People hate brutalism because it is the only architecture that does not tell lies. Every other one outs on a mask and pretends to be something else, something better. Pretends that we are something better. But brutalism is simply nothing more than a mirror of our societies: If we are happy and love and care for each other then brutalism will blossom in the beauty of community. But if we are misserable and life misserable lifes neglecting everyone and everything besides our own selfishness then brutalism does not hide that at all!
I'm french and that's the story of my Grand parents! They were born extremely poor, in big families, living in slums, in Normandy, after the second world war. After the government built these big building they started living there with all the poor families. Lot of children then learned petrochemistry with scholarships and made the district industrial. 70 years later those building are still here, they're dirty, damaged, and poor population still live there
The designers of 'brutalism' thought as you've stated: 'We needed to, for the people'!' - Problem is, it's not humanity that drives them, it's a cheap way to compress and (subtly) depress the peasants. Eventually, they'll own nothing, live in the pod, eat ze bugs and be happy.
Suburbia is expensive, often relying on the productivity of cities close to them to finance things like sanitation, plumbing and policing. Car centric planning creates air and noise pollution, with the constant need for expanding motorways eating into the natural environment. To be a suburbanite is quite literally asking the poorer city folk to finance your lifestyle while you continue over time to make their lives worse.
@@BETAsin Is that what you actually believe? Most people in cities are poor and are a net drain on the economy while people that live in the suburban areas are the basis of many of the jobs you mentioned. Also, people (urban hipsters) know very little about nor appreciate the environment and likely believe that food comes from... grocery stores. You've been fed lies that will not feed you when you have no food, no job, no stores to even shop in - you vill have Daddy government. And you VILL live in the pod and you VILL eat ze bugs... own nothing and be happy.
@@mad_max21 Well, suburbia's still better than brutalist gigantic rubbish, but of course it's also possible to build places that are both nice and economical. But for some reason we just stopped building like that after World Wars.
The key here is balance, I think. A specific building or a few that present this architectural style can look interesting and sophisticated, whereas an entire city built in this style can look oppressive and decadent.
I personally think Brutalism as we came to know it is the v1.0 of a new branch. I prefer Brutalism mixed with some more classical ways of building, combining the best of multiple classes.
I must say that it really depends aesthetically like despite using prefabricated blocs i love habitat 67 as these are all put together in a curious way so its functional and interesting like a puzzle with random blocs put in curious ways over and besides one another instead of just being a big bloc of béton brut
Most of the "Brutalist" architecture I have seen are in Central and Eastern Europe. These were built by Soviet governments are truely do look grim. I used to refer to it as "Stalinist" style
You should explore other examples around the world. In Mexico are many examples of brutalism, specially government buuldings and some interesting designs from mexican architects
Some brutalist designs are indeed beautiful, like the Geisel Library, that looks as a science fiction building, but others, like Habitat 67 just look like a purpose made favela, especially at distance.
I wont defend the beauty of the blocs from the soviet union even though there’s a weird appeal in their sad grey ugliness but they really served well the purpose of giving each family a space of their own to live cos there was a huge lack of places for people to live when they built them and as ugly as they are at least people had a roof and public spaces designed to share around the blocs the design is simple cos it needed to be built real fast as you said and Le Corbusier - which is a controversial figure - helped the design of inspired it im not sure but yea these building over time would really need some love to be more appealing anyway
Nope, if anyone else did anything as ugly they would be charged with vandalism. Sadly the biggest vandals never got prosecuted. To call Brutalism the Emperor's New Clothes would be being FAR too kind.
This is a misconception among architects and art gurus: if you can make up a story behind an object this object will become beautiful because of the story. But you can make up the most interesting story behind these dehuminising eyesores, but they remain ugly as hell, because they go against our nature. Humans need colour, details, variation and a human scale to feel good. Brutalism lacks these things and if you are forced to be in or around these monstrosities this will negatively affect your mental health. All the self- proclaimed good intentions and artistic snobbery do not change that. Let stop this weird hype to promote the revival of this anti humane building style. Let's build again in a human scale, with materials that don't cause an acute depression and that fit the surrounding and history of the places they are built in.
Almost all of the brutalist designs look like something out of a dystopian dictatorship. Why can't we go back the Art Deco style or gilded age buildings? Those were far more attractive looking.
@@ihaetschool3361 says who? Since when have we rejected beauty because it's impractical? No one is going to be inspired or captivated by ugly grey blocks.
@@julius-stark there's a good reason why "commie blocks" are so common, and why they're barebones. you see, it was a pretty delicate time, back then, and they needed to be able to easily create buildings fror people to live in. so, commie blocks came to be, since they're cheap and practical
@@ihaetschool3361 Yes, I've done some mild research as to why commie blocks came into fashion, but as we now know they break down pretty quickly over time, attract graffiti, and are associated with poor/dilapidated areas and no one wants to live in them.
@@ihaetschool3361 Have you ever lived in one? They are beautiful, social and uplifiting places to live in. I would exchange any billionaire's mansion for an Art Nuveau or Gründerzeit style dwelling in less than a heartbeat.
"Muh it was for the people" 😂 No, it was for the architects' egos, who had a deliberate purpose of breaking with traditional architecture (which can be built quite economically), who were ideologically motivated against classical European anything, who did not care in the least if their hatred-based work would be harmful and depressing to everyone. Anyone with minimal background on the history of architecture knows this smh.
Basic sociology, anthropology, psychology and stakeholder involvemet will go a long way, but modern architecture in the past has disregarded those. Brutalism is the pinnacle of almost everything that is bad about modern architecture: It does not care about its actual purpose and instead of creating livable spaces it tries to realize some ideology or faux utopian political argument and somehow it always ends in dystopian horror. Its material is unnatural, dead, grey and carbon intense. Brutalism is a hate letter to humanity as a living, breathing, social thing.
@@Moodboard39 Brainless because I disagree with you…🤔 Do you always childishly strike out at people when they don’t think the same way you do…or only when it comes to tastes in architecture?
That's like saying "getting punched in the eye doesn't hurt as much as you think". Brutalism IS FUCKING UGLY. No if's and's or but's. It's just ugly regardless of its origin.
Sorry, I don´t buy it. It´ s just ugly. I really wished our modern architecture would be a continuation of the classical styles that have evolved for centuries.
@@viarnay better tacky than a communist gray cube that looks like the child of a prison and the fortress of a evil overlord, you have atrociously bad taste
@@viarnay it doesn't matter because it looks the same way, that is like saying a dolphin isn't a fish its pedantry, at the end of the day it look like a ugly dystopian prison
People hate brutalism because it is the only architecture that does not tell lies.
Every other one outs on a mask and pretends to be something else, something better. Pretends that we are something better.
But brutalism is simply nothing more than a mirror of our societies:
If we are happy and love and care for each other then brutalism will blossom in the beauty of community.
But if we are misserable and life misserable lifes neglecting everyone and everything besides our own selfishness then brutalism does not hide that at all!
I'm french and that's the story of my Grand parents! They were born extremely poor, in big families, living in slums, in Normandy, after the second world war.
After the government built these big building they started living there with all the poor families. Lot of children then learned petrochemistry with scholarships and made the district industrial.
70 years later those building are still here, they're dirty, damaged, and poor population still live there
The designers of 'brutalism' thought as you've stated: 'We needed to, for the people'!' - Problem is, it's not humanity that drives them, it's a cheap way to compress and (subtly) depress the peasants. Eventually, they'll own nothing, live in the pod, eat ze bugs and be happy.
Suburbia is expensive, often relying on the productivity of cities close to them to finance things like sanitation, plumbing and policing. Car centric planning creates air and noise pollution, with the constant need for expanding motorways eating into the natural environment. To be a suburbanite is quite literally asking the poorer city folk to finance your lifestyle while you continue over time to make their lives worse.
@@BETAsin Is that what you actually believe? Most people in cities are poor and are a net drain on the economy while people that live in the suburban areas are the basis of many of the jobs you mentioned.
Also, people (urban hipsters) know very little about nor appreciate the environment and likely believe that food comes from... grocery stores.
You've been fed lies that will not feed you when you have no food, no job, no stores to even shop in - you vill have Daddy government. And you VILL live in the pod and you VILL eat ze bugs... own nothing and be happy.
@@BETAsin Made a foolish assumption there. You thought the counter for maximally functional ugly structures is suburbanism?
Brutalism can still allow large spaces
@@mad_max21 Well, suburbia's still better than brutalist gigantic rubbish, but of course it's also possible to build places that are both nice and economical. But for some reason we just stopped building like that after World Wars.
The key here is balance, I think. A specific building or a few that present this architectural style can look interesting and sophisticated, whereas an entire city built in this style can look oppressive and decadent.
Brutalist architecture just needs some cool paint, glass & greenery.
It's both beautiful & awesome.
Okay, calm down there lenin.
and some natural stone cladding with ornamentation.
I personally think Brutalism as we came to know it is the v1.0 of a new branch.
I prefer Brutalism mixed with some more classical ways of building, combining the best of multiple classes.
Not all brutalism is created equal.
The world could use more brutalist architecture like that used in the Geisel Library in San Diego.
If it need an explanation to not be seen has ugly it miserably failed at being pretty
I must say that it really depends aesthetically like despite using prefabricated blocs i love habitat 67 as these are all put together in a curious way so its functional and interesting like a puzzle with random blocs put in curious ways over and besides one another instead of just being a big bloc of béton brut
"Not as ugly as you think"
You dont really need to think to decide if you find something ugly or not... brutalism is ugly
It is not sometimes..
@@viarnay i agree but generally it is
@@justagoose7741 Why? It's not so chaotic
Most of the "Brutalist" architecture I have seen are in Central and Eastern Europe. These were built by Soviet governments are truely do look grim. I used to refer to it as "Stalinist" style
Looks like prison 😂😂😂
You should explore other examples around the world. In Mexico are many examples of brutalism, specially government buuldings and some interesting designs from mexican architects
They scared of Mexico 😂😂😂 I'm half Mexican , hope one day to go to Mexico ....I'm a digital artist ,and photographer
Some brutalist designs are indeed beautiful, like the Geisel Library, that looks as a science fiction building, but others, like Habitat 67 just look like a purpose made favela, especially at distance.
I wont defend the beauty of the blocs from the soviet union even though there’s a weird appeal in their sad grey ugliness but they really served well the purpose of giving each family a space of their own to live cos there was a huge lack of places for people to live when they built them and as ugly as they are at least people had a roof and public spaces designed to share around the blocs the design is simple cos it needed to be built real fast as you said and Le Corbusier - which is a controversial figure - helped the design of inspired it im not sure but yea these building over time would really need some love to be more appealing anyway
If u gotta make a whole ass video essay to prove why smth isn’t ugly, then it’s ugly.
There cool looking!
Exactly
no they incredibly ugly
Haz plants? = iz ok.
No plants? = Baaad.
They look strong and look like they will last for years
It's a good way of adjusting the people to living in a prison.
Nope, if anyone else did anything as ugly they would be charged with vandalism.
Sadly the biggest vandals never got prosecuted.
To call Brutalism the Emperor's New Clothes would be being FAR too kind.
i wish brutalism would legally considered vandalism
I think they're great, functional and nice to look at.
They create horrible social results. A prominent example is de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruitt-Igoe
This is a misconception among architects and art gurus: if you can make up a story behind an object this object will become beautiful because of the story. But you can make up the most interesting story behind these dehuminising eyesores, but they remain ugly as hell, because they go against our nature. Humans need colour, details, variation and a human scale to feel good. Brutalism lacks these things and if you are forced to be in or around these monstrosities this will negatively affect your mental health. All the self- proclaimed good intentions and artistic snobbery do not change that.
Let stop this weird hype to promote the revival of this anti humane building style. Let's build again in a human scale, with materials that don't cause an acute depression and that fit the surrounding and history of the places they are built in.
welcome to the cyberpunk era. brutalism is cool just like cuberpunk
You showed nicer examples. On the whole Brutalism is ugly.
Almost all of the brutalist designs look like something out of a dystopian dictatorship. Why can't we go back the Art Deco style or gilded age buildings? Those were far more attractive looking.
because they're impractical
@@ihaetschool3361 says who? Since when have we rejected beauty because it's impractical? No one is going to be inspired or captivated by ugly grey blocks.
@@julius-stark there's a good reason why "commie blocks" are so common, and why they're barebones. you see, it was a pretty delicate time, back then, and they needed to be able to easily create buildings fror people to live in. so, commie blocks came to be, since they're cheap and practical
@@ihaetschool3361 Yes, I've done some mild research as to why commie blocks came into fashion, but as we now know they break down pretty quickly over time, attract graffiti, and are associated with poor/dilapidated areas and no one wants to live in them.
@@ihaetschool3361 Have you ever lived in one? They are beautiful, social and uplifiting places to live in. I would exchange any billionaire's mansion for an Art Nuveau or Gründerzeit style dwelling in less than a heartbeat.
It may be The Good The Bad The Ugly...
"Muh it was for the people" 😂 No, it was for the architects' egos, who had a deliberate purpose of breaking with traditional architecture (which can be built quite economically), who were ideologically motivated against classical European anything, who did not care in the least if their hatred-based work would be harmful and depressing to everyone. Anyone with minimal background on the history of architecture knows this smh.
BRAVO!
that boston city hall looks more like a symbol of a oppressively government than a symbol of the people also brutalism sucks.
Basic sociology, anthropology, psychology and stakeholder involvemet will go a long way, but modern architecture in the past has disregarded those. Brutalism is the pinnacle of almost everything that is bad about modern architecture: It does not care about its actual purpose and instead of creating livable spaces it tries to realize some ideology or faux utopian political argument and somehow it always ends in dystopian horror. Its material is unnatural, dead, grey and carbon intense. Brutalism is a hate letter to humanity as a living, breathing, social thing.
Thank you. I could not have said it better. Brutalism is a hate letter to humanity.
Nah, it's ugly.
This video is like a partner trying to convince you how their cheating was "good for our relationship"
No, just no.
Sure but now let's now move away from brutalism, and todays buildings are still brutalists in their roots.
Montreal represent!
Brutalism is awful. Period.
It is as ugly as most people think it is otherwise most people wouldn't think it was ugly. You are talking up a turd.
Brutalist architecture ugly? Hard disagree.
Some are ...u must be blind
@@Moodboard39If I was blind, I wouldn’t be able to see the buildings at all. Also…you ever hear of “in MY opinion”?
@@ColonizersBlow Nah, never heard it...can't maybe not blind , but brainless ?. Better ?
@@Moodboard39 Brainless because I disagree with you…🤔 Do you always childishly strike out at people when they don’t think the same way you do…or only when it comes to tastes in architecture?
@@ColonizersBlow nah he is right brutalism is the ugliest form of architecture ever conceived
That's like saying "getting punched in the eye doesn't hurt as much as you think". Brutalism IS FUCKING UGLY. No if's and's or but's. It's just ugly regardless of its origin.
How about that
Brutalist architecture is perfect. And don't make up any bullshit!
no that type of architecture is incredibly ugly
Sorry, I don´t buy it. It´ s just ugly. I really wished our modern architecture would be a continuation of the classical styles that have evolved for centuries.
No. It's ugly and depressing.
the same pople say brutalism is ugly are the same people who say fake french XVI century furniture is beautiful..🤢🤮🤧🥵
i don't see your argument, something fake is still far more beautiful that something that was made to be ugly
@@colorpg152 I find them horrible and tacky
@@viarnay better tacky than a communist gray cube that looks like the child of a prison and the fortress of a evil overlord, you have atrociously bad taste
@@colorpg152 Le Corbusier was not communist
@@viarnay it doesn't matter because it looks the same way, that is like saying a dolphin isn't a fish its pedantry, at the end of the day it look like a ugly dystopian prison
Nah....it's still ugly.
It looks like a 4 year old building legos