a negative thing. I also assume you've run into different folks than I have. My understanding of brutalism was enhanced by the video, even if we disagree somewhat on what counts as 'ugly' architecture. I hope to see yet more videos focusing on architecture from this channel!
My highschool design teacher summed it up as "historically architects either had to live in and look at their buildings, brutalism was by people who never had to do either". Not 100% in fact, but 100% in principle!
I mean, have you talked to people that have lived in and around brutalist block neighborhoods? I grew up in one and to me these buildings feel homely and warm more than anything. I honestly feel like most of the critiques come from people who've never lived in them and have only seen those depressing aerial pictures of rows and rows of buildings
That is ahistorical BS. I studied architecture in Poland, I personally knew architects and engineers who designed and supervised construction of some of those neighborhoods, and they often DID live there themselves.
@getnohappy My comment was about people's lived experiences. If most people who've lived there describe those buildings as feeling safe, secure and contributing to a sense of community, I think they've achieved their practical goal regardless of what the theory of design philosophy might say. You using your degree in environmental psychology to support your arguments about how awful these buildings are kind of runs counter to your original comment about how only architects overly concerned with theory over practice like these buildings. Also, no offence taken and I don't mean any offence with my reply either, I hope it doesn't come across that way
Having lived in Japan where my campus was right next to a bunch of *danshi,* I can tell you that another key in making brutalist architecture enjoyable is nature. There were over 54, ~20 story *danshi* all packed together into a space no greater than a square kilometer, but in between all of them were parks and greenery and walkways that all caught the sunlight and complex lights that made them feel alive and lived in rather than soulless towers to an ideology. I compare this to my university back home which went full brutalism and is only now recovering from it, with massive concrete eyesores that dominate the scenery, with the greenery subservient and lower than the towering slabs. It’s all about balance and humanity.
A video that shows what is great about OSP. Short and entertaining, but also depth and analysis so at the end I'm "Wow, never thought about that before"
NOOO NOT MY BEAUTIFUL BARBICAN CENTRE!!!! Ok, plenty of brutalist buildings are too heavy and oppressive, but some of the examples used I really like. They don't give opulence. They give a more modern style. I'd much prefer a brutalist building than an only glass skyscraper or a plain white modern shopping centre. But I get when you need fancy, brutalism needs to take a step back. (Also, I think both neoclassical and brutalist buildings fall into the "let's forget to add any colour" trap)
I positively love the Barbican, especially how it integrates natural elements like greenery, waterfalls, and those truly majestic looking sunken water gardens. I feel like it does Brutalism right by remembering to create unique spaces that work in harmony with nature. For my money, the key to beauty is variety. I don't want an endless parade of brutalist buildings, nor do I want a glass menagerie of blue-tinted skyscrapers; one feels suffocating, the other feels soulless. Even a city filled with nothing but neoclassical will suffer from stimulation diminishment. A mix of different styles can offer surprise and diversity.
I thought I enjoyed brutalism more, but your point about Lou Kahn's use of brutalist buildings to work with natural light made me realise that all the examples of the style that I actually like also use their shapes to paint with and shape light. Hell, even my own work (builds in games like satisfactory and minecraft) I make a conscious choice to play with light. I didn't realise how non-central to brutalism that is. Great video!
See I understand and respect what you're saying on an intellectual level but having lived with and in buildings like these, these spaces feels like home and part of me will always always love it. I grew up in and around Brutalist buildings so I only learned that the socially acceptable opinion was that it was to get angry or dismissive when it came up until I got to college, and by then it was too late! I'd already come to appreciate the textures, the play of light on surface, and how its aging and marking were signs of humans living life, and how a space could be organized to suit any purpose, how line and form and light and plants could interact with concrete and glass, and how much thought could go into the geometry around us. I'm deeply sad that the places I love are slowly being destroyed because the haters are in the ascendant, especially given the cheap, computer generated looking, designed for profit over people things that take up those spaces (at least until the tide of public concensus is strong enough for people to put money into ripping those apart too)
I didn't think I would enjoy a 10 minute tirade on modern architecture, but you guys always manage to surprise me with your explorations of niche topics. Like the others, this one did not disappoint.
sorry blue, bit of a strawman, it's fine if you don't like the concrete, it has its issues, and I agree that uniformity of style isn't great, variety is the spice of life and this holds with architecture I like big concrete monuments, I think they look nice, yes there's some very bad brutalist architecture, but you can find ugly nonsense buildings in most if not all styles, a big point of modern architecture was to find beauty in simple unadorned structure and shape now personally, I find a lot of modern architecture boring, just not brutalism, the concrete speaks to me, shame about the carbon footprint you make a big thing of brutalism being a shorthand for totalitarianism forgetting that both are associated with the eastern block, and that's a big part of why, particularly in America, brutalism is maligned, if the commies did it, it has to be wrong
Bostonian here. Not to defend the soul-sucking city hall, but why arrow-slit windows? Heating efficiency. There's much less glass transferring heat and cold, yet the slits' angles also allow one to see almost as widely as one could if the windows were normal width. To wit, incredibly clever and functional, but ugly.
I grew up not far from one such a Brutalist landmark. This architecture looks alien. Like a piece of someone's abstract thoughts extracted into put into the physical world. It's an opera and ballet theater, except I never been there as a kid, never been around there when people went to see something there, so it was just The Building to me. Parts of it were taken by skaters. The back of it has a grassy open sky amphitheater. It was always that big thing, never in full view, no individual part of it making sense or building to anything concrete (sic!), always alien, always accepted without a question, veautiful, ugly, scary, soothing. I'd say it's good if it's not the only type of architecture. It is designed to stand out, but it excels at being challenging. It's hard to process, it's unsettling. And yet it can be accepted, it can resonate with you. The tall buildings, that composed the so called "sleeping districts" I didn't pay much attention too. Some were big, others were wide, some were short. I didn't grow up in or around one, it was always someone else's place. They were faraway things. I wouldn't say most of the time they are that bothersome except a bit bland. Trees, rows of kiosks, kid playgrounds, pavements and grass gives plenty to look at, at least in the summer. The ruins of the giant unfinished concrete monsters were the most interesting for me. These were things that looked truly out of this world. Unfinished hospital, bridges, stadiums. Carcasses of the great works to never see their completion. Ruins of the empire. It's not intentional, but it's a mood. Art is not there only to charm and please. You can do a lot of fascinating and horrifying things with brutalism, if you won't try to convert everything into brutalism. You can learn a lot of from the architecture, that doesn't aim to please.
As a fan of the "Batman/Superman" animated series, I loved how they incorporated the Art Deco asthetic so naturally into the settings of Gotham and Metropolis respectively. What are Blue's thoughts on Art Deco style? Is it worth a future video? 😮
Since Cincinnati Union Terminal was the first train station he showed when seguing away from Brutalism to that section, and it's an Art Deco masterpiece, I would assume he does like it.
Is this an out of season April Fool’s joke? In all seriousness, though, there’s bad architecture in all styles, there’s pretentious architecture in all flavors; just because we don’t see ugly roman buildings, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, I mean, the pretty ones that we’re trying to keep standing are barely ruins at this point, what chance did the ugly ones ever have? Brutalism is my favorite architectural style, not because of buildings that want to pretend like they’re the future of architecture and art, but precisely for the ones where the architecture itself accepts it’s proper place in function, not as the star of the show but as the basis for something great: the play of light on the different textures. For example, in a museum, you shouldn’t have the architecture itself be a distraction but an aid to your exhibition by allowing the exhibit be the star of the show, and good brutalism lends itself to this in a way that allows itself to shine precisely by playing its role: take a step back, be functional, be quiet and direct people. Sure, brutalism can be ugly or tasteless like the concrete its made of, but saying that all brutalism is bad because some architects are too far up their own asses, is like saying all baking is bad because hardtack exists
@@Tustin2121Did you always like them? Because this mess of shapes is antithetical to inherent human appreciation of form and geometry. It MUST have been acquired taste.
I enjoy brutalism!! but ONLY in its more practical forms. the super edgy strangely shaped buildings make me nervous, and you're right, they feel pretentious, but every now and then i see a building that utilizes the starkness of concrete very well against Living Material. Wood accents, interesting patterns along a side, but most importantly Plants. if a design utilizes lush areas it breaks up the gray and contrasts beautifully with the concrete, and if they add plants they must consider light and how it plays into a space so that the plants can thrive, and light is So Important for making a space feel open and fresh and beautiful. I would look to the game Control for some good examples. the architecture starts out stark and oppressive, but as you end up further into the space it opens up and there are some actually very beautiful courtyards, staircases, etc. brutalism is often taken too far, but using simplicity and harshness and mixing it with the natural world can really balance it out.
Agreed Also, thanks for helping me get why Blue thought it was “something something Socialist Utopia.” I don’t mean this in any mean way, I more so meant that the contrast between concrete and greenery makes a lot more sense.
I mean, even splashes of colour along with the odd plant. The Sydney Masonic Center is a brutalist structure that has a bunch of different areas with different yet brutalist aesthetics that don't feel oppressive. The foyer has a big wall artwork in various shades of brown. Can't remember if it's wood, or various brown metals done to look wood-like, but the same room has little stained glass windows too. You stick some ferns or big leafy pot plants in that space, and it looks fancy without making you feel unwelcome. Very "Oh William, do join us for the champagne toast for your cousin's 21st. Oh no, we can get you let in even if you are wearing flip flops cause you were just at the beach and wanted to see your cousin in person, since everyone was in town for the party. Sorry, you mother had not told me you had moved here, or else we would have sent the invite to you personally."
Since you brought up public libraries: my local library the James Blackstone Mermorial Library is absolutely gorgeous, and recently got renevated. It's all made from some amazing local marble (both the original and the reservation got stone from the same quary). What's more, it's got an amazing dome with renaissance style art painted on the interior.
Cincinnati REPRESENT In all honesty, Union Terminal is an amazing feat of architecture that plays with lighting on the inside. The way it is structured makes it seem as if the dome you're under in the lobby is constantly lit by the sun. The murals give it the pop of color it needs to look like the golden sun is meeting the blue of our sky and the green of our earth.
No way! Even the examples of how brutalism can be done well they still feel.... Empty and harsh. It almost feels worse because to me taking the basic style of brutalism and making it look more aesthetically pleasing is exactly what the government does. What politicians do every single day. They have these terrible ugly ideals and hiding it behind a mask of being attractive. So literally brutalism screams danger. Whenever I look at it I immediately think shoody construction work. That the buildings half finished and abandoned Or the government is hiding something there LMAO Not to mention that I feel like there's a cultural feeling of bare concrete equally an unfinished construction site and so mentally it screams danger and puts up warning flags or be careful subconscious signals. I don't know if that's just me but it literally gives me anxiety to look at these places LMAOI hate how cheap it is too because it's so common. I'm really glad that like now people will even put cheap siding or anything to cover the concrete. And it does make everything look so much better. Even if the siding is crap or ugly it's still more attractive than bare concrete.
I guess I’m a brutalism apologist? It’s not perfect - nothing is - but it’s got its place, and I do kinda dig the unique weirdness of the buildings he shows. They DO look like something alien and otherworldly, and I think that’s cool.
I just think brutalist architecture looks genuinely cool and pretty I’m honestly kinda taken aback at everyone working under the assumption that the buildings are hideous and the style’s merits have to come from elsewhere
If it helps, you don't need any more justification for liking them beyond the fact that you like them, there is no such thing as inherent beauty. Something which I _think_ Blue understands but some of the folks in the comment section definitely do not.
Aah I love that you included Worcester’s Union Station! When I was a kid, that place was terrifying. The roof had collapsed, the windows were boarded up or missing, and the whole facade was scary. The city poured so much heart and soul into revitalizing it and it really shows. Union Station being brought back to life feels like it marked a turning point for Worcester’s whole self-identity.
OMG I’m a public history preservationist and I just finished a National Register nomination and the building is Brutalist, I am also trained as an architectural historian and I have to say that I am a fan of brutalism. I understand your dislike but I applaud you for looking into the history and appreciate some forms of brutalism
You can't close this out by showing me building after building that fucks severely and expect me to agree with you here. I do agree that I like the work of Lou Kahn the best, as well as the philosophy behind it; the starkness of brutalism to highlight the natural world around it. In my eyes this shouldn't only apply to nature, but to human life as well. Its one of the reasons I actually love those soviet blocks, you can feel so strongly the people living there. Brutalism that plays with light, brutalism that gets covered in graffiti, with water features and gardens. It's like a blank canvas in a way no other style is, while lending interesting forms to it all with the whole 'concrete can be any shape' idea. Its a style you can leave your mark on in a way I feel you can't with others (at least when its not the overly serious pretentious types that cropped up later, agreed to hating those). But as said at the top, I do also like those 'intimidating' buildings, the ones your not supposed to touch. I don't think I'd want them as the foremost style of the city or anything, but they are a fun treat and I'd hate to see them go. The wild shapes and silhouettes are so cool! I love how they push the boundaries of what a building can look like. I'd argue, actually, that a lot of these have totally lost the plot on what brutalism is supposed to be. I mean really what functional purpose do any of those last few buildings serve being shaped the way they are???? That's for visual interest alone quite frankly. I think brutalism gets a bad rep when its really capable of some absolute bangers (who hasn't seen pictures of the cool capsule building in japan? Tho its in wild disrepair now sadly). Its just harder to do right and its cheep nature makes it ripe for developers who just don't care. But ANY style can get soulsucking if it's over done like that, looking at you American suburbia and those endless cookie cutter low rise condominiums they're putting up nowadays. And they HAVE design elements and reliefs, they're not brutalist, but the lac of visual variety is what's killer. Admittedly a trap much easier to fall into with brutalism. But I feel brutalism is much easier to dress up to circumvent that problem then 50 of the same building already dressed up the same way, due to its more blank canvas appeal. Not that I don't agree with a lot of critiques... but I think they miss the appeal that is there and could be more pronounced. So I'm glad you didn't dismiss the idea that brutalism CAN be beautiful
Just want to point out something obvious here: I think it's important to remember not all the people who say they enjoy something we do not do it as a provocation. Some people sincerely find beauty in brutalist buidings, even people who live inside. Those architects live in their own buildings or in buildings of the same style most of the time, so they at least seem to sincerely think it is nice to live in those. I hear many people talk about how horrible it must be to live in those, but as someone who did live in brutalist housings for most of my life, I never minded it, in fact there is many things about this type of architecture I enjoyed and I do find sincerely beautiful. I completely understand why some people wouldn't though, I think it's like how some people enjoy modern and abstract art, or some people love free jazz, and other people consider it pretentious noise. It's obvious like I said, but it's the internet, and it's easy to forget the people on the other side of the screen are not after us specifically. Thank you for listening to my rambling, and have a great day :)
I have to strongly disagree this time. This is not the first time that I have seen a video talking badly about brutalism without realizing that a large part of this perception of emptiness and oppression is due to the buildings being empty. If you look for images of these same buildings when they were in use and receiving maintenance, they are beautiful and extremely human full of life. Showing a Soviet building abandoned for decades and saying that it is lifeless is the same thing as saying that Detroit is a dead city because it is full of abandoned spaces without considering that there were communities there that made that place alive but with all the economic issues those areas old areas surrounding industrial areas were abandoned and became ugly and abandoned. You have the right not to like it but given a fair chance, I even recommend watching a Soviet urban film from the 50s.
Blue! A solid like...third or quarter of your examples were super neat looking as far as I'm concerned. The ones that specifically *didn't* bug me all had a consistent structure, vertically -- I also don't like all the little clusters of boxes or arrow slits perched on top of sweeping (or blocky) columns and walls, but some of 'em checked all the boxes for 'abstract art which is good,' and 'building which is art' for me, which the arcane art of Venn Diagrammolurgy tells me is 'architecture I like to look at' in one of the places the circles overlap. Thanks for reminding me that brutalism isn't *just* the minority of brutalist buildings I've enjoyed personally, though! (The Environmental Science Building at Western Washington University has mad 'alien ruins colonized by humans who love potted plants' vibes, and those are some of my favorite vibes.)
I think brutalism is used so *well* in the video game Control, which really combines all of these elements. The idea of the Oldest House, an eldritch location stretching back to time immemorial, having this particularly modern architecture... the way it captures both its beauty and its ugliness... A symbol of governmental oppression yet also a channel to highlight the beaty of light and nature... Its controlled, twisting shapes working perfectly with how the House reshapes itself... It really helped me appreciate brutalism more.
I was hoping someone else would mention the Oldest House! It's impressive how pretty the game makes a creepy government office building look. (It helps that it's really fun to wreck in fights too.)
I think the architecture that the House has taken on also represents the mission of the FBC, in a way: as a bulwark against the Weird Shit. I want the thing protecting me from the monsters in the dark to be solid and immovable, and the House embodies that very well.
yeah, I used to hate brutalism too until I played Control. When done right, brutalism is super pretty. There's so many pretty brutalistic places in Control, like the center of the Research Sector. I think that's the real issue with brutalism: it's difficult to do right. Brutalism thrives on the right number of details. Too few and it's boring and oppressive. Too many and it's overcomplicated and confusing. But get it just right and it's so cool to look at and can even be pretty (a rarity in architectural styles)
Since finishing my masters in sustainability, if there's anything I need to hold on to that I learned is that balance is key. You can't expect a good building to completely focused on one thing because a building does not focus on one thing only. The moment you decide you are building something, you already need to considered location, culture, people, environment. then you go to the actual design where again you are looking at the same thing but on a smaller scale, and then again for the individual scale. You summarized well that brutalist architecture is trying to have the focus be on these big concrete set pieces and it really shouldn't be to that extent.
One time I was in a TTRPG campaign where we decided each elf race had their own architectural style. High elves used Scandinavian architecture, wood elves built things in a similar way to Edo Period Japan, and drow used brutalism specifically to piss off the wood and high elves.
For any Brutalism Enjoyers in the audience: I don't want you to feel invalidated or attacked, and I'd genuinely love to see examples that you like and hear what you enjoy about the style.
Just because I'm an Opinionated Bitch doesn't mean you're not allowed to like what you like. My sass is pointed squarely at the architects whose works I've critiqued, never the people who use or appreciate those spaces.
-B
dw blue! if the only apology you have to make as a content creator is about big architecture drama you're doing something right
I think what's happening here is conflating two different purposes of architecture: art and utility. I used to hate brutalism, and I still don't especially like the soviet living blocks you showed examples of. But you've gotta admit there's something intriguing about those unncessarily grand, almost megalomaniac public structures with their harsh edges and washed out concrete look. Yeah I wouldn't enjoy having to interact with them on a daily basis and being surrounded by them, but coming from somewhere else as a tourist they definitely are eye-catchers that make your attention linger. Much the same way I might prefer to hang up an inoffensive Monet in my living room, but in a museum I'd seek out a more surrealist Picasso or Dali. An example you didn't show that I really like is the ICC Kyoto; yeah it looks like a villains lair and it's conventionally ugly, but things don't have to be beautiful and perfect for them to speak to us.
The Cascade in Armenia
vendetta. (jk) i wouldnt want a brutalist city. but i do love the extraterrestrial vibe they have especially when placed in a more conventional surrounding. an example i really like is the geology building of the university of bern. it only really woks when experienced in contrast to the biology building facing it. (best on street view or live) or a building by helmut spieker at the university of marburg which has these weird roofs. And while contemporary buildings tend to be glass cubes these are unique and pose the question why someone would chose this shape specifically. i like thinking about that. and obviously it is cool to seemingly defy phisics, which must have been more impressive when reinforced concret just came on the scene. we are spoiled with technological achievments (yay).
I feel like trying to make brutalist architecture something so avant-garde kind of violates its own premise, so I see what you mean calling those pretentious, but it's still kind of funny to me that brutalism of all things could be considered pretentious.
I once heard someone say that the main problem with brutalism is its very modern art approach: it aims to challenge, to provoke, to evoke strong feelings beyond "it looks nice", which make it a very interesting style to study and architects, when they’ve already studied other traditional styles, are fascinated by it. Except for a building you’re going to live in and walk under, "it looks nice" is exactly the feeling you should evoke, especially if the "you" isn’t an architect, like most people,
Exactly, if you are forced to look at it non-stop you need it to be simply pleasant visual background-noise and not thought-provoking.
I just bemoan the missed opportunity to make medieval castles in the modern day.
Give the concrete molds some large stone stone block textures like is done with fake brick walls and a bit of fake castle defense architecture for exterior ornamentation and that's a concrete slab building people would happily rent an apartment in.
Stop trying to change architecture by being contrarian and feed the public's inner child by fulfilling the dreams we had while playing in a box fort at age 6.
As an illustrator and minor architecture nerd (my minor in school was art history and I spent multiple semesters in modern architecture classes) I had this fight with SO many professors.
I feel as if it's ok to provoke emotion, except when the emotion provoked is a fundamental and primal *dislike* for the structure, that was perhaps the wrong emotion to provoke.
Nah, you dont get it. Some people just love the way it looks. Not every single brutalist building, mind you (like the one without any windows) but so many of then look incredible to me. This is also true for those that I see in my daily life.
Like, this discussion really boils down to "different people like different things" and just because the world of architecture is at a certain level of snobbiness by default people feel that incredibly overwhelming urge to intellectualise their feelings one way or another.
the thing is the early developers of brutalism emphasized that the raw concrete facades were not only meant to be some ode to honesty of materials because you weren't covering up what they're made of, they were meant to be a blank canvas for human intervention (ie murals, decoration, potted plants, etc). later developers were like "blank canvas, gotcha. grey forever"
Later developers misinterpreting early béton brute as meant to left unpainted has the same kind of vibe as people looking at the statues and buildings of Classical Greece and Rome thoudands of years later and misinterpreting them purposedly lacking paint.
It's the "ode to honesty" shit that has never sat right with me. The fetishization of 'authenticity' and looking down on decorations as somehow fake is just the height of wankery, imho. It's fine when you apply it to personal art, but not publically-funded public works.
@@pRahvi0 Raw marble looks a lot better than raw concrete, it's the easier mistake to make even without the extra couple of millennia to make it.
@@pRahvi0 Given the painted marble recreations I've seen... I'll stick with raw marble
@@TheSchultinatoryou've just gotten used to equating antiquity with blank white marble. Which is fine, I have too.
Brutalism really works as a canvas for greenery. Take any brutalist structure, clad it in vines, draping flowers, and integrating nature into it. Treat it as a flower pot, essentially. The contrast between the bare, uniform concrete and green chaos is a wonderful combination. I took some courses at a community college with this aesthetic and it gave the feeling of a natural canyon, with caves and alcoves, lush with greenery, and full of life. Behind all that greenery were the stark right angles and blocky concrete forms, that allowed the natural elements to take center stage while maintaining functionality.
and then the vines destroy the unfinished concrete in less than half the design lifetime
Then again any and all buildings look nice when overgrown
That's why Brazillian Modernism - which overlaps considerably in Brutalism - surprisingly works. It's brute concrete yes but with curves and blended with lush landscaping it's almost SEXY
Uh, so do most modern and many historical architectural styles. Brutalism is just so ugly it manages to add the extra layer of intrigue that kind of makes it work in way.
And if you take an actually nice style of architecture and cover _that_ in vines or greenery, then it will look better still.
I've found one place where brutalism kinda seems to work: Underground. I visited the Washington DC subway system and found that the solidity of the concrete seemed like a nice counter to the fear of being a hundred feet below the surface. I can definitely imagine the pretentiousness invading the simple architecture of the arch hall, but I distract myself by imagining how LOTR dwarves would have used raw concrete to make one feel safe in a grand space below the surface.
As someone who's lived in post-Soviet apartment blocks their whole life - they actually DON'T suck as long as they are maintained, and they are accompanied by the quality of urban planning that would make a suburban American weep.
My building is 11 floors tall, has 121 small apartments and I'm extremely comfortable here. The rent is cheap, I have great views from my 8th floor windows, the building is well-insulated, heated and ventilated.
It's surrounded by trees, some of which are over 50 years old at this point and there's a small park right next to the building. I have public transport and basically ALL basic services and shops available within 10 min walking distance. And I do mean ALL, that includes groceries, a hairdresser, a vet, a public library, an ice cream place, a shoe store (they do repairs too!), a car mechanic, flower shop, several kindergartens and schools (all the way to high school level), a church, a post office... And there's a train station, two mid-sized supermarkets, several restaurants, a massive mall, an IKEA and two hardware/home improvement stores within 15 min walk.
Is it beautiful architecture? Hell no. Is it a FANTASTIC place to live? Absolutely.
And if you go beyond the basic, utilitarian housing or dirty industrial buildings and ignore the pretentious essays, there's some truly magnificent concrete architecture out there. If you look at high quality, high concept designs, you get amazing craftsmanship, thoughtful use of materials, integration of green spaces...
For just one example in Poland, google Spodek concert hall in Katowice. It looks like a giant flying saucer and the surroundings were redesigned and renovated fairly recently. I absolutely love it. And it occasionally plays the Encounters of the Third Kind music in the middle of the night.
Yeah, brutalism's inception was form dictated BY function. The epitome of the saying "Form follows function" cast in concrete for the world to see. Brutalism is rooted in the idea of allowing "art" to be subservient to getting stuff to WORK. in short true brutalism is when you say f--- aesthetics I'm making this do stuff!
Which as Blue points out is... not what most people DO with it. That pretentious edginess that a lot of it has... is because it's using shapes that have no practical function. 9:20 looks GREAT! 9:25 looks like a waste of concrete.
Forgive me for my ignorance- if you can not,
Then pity me, I am at your mercy.
Please help me understand; you are obviously bilingual (or poly) which is so wonderful to me, you were b. In Russia? Why or who influenced you to learn English-
Or does everyone know English?
I feel so lost and enveloped in America sometimes. I would love to know more of what is really going on… could you help? Something tells me you are the one.
@@NotThisShipSister1 I'm Polish and I've lived in Poland my whole life. I started learning English when I was around 8, the local community center offered classes for kids.
I can't imagine NOT wanting to learn a foreign language, if you have the opportunity. It opens up the world for you. There's so much more information I can access, music, books and movies I can enjoy, people I can meet, jobs I'm qualified for. English is the obvious first choice given the American culture's dominant position and importance on the job market. But I also speak a bit of Russian, Ukrainian and Spanish (not fluent at all, but I can manage a simple conversation).
I guess initially it was my parents who wanted me and my brother to learn English, but it was fun and I always enjoyed the lessons. And not everyone speaks fluent English here, but most people under 40, especially in big cities, know at least a little English.
@@NotThisShipSister1 My native language is actually English. I have however spent a lot of time overseas doing military stuff though, and yes, I do have some understanding of several languages,
Though not conversational skills. I blame that on learning pieces of several languages, and not actually sticking to one language.
I actually did at one point live in an old Russian built barracks. It had interesting architecture. Functional, simple, but not bad. Never seen skylights in a latrine before... but that style worked nicely.
@@NotThisShipSister1 yea, I think for most people the benefit of having much more open doors to some things is just very nice. Also you will be instantly much more accepted by people of that language if you speak it. "There is no bigger compliment than learning another's language".
And while English is the most widely used language, Mandarin, Spanish and French will go a long way as well. (as much as I would like to promote learning german, you really don't get that much out of it)
Also I think you will be surprised on how many English comments on the internet are made by people that have it as their second language.
"Brutalism means like four different things-" *opens hand completely*
Me: *suddenly remembers Blue has four fingers*
Strong contender for my joke of the year.
-B
@@OverlySarcasticProductions Its legit inspired XD
Mmmmmm... Hate that...
@@OverlySarcasticProductions ngl I actually had to hear it twice because at first I thought you said 5 things instead of 4 🤣
There's a story there that I'm not familiar with. Accident? Was he born that way? Or did he have a brief stint with a Yakuza family?
I grew up in a Soviet era building and it wasn't soul sucking at all. When concrete buildings have normal window placement and a coat of paint they don't feel like oppressive monuments, they just feel like home.
Personal experience has a tendency to triumph over design sensibility in most areas of art, I feel like. Doesn't matter that it's "bad" when you have a positive association to it - like you said, it just registers as "home".
@@pedroscoponi4905 to be fair, most so-called commie block neighbourhoods are incredibly well designed (i mean, just look how well they held up after half a century of neglect), arguably better than the majority of modern structures, designed for the needs of the time and with a human approach towards the needs of the citizens that is severly lacking today
What you describe is THE main point of why Brutalism is NOT the endpoint. It's supposed to evolve into something more.
It may start as a grey block of oppressive concrete... but it can be decorated, painted, and personalised either by individual parts or by the whole building.
This is why when i see brutalist architecture ending up being vandalised and overgrown, it lifts away the emotional drain and lets it be free. At least, that is my own personal opinion.
@@pedroscoponi4905 It's art. Subjective allways trumps objective there because at the end of the day the only thing that matters is do people like it. Besides if people who live in a building like the building and it satisfies their requirments, I don't see how it's a bad building.
If they are painted, doesn't that by definition drift them away from brutalism AKA béton brut AKA raw concrete?
"I wanna give some special thanks to friends of mine who listened to the first draft of this video in the form of a very off-the-cuff diatribe on a video call a few weeks back. I know you wondered, and yes, Red and I truly are like this all the time."
Relatable.
Very!
The biggest irony I can think of when it comes to things related to Brutalism is the use of it in the Metro. The two Cold War rivals, the US and USSR, both have an iconic subway system for their capital. Moscow’s stations are known for being some of the most beautiful stations in the world (following citizens deserve beauty philosophy), while DC used a Brutalist (a design philosophy that’s fits more with the Soviet ideals that the American one to the point where Brutalism is more associated with communism) design for its stations.
I think the problem with a lot of Brutalist works is that they were meant to take away all the filigree and ostentation so that all the other things, like light, water, trees, and people, could be seen clearly, rather than fuzzed out and lost in the sea of intricate details. The problem is, almost every time it's actually implemented, they don't *do* any of that. The architect *doesn't* put in the effort to catch the light and reveal the earth. They *don't* put the human element on display, except as tiny isolated specks against a featureless grey void or faceless throngs that are already shorn of detail. They don't include urban forest and lavish gardens and extensive growing things.
Exceptions to this pattern are just that: exceptions. And when the pretentious boosters rant and rave about how much better their work is than all other architecture, they *definitely* don't do any of that. They take pictures under harsh, undifferentiated, often unnatural light, when there are no people present, or just one or two for that "look how vast it is" thing. The proselytizers don't *let* that greenery and those natural lines contrast against the sharp unnatural lines of efficient concrete.
Brutalism can work. It's not my preference, but it _can_ work. It just so rarely _does_ because its advocates don't let the thing be a canvas and a contrast. They try to make it the only thing the eye is allowed to see, and in so doing they ruin the entire benefit of the style. Then, often, they doubly ruin even the philosophy of the style, by _adding back ornamentation_ so that the visual space actually contains something again. Random pylons and crosshatch shaped buildings are not utilitarian! Arrow-slit windows are only utilitarian if you mean to withstand a bloody siege! If the whole point is that utility alone can have its own beauty, don't ruin that by _inserting things with zero utility!_
Never in my life have I seen an online rando so expertly explain my own grievances to me
@@BBP-OMO Thank you, that's very kind!
Honestly this also captures a lot of my annoyance with the apparently-typical "brutalist" works.
Build the drainage into the flooring pattern! Position the walls to leave open sunny gardens! Shape the walkways to make the wind flow where you want it and shelter people from the wind where you don't! There are so many opportunities for the architecture to participate in making the space itself more habitable.
But such things just get replaced by "well, we put the foundation above the roof and made it out of concrete, so that's brutalist, right?" Or worse: "weird + concrete = brutalism".
I thought I liked Brutalism....turns out I like seeing nature reclaim brutalist architecture.
You like seeing the natural endpoint of Brutalist architecture.
The 'Nier: Automata' point of brutalism.
Yeah Eco-Brutalism is very beautiful in my opinion
@@connorcoker5112 I did not know it was called Eco-Brutalism (it feels weirdly obvious, but still) and I am very happy about this development
I've renovated my home in Orkcore. The look is dominated by red, grey, and brown. Brown leather and brown wood. Grey concrete, grey iron, grey stone, occasionally grey stained wood such as my house number sign. Red leather, sedona red stained wood, a bit of red trim, red painted roof. Dark ages war/hunting weapons such as battleaxes, shields, and spears as decorations. Hide rugs and Navajo rugs. Raw materials and recycled materials such as barnwood tables. Exposed industrial elements such as large bolts where practical and industrial iron brackets. Pointiness added everywhere it can be done safely, such as pointy plants, pointy curtain-rods, pointy fencing, pyramid tacks, horns, antlers.
Such a delightful video essay. I wrote a short paper on brutalism in university. I think an important element of brutalism that's easy for english speakers to miss is that in French, the word "Brut" doesn't have the same connotation as it does in english. "Brut" is closer to the word "Raw" in French.
"I. Love. Architecture" I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!
Next he’ll tell us he loves talking about Rome
SHOCK! HORROR! NOT AT ALL PREDICTABLY!
@@merrittanimation7721Or Venice
@@VictoriaStarrattOr Domes
What's next? He says that he likes dome, oh wait.
My favorite example of Brutalism is the DC Metro! The stations of the DC Metro are a sight to behold. The flashing lights, the hexagonal floor tiles, the waffles...chef's kiss design. Many Metro stations were designed by Chicago architect Harry Weese, and they not only have aspects of Brutalist design, but also reflect the influence of Washington's neoclassical architecture in their overarching coffered ceiling vaults! Weese worked with lighting designer Bill Lam from Cambridge, MA on the indirect lighting used throughout the system. Weese and his employees visited European cities like Lisbon, Moscow, Milan, Paris, Rome, and Stockholm, hoping to take the best elements of each and combine them into the perfect system for DC. In Lisbon, they noted the design of the ticket booth and the attendant’s uniform, as well as the minimal interruption of the subway stairs on a typical street. In Moscow, they took note of the palatial glories of the underground stations, from cut-glass lanterns to marble paneling. In Milan, they took note of its Modernist design.
Weese created a proposal with dozens of views for station interiors with a simple semiellipse, with a flat bottom and curved top. For cut-and-cover stations, the vault was proposed to have straight, vertical walls supporting a curved ceiling. In Weese’s first presentations to the US Commission of Fine Arts during the spring and summer of 1967, he attempted to assimilate his European travels into something Washingtonian, stations are shallow when possible, entered through cuts in the sidewalk, as in Lisbon, with minimal interruptions between street and platform. But the CFA wanted it to feel monumental, no exposed rock walls like Stockholm, and something like the inside of a thermos bottle. So he changed his thought. He felt the necessities of each station would produce the variety, that "You don't try to make them different for different's sake. We think it's very appropriate for Washington. After all". To Weese, the sweeping, swooping, floating lines of Metro's plazas, stations and mezzanines are the system's best feature. Once they were chosen, he said, the long, long escalators and the indirect, somewhat dim lighting in stations fell into step as a result.
As a kid taking trips to DC the metro stations always reminded me of caves. Each time I hoped to see bats fly out of it but I was disappointed every time.
Yeah I was about to say, Blue makes an entire video shitting all over brutalism, complete with fictional dystopias which actually appear to feature Art Deco and an entire tangent about train station, but somehow completely ignores the entire WMATA system.
This is such an alien mindset that Blue has that it confuses the hell out of me. Not the distaste for pretentious architects, that I understand. But he shows an absolutely gorgeous building and then goes "Look at this disgusting pile of confusing garbage!" and I'm just sitting here going "...so is this another thing I like because I'm Autistic or is it just a different taste thing?" Especially that super colorful one the french dude made, it's so nice. "Why is it so confusing?" That's confusing? It's as busy to look at as all the gothic and art deco stuff out there, with all the random shit all over the place. If anything it's simpler and calmer to look at.
One of my favorites is the Kyoto International Conference Center. And to be fair to Blue, I listen to weird dark ambient music and would enjoy walking through hallways that look straight out of the manga BLAME! and would happily live underground or like, inside a supervillain's lair. I'm kind of weird. The fact that it's weird is what makes it interesting. A lot of architecture just bores me, and funnily enough, most of the examples of architecture Blue brought up as his favorites, look boring or even ugly to me. Gothic stuff looks like it's covered in greebles, I don't get it.
As an Art History student who is really into the old stuff, I always dreaded having to get classes about Brutalism, it was my punching bag. HOWEVER, during the lectures on post 19th century architecture and having to endure the nonsense theories of Corbusier, aka Corby, I was actually pleasantly surprised when we got to Brutalism because even though I didn't like their buildings, the philosophy behind their design at least made sense! Yes, humans need fresh air, yes give kids some grass to touch please! Ever since I have actually jumped to the defence of Brutalism from time to time.
Thus, I must apologize to Brutalism, you may not have been nice to look at, but at least you had heart!
Hey man, love your videos!
I also studied 'old' art history in the Netherlands, but there are really some gems in brutalism. For example, Louis Kahn's project in Bangladesh - it's truly remarkable how it came about and what it looks like. I also think we don't necessarily need to build new brutalist buildings, but it's architecture we can appreciate and preserve. In the Netherlands, it was never done on a megalomaniacal scale, but it the smaller works diversify the city.
I've never seen Brutalism as edgy personally, I've always seen it as tragically optimistic.
One of my favourite (and one of the most tragic) examples of Brutalism is the Park Hill Flats in Sheffield.
It was invisioned a social housing complex to replace the slums that was in the area, while still maintaining the streets andthe sense of community, as the residents of the slums would be moving in there.
So was invisioned "streets in the sky" where the walkways were wide and welcoming, a milk cart could drive down it, there was plenty of space for kids to play or to have a conversation, all while being efficient housing for the people living there. Becuase of that the complex is massive, one of the biggest in Europe, I believe.
Yet despite that all its layed out in a way that allows natural light in, with a greenspace in the center.
And thats why I like brutalism, because thats what it is to me.
Not oppression and uniformity but the ability to create anything. A belief that the second half of the 20th century would mean that we could achieve comfort, community, grandeur and efficiency, without compromise.
Ironically the death of said optimism in the late 70s and the rise of Thatcherism that followed would lead to its decline into an infamous symbol of how Sheffield itself suffered under the changes of Thatcherism.
It would be Grade 2 listed in 98, but it took a while after that too be refurbished. Its new image lacks that utopian ideal, with its first block shrinking the size of the streets and being private housing. Later developments would keep the street size but only a small portion remains social housing.
Recently the residents lost the fight to maintain that green space, and its to be replaced with parking, depressingly (arguably a necessity with the more middle class residents and the decline of public transport in the city)
So though I disagree with your perspective on Brutalism, I suppose no matter which way you look at it now only seems to represent the death of the utopian mindset, whether that be through decline, gentrification or authoritarianism.
What could of been a monument to a new age of equality instead represent the failings of the movements that inspired it.
Brutalism is consistently the headstone of optimistic ideas and utopian projects, and that's probably the saddest part of it
Equality is not a virtue.
I grew up in brutalist block neighborhoods and let me tell you, its not at all like the sad grey tiktok edits you see all the time. My apartment complex is well built, has a big parking lot, open green spaces between buildings with basketball courts and a playground, a supermarket, school and hospital within walking distance.
You know which apartments don't have any of those comforts? The new ones, built by private investors, from cheap plaster and thin concrete.
Same. There're a lot of old, "brutalist" apartment blocks in Vietnam (mostly due to cost), but these have a lot of human touches rather than just completely grey concrete. The house and windows have different paints, flower pots everywhere, and neighbors tend to live close enough to see each other on daily basis, and the noise of all the people chatting and children playing.. It's not a work of art, but it sure feels right at home for those who grow up there..
Public buildings though, completely lack those.. so they just look cheap and boring..
Exactly. American Capitalists only care that it's as cheap as possible.
And Eastern Block architecture in East Germany is some of the cheapest housing around. And now mostly painted
NBG?
There's a lot to be said about soviet housing complexes... but they achieved their objective of giving as many people as possible a home to live in. Add _life_ to a brutalist structure and that itself will make it beautiful.
I like some Brutalist architecture. I went to UMass Dartmouth and the buildings there look “Solid.” Best way I can describe it is that it looks like a bunker in the best way possible. It looks like it could survive the end of the world. A grey block of concrete designed to stand forever no matter the weather. As a university it makes a powerful statement that way. “We safeguard the knowledge of mankind, and so long as we stand, the knowledge and ideas held within the walls will stand.” Also the concrete benches inside the buildings have the perfect amount of cushion to it and are very comfortable. Maybe possibly have fallen asleep on them.
I’m a fan of gothic architecture and even a little art deco. I was to see towers, ornate designs, tasteful greenery, I want buildings that look like they’re pretending to be castles. New York had a handful of famous buildings that look like this and theirs plenty across Europe. I’m tired of the utilitarian designs of modern architecture because as Blue said it all looks depressing, oppressive and boring.
I can't believe you did the Geisel Library like that. It. Is. Beautiful. Not even a direct mention but just a brief glimpse during a rant about pretension. The GL is the real deal, it's what brutalism should be.
I'll admit it looks pretty cool. But I'd still take the Boston Public Library over that any day. It almost makes up for the city hall.
I think it highlights that brutalism is strongest when the concrete isn't the sole focus. It serves as a frame for the glass and unique but not oppressive shapes, to the point where looking at it from the exterior almost feels like peering into a diorama and from the inside letting plenty of natural light in
Preach it! It's the perfect building for what it's meant to hold.
My defence of brutalism comes from the public library in my hometown.
I loved it as a kid, and the massive concrete blocks it was made from gave me the sense that it was bigger and more complex than I could possibly understand. And for a place of learning and community, I think I found that really comforting.
This was a powerful place, full of not just knowledge, but people who would help you find it. Like a sort of grumbly grandfather that might seem intimidating and cold at first glance, but held joy and experience in the nooks and cranies if you could find them.
The other thing I associate with brutalism is university campuses and hospitals, for much the same reasons.
Maybe it's not brutalism I enjoy, but places of learning and community, but regardless the two are married in my head.
Yeah, one of the universities I loved going to in my time was probably a Brutalist building. It was spiky and hard, but it was so beautiful for the things inside.
Frankly, a solid concrete brick filled with plants and children and the barking of dogs is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. All the big brutalist art pieces miss the mark, by making their designs so confusing and opaque that they're no longer utilitarian. Which is the entire point of brutalism. You're supposed to revel in the sheer practicality not spew out a slurry of hostile geometric shapes, all the while making the building horribly impractical because the architect made their design halfway up their own ass.
"revel in utilitarianism" is the best artful description of white room torture I've heard yet.
Exactly. How did Brutalism go from "Let´s keep this as simple and utilitarian as possible" to "Look how ornate and complicated I can make this while still keeping it butt ugly"?
I'm not even sure brutalism is meant to be practical. Hell, a lot of them decay way too easily.
It is my understanding that although similar, brutalism and functionalism are distinct movements : functionalism is about letting the practicality decide the shape of the building, whereas brutalism is about repeating patterns.
I'd like to add that no codified style before Brutalism addressed human experiences beyond "wowwowwow pretty building :o" as well deeply as Brutalism did. Did a lot of Brutalist works miss the mark? Yes. Was the style and movement a crucial point in the evolution towards more human centered architecture? Also yes.
I find it curious that The Barbican was only very briefly mentioned and showcased with a picture that makes it look anonymous and similar to any other housing estate. It's a hugely ambitious attempt at designing fully for human habitation, and it goes way beyond just a few floors of apartments. In fact, I find it quite telling that the "lauded" examples were either failed concepts or things only architects really enjoy, while so so many less stark examples were completely left out.
The entertainment value of having watched Blue's last several videos where he proved his spicy takes wrong and then listening to the intro of this one fully expecting another "proved-myself-wrong" thesis, only to get "no, I'm fully right and here's why" is incredible.
One of the rare times I have a major disagreement with what this channel presents. I genuinely really liked the provided examples used to exemplify negative points here. Brutalism makes way for far easier usage of unusual geometric form In architecture
Nice to see some praise for the WTC Oculus! I know that project is controversial because of the extended delays and high costs it took to build it, but for me, I think it's a beautifully unique and perfect design for its location! Whenever I walk into Grand Central, it's a breathtaking experience, and I get that same feeling walking into the Oculus. And that was the inspiration for Calatrava, he wanted to emulate Grand Central Terminal. He wanted to give a building to the community for a place like Ground Zero, a monument to the community, something that celebrates the day-to-day with the people, not to think this part of NYC is a somber place, but a place that keeps moving forward. He intended it to resemble a dove leaving a child's hands. You can see it in the tall, crossed steel columns that make up the exterior. Inspired by the Pantheon's oculus, Calatrava took it a step further! The Oculus receives the light from above as well as the sides. It permeates the building that receives as much daylight as the street outside. At night, it reverses into giving out the light when it is lit up like a lantern. The light also bears a symbolic value, each year, on September 11th at 10:28 AM (the time when the second tower collapsed), the sunlight beams the central axis of the main hall.
DC Union Station was designed by Daniel Burnham, who also worked on the iconic Flatiron Building in NYC as well as DC's National Mall, plans for Manila and Baguio during the American colonial period of the Philippines as well as the 1909 Plan of Chicago. While the latter plan wasn't fully implemented, parts of it were, including Chicago Union Station, North Michigan Avenue, Wacker Drive and Chicago's spectacular lakefront parks, and regional forest preserves. Chicago Union Station was first being constructed under Burnham, but as Burnham died in 1912, his successor firm Graham, Anderson, Probst & White took over and finished it in 1925. They worked on many Chicago icons like the Wrigley Building, Merchandise Mart, Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, and the Civic Opera House! This is the same firm that also worked on Philly's 30th Street Station, Philly's Suburban station, and Cleveland's Terminal Tower! A detail I respect and appreciate about 30th Street Station is the Angel of the Resurrection sculpture, portraying Michael the Archangel lifting up the soul of a dead soldier from the flames of war. It commemorates the 1,307 Pennsylvania Railroad employees who died in World War II and was sculpted by Walker Hancock in 1952. As my grandpa on my father's side (Irish/Russian) served on the Western Front as part of New Jersey's contribution to WWII (he passed in 2009 and passed his coin collection from his WWII travels to me), seeing such a tribute touched me deeply.
Brutalists: "Practicality, utility, and efficiency are the most important elements of architectural design. With that philosophy in mind, we will design government buildings that look like concrete spaceships and apartment buildings that look like Jenga towers on the verge of collapsing."
And it's all gonna still be ugly and stark as hell
That bit is genuinely confusing to me. The most brutalist thing I can imagine by the given definition is just a blank cube with a door, but then all these brutalist buildings look like they're trying to make the concrete perform a creepy contorcionism show. It just doesn't scan.
You are confusing this with constructivism.
You're thinking of functionalism. Brutalism is not about practicality, it's about repeating simple patterns (and make it look massive).
@@merlintitouan6949 It's a _lot_ easier to hate brutalism when you just make up moustache-twirling, villainous and out of touch architects with idiotic philosophies.
Imo, the best example of brutalism is the barbican in london. Council housing that is absolutely brimming with public spaces, arts, and nature. It even has a old ass church and also a freakin' roman wall!
Its incredible, its probably my favourite architecture of all time. Being within its "walls" made walking around it made me feel safe from the outside, from london itself, and within a community. One filled with art and people and water and plants, held safe within the concrete area and secure from the influx of cars and new builds. Not bad from an area that was devustated by german bombing during the blitz, a fortress rising from the ashes to keep its community safe. Not by force of arms, but through culture and affordable housing.
Its ugliness is only present from the outside, but once youre within you find beauty in the people and what it means to be human. Its quite beautiful, in its own way.
Also, living inside a modern castle is badass as hell and i wont apologise for that.
I loaded the entire comment section and liberally awarded likes to those who praised the Barbican. There's a lot of negative things that can be said about brutalism, but I adore the Barbican. One of my favourite places.
@@_the_disreputable_dog9345 100%
I like how Blue brought up how Brutalism is used to depict sci-fi dystopias. What he forgot to mention is how often it's used to depict utopia as well (see Star Trek, and I'd bring up another example, but there hasn't been any other utopian sci-fi anything in the last 50 years). That's the coolest thing about Brutalism; it's 70 years old and it is still how we see the future.
3:01 khrushchevkas were a miracle at the time they were built. As in, they were designed with scientific studies in mind, alowing them to be liveable while also being compact and cheap. They calculated stuff up to how wide is the space needed to wash one's face in the morning (70 cm, I believe), so you had that exact space near the sink.
Khrushchevkas have gotten worse and worse rep as time went on, because they weren't designed to stick around for so long. But giving out hundreds of thousands of flats to citizens all over the country for free was an undeniable achievement
Maybe it's just the Slav in me, but I love me a good brutalist monument. There are so many amazing monuments to falled partizans in the Balkans and the ones set on hills in the middle of nowhere are my favourite. The contrast between the lush green surroundings and the rough concrete is just *chef's kiss*
The MOMA had a great exhibit a while back on those monuments, I hadn't even heard of them before but looking at all the pictures was so neat
To me, the monuments built by totalitarian govenments have kinda the same appeal as war machines - terrifying but also kinda cool.
Also, I totally agree with the combination of grey concrete and green flora looking beautiful.
Sounds like stumbling across the ankles of Ozymandias, which is actually a really cool thing.
Yugoslav Brutalism is above anything from Soviet countries. It's funny how he conveniently ignored to show any example of Yugoslav Brutalism.
"Tall pointy, brain happy"
Domes: Am I a joke to you?
The dome is just equally pointy in all directions from it's center, don't worry about it
Domes can have tall pointies on top of them!
What is a dome if not big pointy
I feel so strange because so many of these buildings are absolutely beautiful and fascinating to me.
Even the basic and plain utilitarian ones have such a nice minimalist aesthetic.
It makes me sad that so many don't appreciate it...
I think Blue is just wrong with this one. He’s showing off some of the coolest buildings I’ve ever seen and calling them ugly? And he’s calling *us* pretentious??
What your looking at are photos taken from a perspective to maximize appearance. Not what it looks like in person.
@@tavernburner3066 When comparing like to like, though, they still look gorgeous. I doubt most people are viewing Renaissance domes from above, either!
When your definition of visually appealing contains "minimalism" as a plus your taste in the arts is anything but standard. To most people in history strapping feathers to spears, stacking stones to make pyramids or strapping RGBs to your PCs IS the beauty of a tool, not the bare function it is ment to do.
And architecture perhaps more than any other art is for the most and not the few. It is not the educated, wealthy or few who will be pacing by your works but the many, the poor, the common aka the single group who loves ornaments and simple beauty most who've been trained to see the grey and bare as dilapidated since thats what most buildings devolve to when not maintained
@@BBP-OMO The best brutalist works don't forget that those things aren't mutually exclusive - you just don't need to build the feathers into the haft of the spear itself, to use one of your analogies.
The ones that just put their foundations over their roofs are pretty silly, though.
The setup and payoff of "beauty being a thing for the rich" inspiring brutalism to "beauty being a thing for the public" contradicting brutalism was masterful
The only brutalist style buildings I've ever had regular exposure to was this one store on a military base called the commissary. Whenever my mom would go shopping there, I, as a little kid, was honestly weirdly impressed with the contrast between the harsh appearance on the outside compared with the relatively friendly and welcoming environment on the inside. It was kinda like cracking open a geode, but more like a disarmed sea mine filled with half-wilted dandelion flowers. It didn't leave a great impression on me, but not a terrible one either, just... an impression.
I'm actually a big fan of brutalist architecture, but more specifically what I refer to as "natural brutalism" which takes these stark, utilitarian spaces, large or small, and breaks the space up with plants, pipes, electrical work, or even just the chaotic messiness of human life, like drying laundry, or similar. It's what I love about it, the starkness punctuated and broken by living things or the evidence of them. Light too, like mentioned in the video, also helps create this sort of style that I find quite aesthetically pleasing
If you haven't already, check out the video game Control. It's a great example of what you're talking about.
@@nunyabiznes7446 I wish i could have gotten into that game but i just didn't like it at all.
@@nunyabiznes7446 I've played so many hours of Control, love that game
@@Foogi9000 The combat isn't great and only gets worse over time, no clue why they put in some rng rarity loot system. Control is definitely a mixed recommendation, whether the atmosphere and action makes up for poor system design and often frustrating gameplay is going to vary from person to person
I feel the same way
Speaking as a life-long Bostonian (fun meeting y'all at Pax btw!), I fully agree with your choice to use Boston City Hall as the video's primary example of Brutalism at its worst. The running joke in my family is that it resembles the product of someone playing jenga with jersey barriers. And when your dad's father was an architect, and your mother works in the cavernous depths of the building several days out of the week, that means something!
Yeah that's other thing that is just bizarre about that building: the majority of it is way underground. So not only is the surface bit just...unpleasant and vaguely threatening, it's also completely pointless because they decided to put all the useful parts in a bottomless pit instead. Because apparently the architect was really going to dungeon vibes for some reason. It also sticks out like a sore fucning thumb because right behind it is Faneuil Hall which is actually kind of pretty.
Having to go there to get a marriage license was the least romantic part of the wedding prep and I am including the hours spent on seating arrangements to account for family politics.
okay but alewife station is a really good example of brutalism. so pretty, just wish it was cleaned more frequently
My university was designed by Paul Rudolph, the guy who made the Boston City Hall, and the whole place is wild. The library has the exact same aero split windows, the dorms are depressing, and the entire campus has a panopticon kind of vibe to it. Which makes sense, because the campus was originally built to look like a Fibonacci spiral from above. Apparently he never actually got to fully complete his grand vision for the campus, because apparently those spoilsports in the town planning department and the Massachusetts state government kept saying things like “No you cannot build a network of secret tunnels connecting the Engineering and Liberal Arts buildings”. Oh also he made the roofs perfectly flat because he thought that in the future, we would have flying cars, and he wanted the roofs to be flat and strong enough to serve as landing pads. It’s ugly as sin, but it’s also so batshit insane I can’t help but love it in a weird way.
I mean, Mad Lad there sound like he made a nice spot to stick some solar panels up.
Massachusetts government is just afraid of the STEAM crossovers, the cowards. ;) (Plus, if you give the engineers access to arts, what will they do to the Brutalist structures?)
The tunnels you mention are actually a feature of some campuses, interestingly enough. For a variety of reasons from the standard mid-cold-war "totally not a bunker" mentality to just being practical ways to get around when there's 3' of snow on all the walkways that fell just that morning.
It is always kind of shocking to me when people accuse brutalism of being both oppressive and pretentious while defending styles of architecture popular in fascist circles as homes of kings, emperors, and slave owners. The US using neoclassical architecture to mark them as inheritors of democracy is a bit of hagiography. The founders were famously interested in Ancient Rome, not always in ways that are flattering to the US. Slavery was extremely important to both societies. Neoclassical architecture was also VERY popular in the south, so it shouldn't be a surprise that many peoples first though seeing corinthian columns isn't liberty, its opposite. You see a plantation, others see a plantation.
"Brutalism is used in movies for dystopias in film," sure and Thanos was a utilitarian. But on planet earth, what architecture was preferred by emperors, kings, and despots? Would you rather live in the society that created neoclassicalism? Or the one that created brutalism.
@@danmccune5637frankly, BOTH societies are bad.
But which would I rather?
We can’t answer, because we only know what we live in. Even from the historical and anthropology studies… we don’t know what it’s like to LIVE in!
as someone who has an irrational hatred for when buildings have facades that look structural but aren't really structural, i really appreciate brutalism for how hard it goes in the exact opposite direction. to show my love for brutalism, i have ranked every single brutalist building blue put on screen in this video from worst to best:
#23: that stuff at 3:14. somehow all that yellow makes it way more depressing.
#22: "water tower, johannesburg," 9:33. makes me nervous to look at. i wanna nock it over. why does the big "jw" at the top look like it was attached with a gluestick?
#21: "bulgarian-soviet friendship monument," 9:40. if your making something that serves no functional purpose and is just meant to look cool and you still wind up as one of the ugliest things on this list, you fucked up.
#20: that thing at 9:23. this one is the one that most deserves that insult about looking like a rendering error.
#19: "ship house, moscow," 3:43. even before i saw the title i went "oh, that is definitely a spaceship," so that's pretty cool, but like. why is there a giant black rectangle on the front??
#18: "national mortage bank, argentina," 9:51. if you're gonna be bigger at the top than at the bottom, fuckin commit.
#17: "geisel library, san diego," 9:46. first one i like in a straight-forward, uncomplicated way. love the way the pillars start out vertical and then half way through go "actually, i think i wanna be diagonal." bit too much glass for my tastes though.
#15 and #16: a tie between "33 thomas street, nyc," 4:59 and "buffalo city court building," 9:07. well, now there's too little glass, but if you're gonna make a tower with no windows that's the way to do it.
#14: both of those housing complexes at 3:00. maybe if we built more stuff like this in the usa instead of endless suburbs and luxury condos, my rent wouldn't be so damn high.
#13: "brezhnevka, russia," 3:09. look at how big it is!!!!!
#12: that stuff at 3:17. also big but now there's lots of them!
#11: "boston city hall," 4:06. blue is objectively wrong. that atrium at 4:17 kicks ass. i want to shoot at pedestrians with a crossbow from one of those little windows.
#10: "boston government service center," 9:13. basically the same as boston city hall, but a little less busy and with nifty little exterior staircases.
#9: "russian state scientific center for robotics and technical cybernetics, st petersburg," 3:49. i think this one is really pretty, but i'll admit that if you're gonna make purely ornamental fins like that, they probably shouldn't be made of bare concrete.
#8: that thing at 0:49. looks like they forgot to build the elevator shaft until the rest of the building was done, which is ridiculous, but i dunno, i think it's charming.
#7: "bank of georgia building, tbilisi," 9:27. it has a giant hole in it! it looks like a jenga tower!!! tell me that's not at least a little cool.
#6: "russian academy of sciences, moscow," 3:54. oh my god i love how the concrete makes all that orange pop!
#5: "dallas city hall, dallas," 8:52. dallas, don't listen to what blue said about how you should stop leering over us. you're a domineering jock who cornered me agains my locker and i'm a flustered schoolgirl with a crush on you.
#4: "habitat 67, montreal," 0:51. ok, i'll give you that it looks like a rendering error, but i think it really works here. reminds me of that village from riven.
#3: "salk institute, california," 5:36. even blue can't deny how beautiful this one is.
#2: "russian embassy in cuba," 0:57. someone gave that skyscraper a hat!!! :D
#1: "barbican estate, london," 9:20. another commenter said that brutalism works best as a backdrop for greenery and just, yes, holy shit that's gorgeous. if you live here, you should tell me exactly which apartment you live in so i can murder you and steel your identity.
I've seen brutalism be criticized many times, and while I can see where people are coming from, I've never personally agreed (on a subjective level). Maybe it's my early exposure to the kinds of sci-fi that use brutalism for the ancient aliens that I think are badass, or a fondness for the overgrown modern ruins aesthetic, or some other reason, but I've never thought too negatively about brutalism. Yeah, it's not pretty, but I do think it's cool. I like brutalism.
I like the modern ruins aesthetic as well, but i still cant get around brutalism. I much more appreciate the look of a detroit house taken back by nature or a hospital with vines growing up through the architecture. I wish someone would turn that kind of aesthetic into livable, living architecture.
So you enjoy it for its "Alien" or "Otherness"? And the overgrown city softens the Brutalist lines with natural forms, while doubling down on the out of place elements. Which is useful, in visual media, but in a day to day lived life setting... the structures feel like they shouldn't be where they are.
On a small scale, it can look interesting; but it's strength comes from efficiency, which is good.
But it looks ruthless and cruel when used to make courts and parliaments.
I agree. I want to see Blue take a look at Warhammer 40k's Imperium of Man's architecture. All that sort of... neo-gothic stuff... and see how stained glass windows and sort of almost if you smushed Art Deco and Byzantine design styles together could feel oppressive. Especially if the city is like 40 stories deep and your basic person has never actually seen natural sunlight.
@@Splicer-lb5xb To be fair, that's nothing if not what most legal systems are like, so I guess looking at it you know exactly what to expect...
I can appreciate the arguments made throughout the video, but I did find it funny to have Blue saying "it's so damn ugly" while showing some absolutely gorgeous buildings.
Agree with the idea that overdone it can be overbearing and restraint is important. Brutalism at its best feels very Star Trek to me, a hopeful future. I also think brutalism pairs well with plant life.
I just like all the overhangs. None of the stuff blue seems to like have overhangs like THOSE!
What your looking at are photos taken from a perspective to maximize appearance. Not what it looks like in person.
Yesssss!!! Exactly!!!
My university campus (York) has some of my favourite brutalist architecture. It is all human scale integrated with gardens and water features and at the moment is well maintained. Seems like the uni is about to go bust so not sure whether that will continue.
I personally dislike brutalism because of how it's handled. I think it can't stand on its own. Like you said, it works great with plants because it lets nature's beauty shine. I also think brutalism is enhanced with murals, graffiti or decorated with community art projects.
Always count on Blue to give Brutal critique of architecture.
Ba-dum tsss
@@nikki607 ba-dum tss
10:09 You’re right Blue, it isn’t harsh.
It’s Brutalist.
I’m not big on brutalism in general but I actually liked a couple of the brutalist buildings Blue showed here despite that! Mostly I think the buildings like the one at 9:29 are silly-looking like something someone created from lego, like it’s from a movie about the future and shouldn’t actually exist in real life, and I think that’s fun to look at and that I’d enjoy being inside a building like that because it would feel like I’m defying logic just by standing in one of those weird jutting shapes!
Aw heck. As soon as I saw the first image of the building when you mentioned ‘brutalism’ I immediately thought of the weird ugly buildings that I see on the way to school. I literally snapped a picture of one of them last week to diss about it to my brother.
Also, it was very fun to listen to Blue talk about architecture for ten minutes :)
As an architect myself this was a blast from my college years of Architecture History. Brutalism can be cool! But man does almost everyone who does is miss the cool parts! Louis Kahn was always a favorite of mine, because he got it.
My favourite is definitely the Bercelona Pavilion. Do you guys in America no have a difference between Brutalism and Bauhaus?
@@ellien5014 To the contrary, they're considered almost completely distinct from each other in the American architectural sphere. The Bauhaus legacy fed into the "international style" that was considered something of a counterpoint to the concrete-based constructions associated with brutalism.
Ah yes, brutalism. One of those things that I just have an objectively incorrect opinion about.
I love brutalism. It gives me a sense of power and awe. Balance and perfection. Practicality and starkness. *Chef's kiss.*
Sometimes you just gotta look at something stupid and say "this? I love this"
Brutalism is so cool
I would never live in a brutalist house
At least you know that you're factually wrong, and I respect that.
It’s beautifully evil, man, you have to respect it.
@@Saiyanahey, don't knock it. I've lived in those post-Soviet concrete blocks my whole life and they are AWESOME. Plus, the surrounding neighborhoods are often examples of the best urban design you've ever seen.
I liked brutalism because of the Control game. That universe intrigued me and invited me in, so the fact that it was entirely displayed in brutalist structures made me appreciate the style
I like Brutalist architecture as a blank canvas upon which to absolutely COVER with greenery.
It’s hard to agree that Brutalism isn’t good when you’re showing me cool examples of Brutalism. That library in San Diego looked sick.
I agree that the library looks sick, but it was by far one of the best looking ones.
So true. Brutalism might not be “in fashion” and might be harder to look upon with a historical lense than things that predate it by centuries but it’s fascinating and -crucially - worth preserving and innovating upon!
The library was also one of my favorites!! looks like a funky tree with big windows
I think it's important to distinguish "looks cool and interesting" from "is pleasant". I agree that lots of brutalist architecture looks incredibly cool but I still wouldn't enjoy myself if I had to be there every day for my job or such.
that was in my opinion definitly the best one in that sequence
At my university, most of the buildings are brick, a few are steel and glass. Two buildings stand out: one is a church made in a beautiful stone design. Unlike the uniform brick buildings that get boring to look at, the stones of the church have different size, color, texture, and the building itself has a rounded shape with pleasant details.
Next to that church stands the library, an ugly mess of concrete blocks. It makes no geometric sense, as the blocks clearly serve no structural purpose and the gaps between them are just wasted space. The sides of the building are covered in disgusting streaks, like when bolts are rusting and the rust runs down from them. There are weird seams that I guess have to do with where the windows are put in, but they look out of place on the faces that have no windows. I've always wondered how someone got the go-ahead to build that library like that.
The examples of Russian buildings that you showed look quite nice. They managed to find a way of detailing the buildings in a way that makes them interesting to look at. The Russian Academy of Sciences in particular makes an effort to at detailing in the form of impressions in the walls that draw the eye while emphasizing the structural might that the style already exudes. I think if more buildings made the effort to add detail to break up the monotony, brutalism could stick to its concrete roots while not being so maligned.
TL;DR: Brutalism could learn something from Minecraft builder youtubers - add detail and texture.
Unfortunately, adding details is antithetic to brutalism. Brutalism is about repeating simple patterns (ideally not more than four), having no ornaments beyond the shape of those patterns.
What your looking at in the video are photos taken from a perspective to maximize appearance. Not what it looks like in person.
@@tavernburner3066 I suspected as much, that is the point of photography, but even if the building overall is not as beautiful of a refrrence, the photo is.
@@merlintitouan6949 No, that's not at all the case. Perhaps to some weirdo purists/extremists, but just look at what Kahn produced! I can sure count a lot more than four "patterns" there.
"I dont care for brutalism"
*Snap cuts to one of the coolest damn buildings I've ever seen.*
The thing that looks like the half collapsed core of the chernobyl reactor?
Bruh.
I mean yeah it looks cool but it’d be hell to live in
Right? Half the buildings he showed off are cool as all hell! The Jenna tower one?! That first one?! I like the overhangs, dang it!
@@drawndreary you know brutalist buildings just look like normal buildings from the inside right. If anything they tend to be more open and have more windows
What your looking at are photos taken from a perspective to maximize appearance. Not what it looks like in person.
I used to know Red's mom. I believe you two really are like this, all the time, and I'm here for it. The best thing Brutalism has done, is give some great empty space for some really cool murals. The only thing that can save it is an explosion of colour...or just an explosion. Both are good options.
I don’t know what the design is called but whatever the government wanted to use to keep people from wandering onto nuclear waste sites is probably the most stunning architecture I’ve seen
"Citizens deserve beauty." Lemme get a tissue, I got something in my eye.
Seeing the Cincinnati Union Terminal as the first example of what Brutalism should be gave me the same glee as getting to go to that museum as a child. (The cave and ice age exhibits are the best, fight me, and that's even with the pretty overhead murals as you walk in the building.)
It's a beautiful idea but these days I can't help but feel a little sour about it, to be honest. :(
Also what better way to show off your wealth than to build something for everyone to admire.
I really enjoy the discussion of architecture as philosophy and what it represents, because I too often forget that architecture is *art-itecture* and has its own meanings inherent, which my brain only subconsciously picks it up (like the association of brutalist style with dystopias). The example of having train stations in the U.S., fundamentally public spaces, be grand as a way of saying 'citizens deserve beauty' and as a way of welcoming people into this grand space and by extension the city, is super interesting. Or, the Hallgrímskirkja (another excellent video) and how it uses light and shapes inspired from basalt columns and the mountains in its design.
TLDR: Blue please keep up the architecture and architecture-philosophy videos, I am learning about architecture as art style and love it
I love Andor's use of Brutalism in Coruscant to highlight how dystopian the Empire is while making the characters feel like everyday people with their blue milk cereal.
I wonder if Coruscant was like this even during the Clone Wars.
During the late war, certainly (TCW Season 5)
Yes and no. The clone wars for a transition point.
Probably. Coruscant in particular and the Core Worlds in general have a lot of people and industry. Efficiency of space is a large part if such architecture. You can see hints of this in the opening of Solo on Corellia too.
I just finished my third year of architecture school. I’m exhausted and don’t want to see a building ever again, and somehow Blue has me watching a video about architecture. Well played.
Brutalism is astoundingly beautiful when combined with natural elements. Places like The Barbican or the University of Brasília are gorgeous, and raw concrete works super well with greenery and water
I wouldn't necessary agree with the barbican (the balance isn't right to my liking). But to add to your argument, just look at the Talos Principle 2. They made this work for their puzzle environments and it's great!
Talking about the politics of Brutalism, and not talking about how Neoclassical, for example, was built on the foundations of inter-state (city or nation) rivalry, a desire to take on the mantle of 'New Rome' which reached its zenith in the Nazi plans for Germania, and as an expression of colonialism and its power, is an incomplete picture
Agreed. Especially with the recent resurgence of the colonial and white supremist narratives surrounding Western classical architecture, I was really hoping for a more critical analysis of aesthetic standards
@@aishmaraghu4014 thank you! As a non-architect, I was hoping that was something had just imagined or read too much into.
Not to mention that as is often the case with Brutalism, he mostly shows the most industrial examples he can find without contextualizing that by comparing it to the equally depressing nature of vernacular architecture made for industrial purposes. If it's ugly, it's because it's not meant to look pretty, as many of those buildings are not housing or government buildings, but literally factory buildings. Brutalism at least has a philosophy, whereas many of the ugly retail buildings that I have to work in have no excuse other than laziness by modern city planners and clear capitalist apathy. Most architecture isn't actually made by architects, and the blame for them looking hideous must be placed elsewhere, and that goes equally for many of the examples people always trot out for Brutalism. It wasn't expensive, so it was easy to imitate by vernacular architecture.
Yeah, I feel like it will lead to viewers coming out of it with a lens of brutalism specifically being "political", while classicism is to be regarded as being more "neutral", "natural", "aesthetic", thus ignoring the underlying philosophy of the latter or, hell, while I used it for my example, any other architectural or artistic style.
Huge bloody blind spot
You weren't paying attention then.
He explicitly mentioned how greco-roman styles were intended to symbolize an affinity for Athenian democracy and Roman republicanism (as opposed to the autocratic monarchies of Europe).
As someone who grew in both eastern Europe and Italy, I have become a Brutalist Enjoyer due to the practicality of it, but not only in terms of housing, but also when it comes to city planning.
Eastern blocks are generally very well laid out, communities form around the tiny plazas between blocks, theres soace to walk, and theres a very hard to describe yet very homely pleasure in all the life that happens in and out of each building - because whilst nice plazas and human centered city planning is also a thing in Renaissance plazas in Italy, good old commie blocks give a sense of security thanks to how sturdily they are built, and the blank slate that is concrete really allows easy and infinite options to make a block look however you and your neighbours like, for all that that's worth
A lot of brutalist buildings are very impractical and the idea that they are. It's just fancifal nonsense.
A lot of the architecture you rave about I often find boring, but the vast majority of examples you used for brutalism, I thought looked beautiful. I guess this is an example of why beauty really is subjective.
Funny thing is, almost every time I see brutalist architecture I can't help thinking it would be absolutely gorgeous dripping with greenery. Especially those Soviet block apartments -- climbing vines, trailing vines, window boxes, trees on the balconies, gardens on the roof . . . I'd want to live there _so bad._
That being said, if your goal is to celebrate labor then I'd think you should add in as much ornamentation as possible. Maybe even give your workers and artisans some free rein to put personal touches in the stuff they're working on: make buildings absolutely full of personalized works of art, of wrought iron and stained glass and tile mosaics and woodwork and brickwork and murals and (of course) landscaping with tons of trees and flowers and vine-covered arbors -- and even the guys who pave the driveway outside get to sign their names in the concrete.
I'd think that would be the way to celebrate labor.
I think the central issue that comes up with Brutalism is that it's central idea/goal is to embrace practicality and utilitarianism, while rejecting pretentiousness and traditionalism; which let me be VERY clear, are valid, laudable even goals. The issue? Very often Brutalist designs end up doing the opposite. Like, how many of the architectural designs shown were inefficient blocks held in midair for no reason other than *~*aesthetics*~*? People often complain that Brutalists designs are all just a concrete rectangle, but I'd argue they are the less egregious ones, they at least understood the assignment, the ones that are truly a problem are the ones that can't decide if they want to be a functional building or an art piece so tries to split the difference and becomes neither.
I don't see how brutalism is any more snobby than other architecture style I've seen talked about, but I'm also the kind of person that doesn't assume that something having an air of pretentiousness is always, incontrovertibly, a negative thing. I also assume you've run into different folks than I have.
My understanding of brutalism was enhanced by the video, even if we disagree somewhat on what counts as 'ugly' architecture. I hope to see yet more videos focusing on architecture from this channel!
My highschool design teacher summed it up as "historically architects either had to live in and look at their buildings, brutalism was by people who never had to do either". Not 100% in fact, but 100% in principle!
I mean, have you talked to people that have lived in and around brutalist block neighborhoods? I grew up in one and to me these buildings feel homely and warm more than anything. I honestly feel like most of the critiques come from people who've never lived in them and have only seen those depressing aerial pictures of rows and rows of buildings
That is ahistorical BS. I studied architecture in Poland, I personally knew architects and engineers who designed and supervised construction of some of those neighborhoods, and they often DID live there themselves.
@@dziooooo and the prize for "I didn't read the comment properly" goes to...
@getnohappy My comment was about people's lived experiences. If most people who've lived there describe those buildings as feeling safe, secure and contributing to a sense of community, I think they've achieved their practical goal regardless of what the theory of design philosophy might say. You using your degree in environmental psychology to support your arguments about how awful these buildings are kind of runs counter to your original comment about how only architects overly concerned with theory over practice like these buildings. Also, no offence taken and I don't mean any offence with my reply either, I hope it doesn't come across that way
@@kjarakravik4837well i also live in a city with brutalist communist era blocks and find them disgusting
Having lived in Japan where my campus was right next to a bunch of *danshi,* I can tell you that another key in making brutalist architecture enjoyable is nature. There were over 54, ~20 story *danshi* all packed together into a space no greater than a square kilometer, but in between all of them were parks and greenery and walkways that all caught the sunlight and complex lights that made them feel alive and lived in rather than soulless towers to an ideology.
I compare this to my university back home which went full brutalism and is only now recovering from it, with massive concrete eyesores that dominate the scenery, with the greenery subservient and lower than the towering slabs. It’s all about balance and humanity.
A video that shows what is great about OSP. Short and entertaining, but also depth and analysis so at the end I'm "Wow, never thought about that before"
NOOO NOT MY BEAUTIFUL BARBICAN CENTRE!!!!
Ok, plenty of brutalist buildings are too heavy and oppressive, but some of the examples used I really like.
They don't give opulence. They give a more modern style. I'd much prefer a brutalist building than an only glass skyscraper or a plain white modern shopping centre.
But I get when you need fancy, brutalism needs to take a step back.
(Also, I think both neoclassical and brutalist buildings fall into the "let's forget to add any colour" trap)
I positively love the Barbican, especially how it integrates natural elements like greenery, waterfalls, and those truly majestic looking sunken water gardens. I feel like it does Brutalism right by remembering to create unique spaces that work in harmony with nature. For my money, the key to beauty is variety. I don't want an endless parade of brutalist buildings, nor do I want a glass menagerie of blue-tinted skyscrapers; one feels suffocating, the other feels soulless. Even a city filled with nothing but neoclassical will suffer from stimulation diminishment. A mix of different styles can offer surprise and diversity.
I thought I enjoyed brutalism more, but your point about Lou Kahn's use of brutalist buildings to work with natural light made me realise that all the examples of the style that I actually like also use their shapes to paint with and shape light. Hell, even my own work (builds in games like satisfactory and minecraft) I make a conscious choice to play with light. I didn't realise how non-central to brutalism that is.
Great video!
See I understand and respect what you're saying on an intellectual level but having lived with and in buildings like these, these spaces feels like home and part of me will always always love it. I grew up in and around Brutalist buildings so I only learned that the socially acceptable opinion was that it was to get angry or dismissive when it came up until I got to college, and by then it was too late! I'd already come to appreciate the textures, the play of light on surface, and how its aging and marking were signs of humans living life, and how a space could be organized to suit any purpose, how line and form and light and plants could interact with concrete and glass, and how much thought could go into the geometry around us. I'm deeply sad that the places I love are slowly being destroyed because the haters are in the ascendant, especially given the cheap, computer generated looking, designed for profit over people things that take up those spaces (at least until the tide of public concensus is strong enough for people to put money into ripping those apart too)
No better feeling is researching something and having your hatred of it justified rather than rebuffed into acceptance or adoration.
I didn't think I would enjoy a 10 minute tirade on modern architecture, but you guys always manage to surprise me with your explorations of niche topics. Like the others, this one did not disappoint.
Ah, another Friday with Blue, the mortal god of architecture and history
As opposed to Lindybeige, *Im*mortal god or history?
sorry blue, bit of a strawman, it's fine if you don't like the concrete, it has its issues, and I agree that uniformity of style isn't great, variety is the spice of life and this holds with architecture
I like big concrete monuments, I think they look nice, yes there's some very bad brutalist architecture, but you can find ugly nonsense buildings in most if not all styles, a big point of modern architecture was to find beauty in simple unadorned structure and shape
now personally, I find a lot of modern architecture boring, just not brutalism, the concrete speaks to me, shame about the carbon footprint
you make a big thing of brutalism being a shorthand for totalitarianism forgetting that both are associated with the eastern block, and that's a big part of why, particularly in America, brutalism is maligned, if the commies did it, it has to be wrong
Stop bootlicking for the USSR.
Bostonian here. Not to defend the soul-sucking city hall, but why arrow-slit windows? Heating efficiency. There's much less glass transferring heat and cold, yet the slits' angles also allow one to see almost as widely as one could if the windows were normal width.
To wit, incredibly clever and functional, but ugly.
Agree with everything but the ugly part, but that's subjective
I grew up not far from one such a Brutalist landmark. This architecture looks alien. Like a piece of someone's abstract thoughts extracted into put into the physical world. It's an opera and ballet theater, except I never been there as a kid, never been around there when people went to see something there, so it was just The Building to me. Parts of it were taken by skaters. The back of it has a grassy open sky amphitheater. It was always that big thing, never in full view, no individual part of it making sense or building to anything concrete (sic!), always alien, always accepted without a question, veautiful, ugly, scary, soothing. I'd say it's good if it's not the only type of architecture. It is designed to stand out, but it excels at being challenging. It's hard to process, it's unsettling. And yet it can be accepted, it can resonate with you.
The tall buildings, that composed the so called "sleeping districts" I didn't pay much attention too. Some were big, others were wide, some were short. I didn't grow up in or around one, it was always someone else's place. They were faraway things. I wouldn't say most of the time they are that bothersome except a bit bland. Trees, rows of kiosks, kid playgrounds, pavements and grass gives plenty to look at, at least in the summer. The ruins of the giant unfinished concrete monsters were the most interesting for me. These were things that looked truly out of this world. Unfinished hospital, bridges, stadiums. Carcasses of the great works to never see their completion. Ruins of the empire. It's not intentional, but it's a mood.
Art is not there only to charm and please. You can do a lot of fascinating and horrifying things with brutalism, if you won't try to convert everything into brutalism. You can learn a lot of from the architecture, that doesn't aim to please.
As a fan of the "Batman/Superman" animated series, I loved how they incorporated the Art Deco asthetic so naturally into the settings of Gotham and Metropolis respectively. What are Blue's thoughts on Art Deco style? Is it worth a future video? 😮
Since Cincinnati Union Terminal was the first train station he showed when seguing away from Brutalism to that section, and it's an Art Deco masterpiece, I would assume he does like it.
Is this an out of season April Fool’s joke?
In all seriousness, though, there’s bad architecture in all styles, there’s pretentious architecture in all flavors; just because we don’t see ugly roman buildings, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, I mean, the pretty ones that we’re trying to keep standing are barely ruins at this point, what chance did the ugly ones ever have?
Brutalism is my favorite architectural style, not because of buildings that want to pretend like they’re the future of architecture and art, but precisely for the ones where the architecture itself accepts it’s proper place in function, not as the star of the show but as the basis for something great: the play of light on the different textures.
For example, in a museum, you shouldn’t have the architecture itself be a distraction but an aid to your exhibition by allowing the exhibit be the star of the show, and good brutalism lends itself to this in a way that allows itself to shine precisely by playing its role: take a step back, be functional, be quiet and direct people.
Sure, brutalism can be ugly or tasteless like the concrete its made of, but saying that all brutalism is bad because some architects are too far up their own asses, is like saying all baking is bad because hardtack exists
Yeah, gotta disagree hard with Blue on this one. Those buildings he was showing off are amazing.
Yes, form follows function!
@@Tustin2121Did you always like them? Because this mess of shapes is antithetical to inherent human appreciation of form and geometry. It MUST have been acquired taste.
@@snakeslife-uroborodjinn790 - What on earth are you talking about with this “antithetical” bs? Get outta here. 😂
@@snakeslife-uroborodjinn790 You say that and yet the Brutalist buildings shown have quite a lovely form and geometry to them.
Cincinnati’s old train station is now a museum and it’s gorgeous!
/And/ it's still a train station! With an organ!
Cincinnati needs more love, we have cool shit too
I enjoy brutalism!! but ONLY in its more practical forms. the super edgy strangely shaped buildings make me nervous, and you're right, they feel pretentious, but every now and then i see a building that utilizes the starkness of concrete very well against Living Material. Wood accents, interesting patterns along a side, but most importantly Plants. if a design utilizes lush areas it breaks up the gray and contrasts beautifully with the concrete, and if they add plants they must consider light and how it plays into a space so that the plants can thrive, and light is So Important for making a space feel open and fresh and beautiful. I would look to the game Control for some good examples. the architecture starts out stark and oppressive, but as you end up further into the space it opens up and there are some actually very beautiful courtyards, staircases, etc. brutalism is often taken too far, but using simplicity and harshness and mixing it with the natural world can really balance it out.
Agreed
Also, thanks for helping me get why Blue thought it was “something something Socialist Utopia.” I don’t mean this in any mean way, I more so meant that the contrast between concrete and greenery makes a lot more sense.
I mean, even splashes of colour along with the odd plant. The Sydney Masonic Center is a brutalist structure that has a bunch of different areas with different yet brutalist aesthetics that don't feel oppressive.
The foyer has a big wall artwork in various shades of brown. Can't remember if it's wood, or various brown metals done to look wood-like, but the same room has little stained glass windows too. You stick some ferns or big leafy pot plants in that space, and it looks fancy without making you feel unwelcome. Very "Oh William, do join us for the champagne toast for your cousin's 21st. Oh no, we can get you let in even if you are wearing flip flops cause you were just at the beach and wanted to see your cousin in person, since everyone was in town for the party. Sorry, you mother had not told me you had moved here, or else we would have sent the invite to you personally."
Honestly I know its about architecture but seeing "History Summarized: Beauty and Brutalism" I feel actually sums up history quite well
Since you brought up public libraries: my local library the James Blackstone Mermorial Library is absolutely gorgeous, and recently got renevated. It's all made from some amazing local marble (both the original and the reservation got stone from the same quary). What's more, it's got an amazing dome with renaissance style art painted on the interior.
Cincinnati REPRESENT
In all honesty, Union Terminal is an amazing feat of architecture that plays with lighting on the inside. The way it is structured makes it seem as if the dome you're under in the lobby is constantly lit by the sun. The murals give it the pop of color it needs to look like the golden sun is meeting the blue of our sky and the green of our earth.
Cincinnati needs more love! We have cool shit too lmao
Aw man, I've been there a few times but only ever at night! Curse you Amtrak schedules
As someone who grew up in the Cincy area, it was awesome that when he segued into train stations, the first one he showed was Union Terminal.
Any Brutalism defenders here?
Aye
No way! Even the examples of how brutalism can be done well they still feel.... Empty and harsh. It almost feels worse because to me taking the basic style of brutalism and making it look more aesthetically pleasing is exactly what the government does. What politicians do every single day. They have these terrible ugly ideals and hiding it behind a mask of being attractive. So literally brutalism screams danger. Whenever I look at it I immediately think shoody construction work. That the buildings half finished and abandoned Or the government is hiding something there LMAO Not to mention that I feel like there's a cultural feeling of bare concrete equally an unfinished construction site and so mentally it screams danger and puts up warning flags or be careful subconscious signals. I don't know if that's just me but it literally gives me anxiety to look at these places LMAOI hate how cheap it is too because it's so common. I'm really glad that like now people will even put cheap siding or anything to cover the concrete. And it does make everything look so much better. Even if the siding is crap or ugly it's still more attractive than bare concrete.
Yup. Luv me some concrete
If you look around the comments, there are many!
I guess I’m a brutalism apologist?
It’s not perfect - nothing is - but it’s got its place, and I do kinda dig the unique weirdness of the buildings he shows. They DO look like something alien and otherworldly, and I think that’s cool.
I just think brutalist architecture looks genuinely cool and pretty I’m honestly kinda taken aback at everyone working under the assumption that the buildings are hideous and the style’s merits have to come from elsewhere
likewise
If it helps, you don't need any more justification for liking them beyond the fact that you like them, there is no such thing as inherent beauty. Something which I _think_ Blue understands but some of the folks in the comment section definitely do not.
Aah I love that you included Worcester’s Union Station! When I was a kid, that place was terrifying. The roof had collapsed, the windows were boarded up or missing, and the whole facade was scary. The city poured so much heart and soul into revitalizing it and it really shows. Union Station being brought back to life feels like it marked a turning point for Worcester’s whole self-identity.
OMG I’m a public history preservationist and I just finished a National Register nomination and the building is Brutalist, I am also trained as an architectural historian and I have to say that I am a fan of brutalism. I understand your dislike but I applaud you for looking into the history and appreciate some forms of brutalism
You can't close this out by showing me building after building that fucks severely and expect me to agree with you here.
I do agree that I like the work of Lou Kahn the best, as well as the philosophy behind it; the starkness of brutalism to highlight the natural world around it. In my eyes this shouldn't only apply to nature, but to human life as well. Its one of the reasons I actually love those soviet blocks, you can feel so strongly the people living there. Brutalism that plays with light, brutalism that gets covered in graffiti, with water features and gardens. It's like a blank canvas in a way no other style is, while lending interesting forms to it all with the whole 'concrete can be any shape' idea. Its a style you can leave your mark on in a way I feel you can't with others (at least when its not the overly serious pretentious types that cropped up later, agreed to hating those).
But as said at the top, I do also like those 'intimidating' buildings, the ones your not supposed to touch. I don't think I'd want them as the foremost style of the city or anything, but they are a fun treat and I'd hate to see them go. The wild shapes and silhouettes are so cool! I love how they push the boundaries of what a building can look like. I'd argue, actually, that a lot of these have totally lost the plot on what brutalism is supposed to be. I mean really what functional purpose do any of those last few buildings serve being shaped the way they are???? That's for visual interest alone quite frankly.
I think brutalism gets a bad rep when its really capable of some absolute bangers (who hasn't seen pictures of the cool capsule building in japan? Tho its in wild disrepair now sadly). Its just harder to do right and its cheep nature makes it ripe for developers who just don't care. But ANY style can get soulsucking if it's over done like that, looking at you American suburbia and those endless cookie cutter low rise condominiums they're putting up nowadays. And they HAVE design elements and reliefs, they're not brutalist, but the lac of visual variety is what's killer.
Admittedly a trap much easier to fall into with brutalism. But I feel brutalism is much easier to dress up to circumvent that problem then 50 of the same building already dressed up the same way, due to its more blank canvas appeal. Not that I don't agree with a lot of critiques... but I think they miss the appeal that is there and could be more pronounced. So I'm glad you didn't dismiss the idea that brutalism CAN be beautiful
I unironically love the designs of the DC Metro's stations and the NCAR Mesa Lab, which are usually classified as brutalist designs.
Just want to point out something obvious here: I think it's important to remember not all the people who say they enjoy something we do not do it as a provocation. Some people sincerely find beauty in brutalist buidings, even people who live inside. Those architects live in their own buildings or in buildings of the same style most of the time, so they at least seem to sincerely think it is nice to live in those. I hear many people talk about how horrible it must be to live in those, but as someone who did live in brutalist housings for most of my life, I never minded it, in fact there is many things about this type of architecture I enjoyed and I do find sincerely beautiful. I completely understand why some people wouldn't though, I think it's like how some people enjoy modern and abstract art, or some people love free jazz, and other people consider it pretentious noise.
It's obvious like I said, but it's the internet, and it's easy to forget the people on the other side of the screen are not after us specifically. Thank you for listening to my rambling, and have a great day :)
I have to strongly disagree this time. This is not the first time that I have seen a video talking badly about brutalism without realizing that a large part of this perception of emptiness and oppression is due to the buildings being empty. If you look for images of these same buildings when they were in use and receiving maintenance, they are beautiful and extremely human full of life. Showing a Soviet building abandoned for decades and saying that it is lifeless is the same thing as saying that Detroit is a dead city because it is full of abandoned spaces without considering that there were communities there that made that place alive but with all the economic issues those areas old areas surrounding industrial areas were abandoned and became ugly and abandoned. You have the right not to like it but given a fair chance, I even recommend watching a Soviet urban film from the 50s.
It’s so tragic when one of your favorite TH-camrs has an incorrect opinion. Brutalism is beautiful. And Boston city hall looks amazing, how dare you!
Blue! A solid like...third or quarter of your examples were super neat looking as far as I'm concerned. The ones that specifically *didn't* bug me all had a consistent structure, vertically -- I also don't like all the little clusters of boxes or arrow slits perched on top of sweeping (or blocky) columns and walls, but some of 'em checked all the boxes for 'abstract art which is good,' and 'building which is art' for me, which the arcane art of Venn Diagrammolurgy tells me is 'architecture I like to look at' in one of the places the circles overlap. Thanks for reminding me that brutalism isn't *just* the minority of brutalist buildings I've enjoyed personally, though! (The Environmental Science Building at Western Washington University has mad 'alien ruins colonized by humans who love potted plants' vibes, and those are some of my favorite vibes.)
Oh. I thought all the dystopian architecture was supposed to look cool. I like the buildings.
Same lol
I think brutalism is used so *well* in the video game Control, which really combines all of these elements. The idea of the Oldest House, an eldritch location stretching back to time immemorial, having this particularly modern architecture... the way it captures both its beauty and its ugliness... A symbol of governmental oppression yet also a channel to highlight the beaty of light and nature... Its controlled, twisting shapes working perfectly with how the House reshapes itself...
It really helped me appreciate brutalism more.
I was hoping someone else would mention the Oldest House! It's impressive how pretty the game makes a creepy government office building look. (It helps that it's really fun to wreck in fights too.)
Hell yeah, I even rewatched the Polygon video about this after this one
I think the architecture that the House has taken on also represents the mission of the FBC, in a way: as a bulwark against the Weird Shit. I want the thing protecting me from the monsters in the dark to be solid and immovable, and the House embodies that very well.
yeah, I used to hate brutalism too until I played Control. When done right, brutalism is super pretty. There's so many pretty brutalistic places in Control, like the center of the Research Sector.
I think that's the real issue with brutalism: it's difficult to do right. Brutalism thrives on the right number of details. Too few and it's boring and oppressive. Too many and it's overcomplicated and confusing. But get it just right and it's so cool to look at and can even be pretty (a rarity in architectural styles)
As a Bostonian I appreciate you showing the library as well as city hall so people know not ALL our buildings are ugly.
Since finishing my masters in sustainability, if there's anything I need to hold on to that I learned is that balance is key. You can't expect a good building to completely focused on one thing because a building does not focus on one thing only. The moment you decide you are building something, you already need to considered location, culture, people, environment. then you go to the actual design where again you are looking at the same thing but on a smaller scale, and then again for the individual scale. You summarized well that brutalist architecture is trying to have the focus be on these big concrete set pieces and it really shouldn't be to that extent.
One time I was in a TTRPG campaign where we decided each elf race had their own architectural style. High elves used Scandinavian architecture, wood elves built things in a similar way to Edo Period Japan, and drow used brutalism specifically to piss off the wood and high elves.