When my family moved to DC in the mid 50s, there were still "temporary" office buildings built by the Army & the Navy. The Pentagon was supposed to eliminate the need for them but the expansion of WWII kept them in place. The Army temporary buildings (my dad worked in a building simply called T-7) were partly torn down to expand Arlington Cemetery and as far as I know they are all gone. The Navy built "Main Navy" and it was still standing when Nixon came in. It was the Hq of the US Navy. But Nixon for some silly reason didn't like it and publicly said something like, "Main Navy will go or some admiral will become an ensign." These "temps" were about 50 years old when taken down. They served in both civil wars and likely would still be functional today had the not been knocked down. Good concrete that is properly maintained (yes, Virginia, you have to pay some attention to concrete -- especially concrete with steel rebar -- don't believe me? look at the collapsed condo in Florida) it will last indefinitely. A lot of concrete was used between the wars and it's is or soon will be 100 years old. BTW: what's called the "Old Executive Office Building" next to the White House was once the State. War. & Navy building. It's about 150 years old. The namesake tenants are not in most concrete structures to include the Pentagon, the State Dept. building, and various rented buildings in Virginia. The Pentagon is still going strong. It's pushing 90 years old and is embarrassingly strong. The 911 crash only punched a hold in a section of the outer ring.
I love brutalist architecture. It’s less about aesthetics and all lets the material be the focus. It’s imposing and it makes you feel small in comparison. Also love the huge interconnected public spaces that link different parts of the building together. It’s egalitarian and elegant in a subtle way that I really like
Brutalist architecture celebrates the honesty of the materiality. It has its beauty. On the onset may seem ugly, walking through the buildings one can learn to appreciate the solids and voids. shadows and light. a sense of quietness embodies. Not all Brutalist buildings are ugly. Give it a chance.
So this is why the US embassy in my country just looks like an ugly fortress. I think your Federal government should make buildings as they did with the Capitol and Whitehouse
We were reminded on January 6 2021, that the Capitol building is not a good style for security. Embassies may look like fortresses because at times they may have to preform like a fortress.
Justin Shubow is a small minded man. The reason the Capitol building and the White House look as they do is because that was ‘Modern’ architecture of its day.
Cement buildings are rated for what? 50-100 years? You had to mine iron (for rebar), sand, lime, and clay from all over the world, and just a couple generations later you'll be throwing all that in the landfill as you are forced to rebuild again. There are Roman capitol building that are still used today! Even when you see ruins they didn't "just get that way"... they were taken apart block by block and the blocks used to create something JUST AS NICE that they needed! Build with stone. Yeah it's a little more expensive on the front end, but not even really that unless you're using the highest quality of finish, your buildings will last forever, they'll look way nicer, and in the end if you ever DO need to redo it, your "old building" is literally the quarry for your next. Just move "the legos" over and make a new building with them.
Romans invented concrete, and you may be surprised to know that many of the “stone” buildings you see are just a veneer of stone over the actual structural bones. Stone as a structural material is nonsense in a building of large scale or multiple floors in the modern era.
The Romans also used concrete. Not just stone. In fact it's their secret to how they were able to build breathtaking and gravity defying domes. Also, concrete can be recycled. So can iron and steel.
When my family moved to DC in the mid 50s, there were still "temporary" office buildings built by the Army & the Navy. The Pentagon was supposed to eliminate the need for them but the expansion of WWII kept them in place. The Army temporary buildings (my dad worked in a building simply called T-7) were partly torn down to expand Arlington Cemetery and as far as I know they are all gone. The Navy built "Main Navy" and it was still standing when Nixon came in. It was the Hq of the US Navy. But Nixon for some silly reason didn't like it and publicly said something like, "Main Navy will go or some admiral will become an ensign."
These "temps" were about 50 years old when taken down. They served in both civil wars and likely would still be functional today had the not been knocked down.
Good concrete that is properly maintained (yes, Virginia, you have to pay some attention to concrete -- especially concrete with steel rebar -- don't believe me? look at the collapsed condo in Florida) it will last indefinitely. A lot of concrete was used between the wars and it's is or soon will be 100 years old.
BTW: what's called the "Old Executive Office Building" next to the White House was once the State. War. & Navy building. It's about 150 years old. The namesake tenants are not in most concrete structures to include the Pentagon, the State Dept. building, and various rented buildings in Virginia. The Pentagon is still going strong. It's pushing 90 years old and is embarrassingly strong. The 911 crash only punched a hold in a section of the outer ring.
I love brutalist architecture. It’s less about aesthetics and all lets the material be the focus. It’s imposing and it makes you feel small in comparison. Also love the huge interconnected public spaces that link different parts of the building together. It’s egalitarian and elegant in a subtle way that I really like
The only place brutalist architecture shines in are inside CAD renderings.
I can assure you that these post war concrete buildings in the exhibit were not designed in CAD. That came along in the 80’s.
Life sucks enough without ugly buildings, now we have people trying to add insult to injury.
Brutalist architecture celebrates the honesty of the materiality. It has its beauty. On the onset may seem ugly, walking through the buildings one can learn to appreciate the solids and voids. shadows and light. a sense of quietness embodies. Not all Brutalist buildings are ugly. Give it a chance.
It's UGLY!!!! It's one of the most disappointing architectural styles that has ever existed.
0:55 you call this brutalist? This is not brutalist.
IDONT LIVE IN ERA OF THE FLINTSTONES I LIVE IN THE ERA OF THE JETSONS
So this is why the US embassy in my country just looks like an ugly fortress. I think your Federal government should make buildings as they did with the Capitol and Whitehouse
We were reminded on January 6 2021, that the Capitol building is not a good style for security. Embassies may look like fortresses because at times they may have to preform like a fortress.
Ugly, stick to neoclassicism until AI does a better job than human at understanding what people want.
Agreed! I love to learn about the beauty of architecture. This is the most horrifying atrocious example of brutalized architecture ever. No! 😢
Justin Shubow is a small minded man. The reason the Capitol building and the White House look as they do is because that was ‘Modern’ architecture of its day.
Cement buildings are rated for what? 50-100 years? You had to mine iron (for rebar), sand, lime, and clay from all over the world, and just a couple generations later you'll be throwing all that in the landfill as you are forced to rebuild again.
There are Roman capitol building that are still used today! Even when you see ruins they didn't "just get that way"... they were taken apart block by block and the blocks used to create something JUST AS NICE that they needed!
Build with stone. Yeah it's a little more expensive on the front end, but not even really that unless you're using the highest quality of finish, your buildings will last forever, they'll look way nicer, and in the end if you ever DO need to redo it, your "old building" is literally the quarry for your next. Just move "the legos" over and make a new building with them.
Romans invented concrete, and you may be surprised to know that many of the “stone” buildings you see are just a veneer of stone over the actual structural bones. Stone as a structural material is nonsense in a building of large scale or multiple floors in the modern era.
The Romans also used concrete. Not just stone. In fact it's their secret to how they were able to build breathtaking and gravity defying domes.
Also, concrete can be recycled. So can iron and steel.
Trump always trying to save us.
That "architecture critic"'s face tics...eughhh ... Why are these MAGA types that want to bring back the past and pull us back always such weirdos?