And what's funny is that they also use brutalist architecture to depict modernism in the context of the 70s lol it gives it that kind of eerie vibe... or I just got that from the movie High Rise 🤣
There are a lot of badly designed brutalist buildings, that really are just ugly concrete blocks with no sense of art. Even as a big fan of brutalism, I acknowledge this, and wouldn't mind if the majority of them were torn down. (Keep a few as historic monuments, and to show off how not to design brutalist buildings, though.) But why people keep hating on the _good_ brutalist buildings, I will never understand. There are so many good brutalist buildings, with complex, interesting shapes. People compare them with bunkers - but why is that a bad thing? Bunkers are _awesome!_ They have their own aesthetic, they're special and beautiful in their own way. They look tough, rough, and alive in their own way. Especially if they have algae and moss and lichen growing on them, and are surrounded and maybe even covered with green plants and even flowers. They're majestic and wonderful in their own way, and I just cannot understand the hate they get.
The interesting and complex shapes that Brutalist buildings can take still doesn't make them GOOD, and that's the issue. Brutalism is basically a form of modern art... Like modern art, it is the visualization of anti-social personality disorder. It is soulless, ugly, uncomfortable, intimidating, imposed and imposing, anti-aesthetic. But unlike modern art, you can't hide it. You can put modern art in a gallery where only people who want to see it have to. Brutalist buildings are out there were real people have to live and work. Putting ugly, anti-social art where people have to actually live is criminal.
people associate brutalist buildings with bunkers because they haven't grown up or at least lived a period of their life in that kind of an environment. I can tell you that these buildings give you a feeling ... i cant describe it but its different for everyone, feeling of a special kind of beauty (and aesthetic also, ofcourse xD) they have an eary vibe to them in a beautiful way, they feel futuristic but in a cyberpunk dystopia kind of way (people that have watched Akira, Bladerunner, ghost in the shell and similar movies will understand me)
@@markopetrushev3084 I grew up going to schools designed in the brutalist style. It felt like going to a prison every day. By the time I got to high school, the schools were built with more color, more natural light and aesthetics. I felt better. Everyone conducted themselves better. It didn't feel like you were being punished just going there.
I think brutalist buildings are best preserved in Eastern Europe, where there is the best kind of brutalism and most, if not all of them are still in use. My local County Council in Romania is a pretty sweet brutalist building.
This brutalist stuff destroys the beautiful views of the Romanian cityscapes you'd have. I hate it personally, there are so many beautiful buildings in Romania but these ugly concrete Monsters make them all look small and unimportant. Not really respectful towards own culture...
I think brutalist is definitely underappreciated, a lot like finding beauty in certain lines. It takes a specific taste to enjoy. There's too much hiatory surrounding their design just to tear them down
If well done they look nice on a sunny day and looked at from afar. But close by and/or under a cloudy sky they are ugly and depressing. Architects should not try to be sculptors, they should make building that are pleasant to use and look at. Brutalism fails at this.
If a building serves its purpose, it should not be demolished just because it doesn't fit the taste of some people. This is 'cancelation'! There are good and bad buildings of every style!
So I’m supposed to believe that you would be ok with building in a traditional style if the architecture was functional? 75% prefers anything but modernism, you should just face that your fanatical ideology and all it’s creations wont be restored now that the shitty concrete falls apart
Maybe if the purpose of these concrete monsters is to squash any serenity and joy you can find in the building, they should not have been built. My engineering faculty was inside a head-ache inducing brutalist building. I absolutely hated spending time and working there.
Sure, Brutalism could be ugly and can age badly, but I think it's one of the branches of modern architecture that has some merit to it. It's sturdy (usually), cheap, and the forms it can create can be quite charming.
Cheap is not a quality here as it is only the cost to build and doesn't affect the future. The truth is, brutalist building are made of cement, and cement ages horribly, it ends up depressing. Old buildings seem younger than new ones because they're made out of stone.
The shapes of Brutalism can be great but the "naked material" is very... cold and lifeless. The only "charm" I associate with is that dystopian movies. Cover those shapes with color and more natural(?) materials like wood, stone or adobe, and you have a much more pleasant building.
The monotonous rectangular ones with identical balconies lining every wall are genuinely hideous. But there are so many amazing brutalist buildings that should be saved and cherished. I would love to live in or near a good brutalist building. Or better yet, and entire neighborhood of well-designed, interesting brutalist buildings!
I've always loved brutalist architecture in the same way I appreciate grey skies and a light breeze; I dont need to be constantly bombarded with colour and advertisements! Grey let's my mental food digest better and doesn't overwhelm me.
A gray sky is rekaxing yet so is a green Lust forest of trees pine trees bamboo or any trees in general a brutalist building intimidates more and were used by governments who used intimidatiom every day these buildings aren't relaxing
I like to imagine a group of people running around with clipboards truing to get signatures to "Save the Brutalism" like they used to for rainforests and stuff. That would make a good '80s movie montage.
Love the feeling of strength and reliability these buildings give. Also love the rough, unique look to them. They make most people disgusted and/or depressed, but for me; they make me happier/ more excited, because they are different. Thanks for posting!
@@Bruh-hq1hx Well, that depends on people's mindsets. They associate it with poverty and criminal because a lot of buildings in poor neighborhoods were designed this way, but I don't see why dislike a style just because of the criminal/depressed mood in poor neighborhoods. If someone decides to build a house and wants to try something different, why not brutalism? It's all in the head, there's nothing wrong with this style, it's just a simple and cheap solution, that's why it was used so much in "depressed" neighborhoods - the poverty is the issue here, not architectural style.
@@ElectronPower I too like brutalism for the same reasons. People who usually trash brutalism mistake style for beauty. They are not the same. Beauty however can be how one interprets style. All in the hand of the artist.
@@ElectronPowerthe stupidity in people ...lack of ideas, uncreative, closed minded ...and illogical way of thinking ...why align the building with people? That's stupid
I grew up in a brutalist housing project made for working class families... I hated that building. It was ugly, characterless, depressing. There's nothing I would like more than for it to be torn down and concreted over.
@@hellofellas5661 Most people associate it with shit Regimes like the soviets and the Nazis (look at their Plans for Berlin) there was no real happiness for the average person no freedom you couldnt even make your own house that looks like you want you have to live in the repeated all same blocks of buildings
Are the German Flak towers such as in Berlin and Vienna considered Brutalist buildings ? They are gigantic structures made of undressed concrete. The Humboldthain tower was commissioned by Nazi, built by slaves, witnessed untold suffering and bloodshed and now is a half buried ruin filled with bats. Perfect for a Vampires castle.
@Jake Dee Even if there are certain similarities due to the construction method, they are not attributed to the Brutalist style. There is an interesting website about the Humboldthain Flak Tower: www.berliner-unterwelten.de/verein/projekte/flakturm-humboldthain/geschichte.html (german)
I think it's a real mixed bag with brutalist architecture. There are some wonderful examples, Boston City Hall, and the old Whitney Museum in Manhattan really work in design and scale, however I've noticed a problem with some of these buildings. The rough concrete surfaces tend to get grubby looking and are harder to clean. I think it's safe to say, as a style, it stands the test of time. I actually think it's more interesting than some of the plain glass box buildings we have in Manhattan. But I tend to like things that are heavily textured.
@Connor Thompson A lot of people complained Boston City Hall was outbof character with the older structures in the area, but the design and the open plaza were created to allow clear views of the surrounding areas. I think it's quite successful, in that regard. The plaza is quite cold and windswept in the winter.
I have lived, worked and studied in brutalist buildings and absolutely love it. Form follows function, and the function is determined by the people who use it. Modernism makes this its mission, and where it has failed at this it fails on its own terms - it's a design flaw not a flaw in the philosophy behind it or overall aesthetic. Traditional houses, broken up into small rooms with a single function do not put the needs of people first, for example - they are an anachronism of a time when heat insulation was much more primitive.
Modernism in art and architecture is essentially anti-social personality disorder given physical shape. It is deliberately dehumanizing, authoritarian, and totalitarian, reflecting the modernist view of society. They claim that "form follows function", but the question is "who's function?" It's not human function. It's not environmental function. It's not economic function. You mention heating and homes... Smaller rooms are more energy efficient and therefore cheaper, which is more egalitarian. The function of a Brutalist, modernist building is to be dehumanizing, authoritarian, and totalitarian. The form follows that. The most important and necessary part of any building is the ornamentation, the things that make it beautiful, because the first and most important function of any building is a place for human beings to live and work in.
@@CoryTheRaven No it is NOT energy efficient - it was only energy efficient in the context of poorly insulated homes. You obviously have little to know knowledge about the things you're talking about, and seem to have an agenda warping your opinions. Modernism in architecture is so broad, that to dismiss it in the way you just have speaks of phenomenal ignorance. Modernism on a small, human scale continues to influence the best and most humanistic practices in architecture. How could ornamentation possibly be more important than maximising light, or arranging spaces in accordance with its residents' preferred lifestyle?
I can walk all around my neighbourhood and see these huge infills with massive two-story living/dining/foyer/entertainment spaces with floor to ceiling windows, and there is a definite correlation between wealth and being able to have and heat a house like that. You're just wrong dude, sorry. You're also wrong about space allocation. Those large two-story all-purpose rooms are not only inefficient for heat (except maybe the summer, when you have heat constant pouring in through them) but also inefficient for use. For example, there is an entire row of condos that were just built down the street from me where the entire first floor is an open concept kitchen with couches in it. Great if you life goal is to entertain, but not if you want to use it for anything else. I could never be in the market to buy or rent a house like that, because I can't afford the luxury of an entire floor dedicated to cocktail parties. There's even a house for sale in my neighbourhood I've had an eye on that has a beautiful Craftsman exterior (in accordance with the historic archiecture of the neighbourhood) but an open modernist interior. Even if I could afford it, I'd have to spend another fortune fixing the terrible waste of space and non-Euclidean corners, putting up walls and partitioning the space into something usable for normal people who need to actually live there. The entire first floor doesn't have a single full wall that could be used to prop up a bookshelf. Boxes with large open spaces are affectations of the wealthy who can afford to be wasteful. Also, don't you dare try to say that people who hate ugly architecture are just driven by an agenda. Pot, kettle, black. It's impossible to love ugly architecture for its own merits, because it doesn't have any. You love it because you claim it's "humanist." I hate it because, by being ugly, it is inhumane. Being humane is more important than being humanist. That's why ornamentation, which is to say being beautiful, is more important.
I do appreciate Brutalism architecture, I find it charming in its unique way. I think modern people nowadays yearn for characteristic designs but they happen to find concrete fixture elements are bland.
I love brutalism! But I seriously don't think these guys understand it's a very niche design for the enthusiastic connoisseur, not for the everyday human being. I understand why people want them gone. I don't blame them. Let's just be grateful for what's left. God is good.
Brutalist architecture can be really beautiful sleek and clean looking if implemented well and complimented with color and greenery to soften the very bold look and liven it up.
Like many here say it looks like dystopian and personally I don't want to live in a dystopia, I want to live in a Utopia, somewhere beautiful. My city once had a beautiful city hall (it looked like a smaller westminster), but it was demolished and replaced with a tall brutalist tower (which is the new city hall), because it was cheaper to do it instead of renovating. I really don't like brutalist architecture.
OK what in God's holy name us wrong with the people in the comments? You mad bruh? What's wrong with this kind of architecture? Really? You don't like it because y'all emotions find it unpleasant? If you find that unpleasant, then your nothing but a bunch of pompous idiots with only cares about the looks instead of its function, id rather live in house that makes me feel safe, strong and is cheap, if you don't like it's look then PAINT IT and whatever you like. Associating these these buildings with oppression or brutal dictatorship mades me think y'all a bunch architectural snowflakes, literally. I ain't going reply to your comments cause I know what you lot are gonna bloody say. I have a strong preference for simple, but resilient buildings so brutalist architecture somewhat fits my taste. Beside there are way worse types of architecture out there That is all, there will be no further communication. PEACE!
@Mona Duran The reason that this architectural trend is so polarizing is certainly also due to the unfortunate choice of the term, which originally comes from the French *Beton Brut* and actually means nothing other than *exposed concrete*.
A small handful of the more interesting examples of the style are worth keeping. But in my opinion the other 99% of brutalist buildings are just horrible lumps of concrete with no redeeming features. I wouldn't live in one if you paid me.
I come across the first brutal building is Unite Habitation in Marseille. It's strong and delicate rather than heavy or bulky. It's gray, vital under the sun, not dark, dirty or depressing. It's powerful but intimate, not a horrible monumental. But when I saw some of brutal buildings in England, they are oppositly dull, bulky and depressing (of course some are not). The reason may be about lack of maintainance or bad design or construction. I also find a very good one in Tokyo , it's a gymnasium at 築波大學， it is also a large bare concrete building in 70's style but atmosphere is welcoming both in an out. You can also find good examples in 上野park of Tokyo.
youre absolutely right. one of the big problems with alot of uk brutalist buildings is that they didnt properly take into account the british weather vs french and also lack of maintenance is a big problem with most brutalist buildings!
Is a our style , and who made it...not the condition is in....smh...people are closed minded , and don't like building cuz of the condition..... But if not creative , seek knowledge , open minded....we go beyond the horizon and creativity thinking.....
Look I don't care what it looks like. But it's a FACT that concrete sucks as a building material. It's either cracked or will crack and requires constant repairing. If you compare that too steel, clay, wood, stone, sandstone, marble.
The rejection of ornamentation is as pretentious as its over use. These buildings need to exist so that people have some kind of "looking like this may be pushing it a bit much" sort of warning.
Nonsense. It is my favorite architectural style and I'm building my own home to be as brutalist as possible. Besides that, I find High Victorian style to be stuffy and emotionally repressive, but I admit that there is merit to it. Same deal with Brutalism. People MUST realize that it has merit.
Meine Uni-Bibliothek und Mensa ist in diesem Baustil. Ich fühle mich dort sehr wohl. Die Decken sind hoch, große Fensterflächen bringen viel Licht, die Treppen sind breit und raffiniert angeordnet, so dass man aus verschiedene Blickwinkeln auf die Etage unter einem gucken kann und einen Überblick bekommt. Manchmal gibt es halbe Etagen mit Geländer. Das Gebäude ist schon alt aber immer noch sehr schön von innen.
I love brutalist architectures so much that I wanted to have a house modeled after a brutalist building. I love the cold, raw and honest materials and aesthetic quality of brutalism. People may see it as dystopian but I love it.
I see Brutalism as almost comforting, in a weird way. The cold concrete, tight spaces and lack of natural light: it's almost cave-like. It just feels homely.
Is the Embarcadero in San Francisco Brutalist architecture? Brutalist Architectur reminds me of music videos in the 80s like U2 and others it does evoke maybe the mood at the time. I like them.
Also the funny thing is... These people who champaign for "saving the brutalism buildings" will go back to their own home which is either a glass shiny condo, or fancy house with stones and woods.
People who say destroy them all sound ...well, dumb. True some if not many are ugly but certainly NOT ALL. Stop it. Some are quite interesting and beautiful even. If they no longer were their function, or the are a blight to today’s aesthetic standards then fine replace them but to say tear them all down implies an expansive ignorance of the movement. Many of these buildings have great architectural and aesthetic value. Not ALL are oppressive monstrosities. Besides if we destroyed them all then what would Science fiction use to depict a dystopian future.
That is right. How many of this buildings were houses of poor people, their homes, their roof? And now torn them down. They are ugly but cheap, with nice quality, and for homeless people even brutalism apartment buildings would be perfect. People only like what is beautifull no matter how bad, how experience, how weak is it they just want to say: Woooooooow this is gorgeous and sweet tinny sh**. I am sick of Capitalism, rasist and retarded American life style. Finally someone with normal comment.
@@rederickfroders1978 : So anybody who does not share your masochistic love for these oppressing and depressing buildings has no taste? P.S. Never heard of David Guetta before.
I love them a lot! The city where I live is small and with a history of the working-class people, so we don't have interesting architecture. The capital, however, is full of interesting things to look at, but of all of them, the rare brutalist buildings are the most eye-catching ones, bar to none! Brutalism can be beautiful and stands out from all other architecture, and I love it dearly.
In Germany we have the old WW2 Flakbunkers - really no need to add to the misery with more concrete giants - plain modernism is depressing enough as it is.
I saw the Vienna flak towers for the first time in 2018. Absolutely terrifying . . . like something out of a nightmare, and basically impossible to tear down.
brutalist buildings give the feeling of safety and nostalgia somehow in my opinion. It feels timeless, solid and unmovable. It‘s like a mountain that lasts longer than we will live. It got that kind of strong personality.
... So we have to keep ugly stressfull monstruosity because some dudes who doesn't have to lives in them thinks they're nice and don't give a fuck about how stressfull and dehumanising those things can be?
Nonsense. It is my favorite architectural style and I'm building my own home to be as brutalist as possible. Besides that, I find High Victorian style to be stuffy and emotionally repressive, but I admit that there is merit to it. It's the same deal with Brutalism for most people.
Brutalism is more than just an architectural style, it’s a deep understanding of the complexities of the world, whilst striving to find simplification and minimalism within it. The goal of brutalism was to do nothing more than just “be”, at the very basic and core level. You have a concrete room, some glass to see out of, and nothing more. Overall, there’s a sense of not needing anything more than that, with which to survive. Exterior facades in brutalism can (or cannot, depending on the designers tastes) display individuality, but the original premise behind brutalism was that it was not supposed to. I think brutalism is the ultimate definition of human/social/world understanding in architecture, because it forces the person beholding it or within it to re-evaluate what it is they do and do not truly need in life. For most of the population (sadly) who are cognizant (consciously or subconsciously) of the fact that they have far more than they need, this can be an extremely uncomfortable feeling. Looking at a brutalist building, or being in one, can make the average person feel very cold and desolate - distanced from all that provides comfort. However, for those who understand their place in nature as well as their overall value as an individual, and who recognize that they only truly need the necessities by which to survive (ultra-minimalist’s of sorts), brutalism is inviting, soothing, calming... it can even evoke a larger-than-life emotional response. It’s this very evocation that makes brutalist buildings scary to the standard layman: a building built solely for the purpose of being a building with the most basic materials possible (concrete and glass), and nothing more. I can understand how that’d be intimidating. I’m sure we all can. Brutalism will always exist, but it will never ever be quite as powerful as it was after WWII, when people recognized how fragile life could be, how little was truly needed to live comfortably, and how much more vast the world was beyond their own comfort zone. During that era, a brutalist building provided relief to the viewer by reminding them of how small and insignificant they truly were, and how much there was to truly treasure. It offered the exact opposite feeling that most people (who have never truly struggled to survive a day in their lives) feel today. That’s why it’s imposing... it rises above them and reminds them of bare necessity - nothing more. Modern people don’t want to be reminded of a life without luxury; it’s scary, it requires introversion and deep contemplation with ones own soul. For this reason alone, brutalism and the love some hold for it stands at an emotional/psychological/mental/physical intellect level that only those who have suffered and survived can truly appreciate.
The” Grayness “of some of those structures just make me sad. Others just impress me, even to the degree of being scared of them. I dont find the joy and sense if awe I get from glass and steel (other shiny metals) structures. But for sure they aren’t boring... just morose...
I do like brutalist architecture but when you grow up as a child of the 60s living in high rise flats in Scotland. It really was burtal living in them as they were freezing in winter. When 11 floors up and the lifts don't work that was brutal. They were good for families in the early days but soon became slums that no one wanted to live in. I do still like concrete though.
I would appreciate it, if we could demolish them all or at least 90% of it. As warning sign, we could let 10% stand. But for the very short time frame of this architecture style, it is overrepresented in our cities.
Every architectural style has its own good and bad side. It’s just an endless competition and struggle for “character”. For me; minimalism is just another brutalist design done neatly and clean. Organic architecture is another modern design that is trying to fit in and live with nature. Deconstructivism is just your regular contemporary architecture that struggled to keep a solid straight line. Something like that. Damn, all this came from my four year architecture school knowledge. What a headache.
I’d love to learn more , I’ve been using brutalist architecture in my sci-fantasy story and it has been so amazing looking at all this beautiful architecture
Recently I've been taking an interest in architecture, and I believe that some Brutalist strutures have their place in the world. Most of them are ugly, look like a scar on the land scape, but maybe a handful of the finer ones deserve to stand. To me it almost is allegorist to something like heavy metal or an early avant-garde work. While these things aren't usually "pretty" and most people wouldn't want to fill there life up with them, there may be an understandable reason why they exist. Black Sabbath put out their first album in 1970, inspired by the ugliness of the industry town Birmingham. Just as well, Avant-Garde came into being in the 20's, after everyone was cooling off from the horrors of ww1. I'd like more pretty buildings to be built, but maybe a few "harsh" ones have their place to remind us of what could go wrong.
so I am also fascinated by brutalism, but probably different from Mr Elser. I would not look back at how many people are currently commenting on the preservation of brutalist buildings, most of them are snobs who will prefer what is just cool. Certainly there are brutally designed projects and in a way beautifully unique and they should definitely be preserved, honestly few buildings fascinate me more than brutalist, if it is successful from my point of view of course :-) Most brutalist buildings are monsters bullshit which was late yesterday is demolish
I think greenery complements brutalism quite nicely. Most of the buildings shown would look much less dystopian if it had greenery complementing its wonderful structure. I'm not an architect or anything but I feel like most of the bad rep comes from underfunding and Hollywood movies focusing on the powerful structures. The buildings of the university I'm going to is of brutalist architecture and I love it. The buildings are integrated with greenery, we have a forest and a lake etc. I always appreciated he architecture of the campus. It had always been relieving from the stress of classes for me. But If it wasn't for the greenery, I think that would definitely be dystopian for sure.
Like all genres, there's good and bad brutalist architecture. I went to Temple University Law School in the 1980's and it totally felt like being in a prison block. There were some good brutalist buildings on that campus. I'd say the College of Education was a lot better. I did classes there too. All in all it was cheap and easy to to put up monumental buildings.
you felt like you were in prison at temply university because temple is in Philadelphia, and Philadelphia is a prison and nobody told the people there that there are better places to live
The problem is that these architects are purists static unable to tap into the generation we live in now. Instead of turning it into a library or office use it as a club or restaurant. Commercialize it to keep it from being forgotten so young people can grow with them into the next era.
I love brutalism. It has the idea of efficiency and almost somekind of a cubist style. It may come off as dystopian to some, but I just see it as a socialistic style of building that favors efficiency, functionality, modernism and the psychological effect of form. Also I'm very into futurism and brutalism looks very futuristic if done right. If you make brutalism less "ugly" by actually painting the naked concrete, you can get actually beautifull results. Not a sad style at all. We need to stop demolishing brutalist stuff and instead apply brutalism to areas where it doesnt conflict with more classical infrastructure. ITS NOT A BAD STYLE!
No brutalism exists because everything was destroyed after the World wars so buildings were needed Quick and since brutalist buildings only work in cities only using brutalist architecture i don't think it is a good idea
its only cool in places with zero culture. i want to live in one. Because i dont live in Europe. in Europe this should be called monsters, slay some of it.
@Aroxar look at how Berlin would have become germania all except the Führers palace would habe been grey with no personality nor happiness in them only bleakness
As someone who grew up with grand gothic and romanesque churches, classical buildings and stuff like that, i hate brutalism. It's just depressing, doesn't really have a soul. It's just some concrete geometric shapes.
As millenials and zoomers are increasingly remembering brutalist structures as places where they used to go shopping as kids or where grandma used to live, slowly there will be more sentimental value attached to brutalism, and that will save it.
Hello, I am new to this. In 1992, I was a student at the Medical Building in the Jersey City Medical Center complex. There was something soul-crushing about this huge gray building, and the feeling stuck with me all these years. Recently, I came across brutalistic architecture. Would someone be so kind as to google image this building and tell me if it qualifies? I only found one description of this building and it said Art Deco. Maybe this is up for interpretation? Thanks in advance.
Yes, it's 1930's, Art Deco, although quite a plain example of it. The Empire State Building and Rockefeller Center are what you get with a bigger budget.
Some people have done interesting things with the concept. But the vast majority are just ugly unimaginative buildings put up quickly and cheaply to fill a gap. They age in an ugly way, getting dirty and slowly crumbling apart. They have fulfilled their purpose and it's time to put something new there.
Many Brutalist buildings look like the fort of an occupying army. Brutalist architecture looks like it's cheaply built and reflects a strong Socialist/Communist theme, that of the working classes. If it hurts to look at it, too bad for you. It doesn't reflect a feeling of wealth and happiness, only fear and protectiveness. I, for one, dislike it.
@TagusMan You refer to the so-called "Plan Voisin" by Corbusier. Well, his real motivation was not to destroy something because he didn't like it, but to create something radically new. Didn't work out after all..
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
What Brutalism is to Dystopianism is the equivalent to what Victorian-era mansions is to the Horror genre.
brutalist for a house is great. but i dont care to see them Europe.
@Pandas Panda Pan Das I like it to some degree
Most of them are just ugly authoritarian blocks...but then again there are some beautiful exceptions
@Pandas Panda Pan Das i love them
And what's funny is that they also use brutalist architecture to depict modernism in the context of the 70s lol it gives it that kind of eerie vibe... or I just got that from the movie High Rise 🤣
There are a lot of badly designed brutalist buildings, that really are just ugly concrete blocks with no sense of art. Even as a big fan of brutalism, I acknowledge this, and wouldn't mind if the majority of them were torn down. (Keep a few as historic monuments, and to show off how not to design brutalist buildings, though.)
But why people keep hating on the _good_ brutalist buildings, I will never understand. There are so many good brutalist buildings, with complex, interesting shapes. People compare them with bunkers - but why is that a bad thing? Bunkers are _awesome!_ They have their own aesthetic, they're special and beautiful in their own way. They look tough, rough, and alive in their own way. Especially if they have algae and moss and lichen growing on them, and are surrounded and maybe even covered with green plants and even flowers.
They're majestic and wonderful in their own way, and I just cannot understand the hate they get.
But how do you choose which ones are historic ones and which not?
The interesting and complex shapes that Brutalist buildings can take still doesn't make them GOOD, and that's the issue. Brutalism is basically a form of modern art... Like modern art, it is the visualization of anti-social personality disorder. It is soulless, ugly, uncomfortable, intimidating, imposed and imposing, anti-aesthetic. But unlike modern art, you can't hide it. You can put modern art in a gallery where only people who want to see it have to. Brutalist buildings are out there were real people have to live and work. Putting ugly, anti-social art where people have to actually live is criminal.
people associate brutalist buildings with bunkers because they haven't grown up or at least lived a period of their life in that kind of an environment. I can tell you that these buildings give you a feeling ... i cant describe it but its different for everyone, feeling of a special kind of beauty (and aesthetic also, ofcourse xD) they have an eary vibe to them in a beautiful way, they feel futuristic but in a cyberpunk dystopia kind of way (people that have watched Akira, Bladerunner, ghost in the shell and similar movies will understand me)
@@markopetrushev3084 I grew up going to schools designed in the brutalist style. It felt like going to a prison every day. By the time I got to high school, the schools were built with more color, more natural light and aesthetics. I felt better. Everyone conducted themselves better. It didn't feel like you were being punished just going there.
dont need art for buildings as long as preforms the function is stable and use few resources that is ideal.
I think brutalist buildings are best preserved in Eastern Europe, where there is the best kind of brutalism and most, if not all of them are still in use. My local County Council in Romania is a pretty sweet brutalist building.
Unde BOSS?
Yeah, Belgrade is also brutalist city, some parts are not, but some parts are high brutalist.
This brutalist stuff destroys the beautiful views of the Romanian cityscapes you'd have. I hate it personally, there are so many beautiful buildings in Romania but these ugly concrete Monsters make them all look small and unimportant. Not really respectful towards own culture...
I think brutalist is definitely underappreciated, a lot like finding beauty in certain lines. It takes a specific taste to enjoy. There's too much hiatory surrounding their design just to tear them down
So do you have this specific taste?
If well done they look nice on a sunny day and looked at from afar. But close by and/or under a cloudy sky they are ugly and depressing. Architects should not try to be sculptors, they should make building that are pleasant to use and look at. Brutalism fails at this.
@@dweuromaxx my personal favorite architecture is neoclassical, brutalist looks dystopian to me. Sorry for any spelling errors.
If a building serves its purpose, it should not be demolished just because it doesn't fit the taste of some people. This is 'cancelation'! There are good and bad buildings of every style!
So I’m supposed to believe that you would be ok with building in a traditional style if the architecture was functional? 75% prefers anything but modernism, you should just face that your fanatical ideology and all it’s creations wont be restored now that the shitty concrete falls apart
Maybe if the purpose of these concrete monsters is to squash any serenity and joy you can find in the building, they should not have been built.
My engineering faculty was inside a head-ache inducing brutalist building. I absolutely hated spending time and working there.
brutalist architecture always had a dystopian vibe to it
Whenever I look at this stlye I feel sad and hopeless, also angry sometimes.
No it doesnt. Its futurist. I love the style. There are some brutalist buildings that do look very depressing, but those are just bad examples
@@rederickfroders1978 so around 75 % are bad examples...
Sure, Brutalism could be ugly and can age badly, but I think it's one of the branches of modern architecture that has some merit to it. It's sturdy (usually), cheap, and the forms it can create can be quite charming.
Cheap is not a quality here as it is only the cost to build and doesn't affect the future.
The truth is, brutalist building are made of cement, and cement ages horribly, it ends up depressing.
Old buildings seem younger than new ones because they're made out of stone.
its good for a house but not for huge buildings.
The shapes of Brutalism can be great but the "naked material" is very... cold and lifeless. The only "charm" I associate with is that dystopian movies. Cover those shapes with color and more natural(?) materials like wood, stone or adobe, and you have a much more pleasant building.
I'd rather have Netflix and chill with epstein than live within a 100km radius of a brutalist building.
Pretty shallow to say because it is Beton Brut that it should be saved. There is good and bad in every style and not all should be treated equally.
The monotonous rectangular ones with identical balconies lining every wall are genuinely hideous. But there are so many amazing brutalist buildings that should be saved and cherished.
I would love to live in or near a good brutalist building. Or better yet, and entire neighborhood of well-designed, interesting brutalist buildings!
J Lord good for you 👍🏽🤷🏽♂️
I've always loved brutalist architecture in the same way I appreciate grey skies and a light breeze; I dont need to be constantly bombarded with colour and advertisements!
Grey let's my mental food digest better and doesn't overwhelm me.
A gray sky is rekaxing yet so is a green Lust forest of trees pine trees bamboo or any trees in general a brutalist building intimidates more and were used by governments who used intimidatiom every day these buildings aren't relaxing
So basically you’re autistic?
I like to imagine a group of people running around with clipboards truing to get signatures to "Save the Brutalism" like they used to for rainforests and stuff. That would make a good '80s movie montage.
Yes - they really do so.
Brutalist design is immortal and stands the ravages of time.
04 August 2021
Love the feeling of strength and reliability these buildings give. Also love the rough, unique look to them. They make most people disgusted and/or depressed, but for me; they make me happier/ more excited, because they are different. Thanks for posting!
Well you See this is the reason there being demolished there depressing intimidating and not because of greatness
@@Bruh-hq1hx Well, that depends on people's mindsets. They associate it with poverty and criminal because a lot of buildings in poor neighborhoods were designed this way, but I don't see why dislike a style just because of the criminal/depressed mood in poor neighborhoods. If someone decides to build a house and wants to try something different, why not brutalism? It's all in the head, there's nothing wrong with this style, it's just a simple and cheap solution, that's why it was used so much in "depressed" neighborhoods - the poverty is the issue here, not architectural style.
@@ElectronPower I too like brutalism for the same reasons. People who usually trash brutalism mistake style for beauty. They are not the same. Beauty however can be how one interprets style. All in the hand of the artist.
@@reglikesbutts5925 This is ugly !
@@ElectronPowerthe stupidity in people ...lack of ideas, uncreative, closed minded ...and illogical way of thinking ...why align the building with people? That's stupid
I grew up in a brutalist housing project made for working class families... I hated that building. It was ugly, characterless, depressing. There's nothing I would like more than for it to be torn down and concreted over.
My first reaction to these building was that it looked like the architecture of fascism.
Maybe your childhood was awful and you associated it with the building
@@hellofellas5661 Most people associate it with shit Regimes like the soviets and the Nazis (look at their Plans for Berlin) there was no real happiness for the average person no freedom you couldnt even make your own house that looks like you want you have to live in the repeated all same blocks of buildings
@@berspective1 welk it would have become
But brutalism is beautiful just as ugly. Look at habitat 67,it is beautiful, church if light as well
Are the German Flak towers such as in Berlin and Vienna considered Brutalist buildings ? They are gigantic structures made of undressed concrete. The Humboldthain tower was commissioned by Nazi, built by slaves, witnessed untold suffering and bloodshed and now is a half buried ruin filled with bats.
Perfect for a Vampires castle.
@Jake Dee Even if there are certain similarities due to the construction method, they are not attributed to the Brutalist style. There is an interesting website about the Humboldthain Flak Tower: www.berliner-unterwelten.de/verein/projekte/flakturm-humboldthain/geschichte.html (german)
@@dweuromaxx Thank you very much for that information. I hope I can see this in person some day.
I think it's a real mixed bag with brutalist architecture. There are some wonderful examples, Boston City Hall, and the old Whitney Museum in Manhattan really work in design and scale, however I've noticed a problem with some of these buildings. The rough concrete surfaces tend to get grubby looking and are harder to clean. I think it's safe to say, as a style, it stands the test of time. I actually think it's more interesting than some of the plain glass box buildings we have in Manhattan. But I tend to like things that are heavily textured.
As a native Bostonian, I'll agree to disagree regarding our City Hall.
@Connor Thompson A lot of people complained Boston City Hall was outbof character with the older structures in the area, but the design and the open plaza were created to allow clear views of the surrounding areas. I think it's quite successful, in that regard. The plaza is quite cold and windswept in the winter.
3:38. "People seem to automatically associate..." Yeah that's the point. They are supposed to be built for people.
I have lived, worked and studied in brutalist buildings and absolutely love it. Form follows function, and the function is determined by the people who use it. Modernism makes this its mission, and where it has failed at this it fails on its own terms - it's a design flaw not a flaw in the philosophy behind it or overall aesthetic. Traditional houses, broken up into small rooms with a single function do not put the needs of people first, for example - they are an anachronism of a time when heat insulation was much more primitive.
Modernism in art and architecture is essentially anti-social personality disorder given physical shape. It is deliberately dehumanizing, authoritarian, and totalitarian, reflecting the modernist view of society. They claim that "form follows function", but the question is "who's function?" It's not human function. It's not environmental function. It's not economic function. You mention heating and homes... Smaller rooms are more energy efficient and therefore cheaper, which is more egalitarian. The function of a Brutalist, modernist building is to be dehumanizing, authoritarian, and totalitarian. The form follows that.
The most important and necessary part of any building is the ornamentation, the things that make it beautiful, because the first and most important function of any building is a place for human beings to live and work in.
@@CoryTheRaven No it is NOT energy efficient - it was only energy efficient in the context of poorly insulated homes. You obviously have little to know knowledge about the things you're talking about, and seem to have an agenda warping your opinions. Modernism in architecture is so broad, that to dismiss it in the way you just have speaks of phenomenal ignorance. Modernism on a small, human scale continues to influence the best and most humanistic practices in architecture. How could ornamentation possibly be more important than maximising light, or arranging spaces in accordance with its residents' preferred lifestyle?
@@jlord9638 That's fine, but art deco is also a form of modernism.
I can walk all around my neighbourhood and see these huge infills with massive two-story living/dining/foyer/entertainment spaces with floor to ceiling windows, and there is a definite correlation between wealth and being able to have and heat a house like that. You're just wrong dude, sorry.
You're also wrong about space allocation. Those large two-story all-purpose rooms are not only inefficient for heat (except maybe the summer, when you have heat constant pouring in through them) but also inefficient for use. For example, there is an entire row of condos that were just built down the street from me where the entire first floor is an open concept kitchen with couches in it. Great if you life goal is to entertain, but not if you want to use it for anything else. I could never be in the market to buy or rent a house like that, because I can't afford the luxury of an entire floor dedicated to cocktail parties.
There's even a house for sale in my neighbourhood I've had an eye on that has a beautiful Craftsman exterior (in accordance with the historic archiecture of the neighbourhood) but an open modernist interior. Even if I could afford it, I'd have to spend another fortune fixing the terrible waste of space and non-Euclidean corners, putting up walls and partitioning the space into something usable for normal people who need to actually live there. The entire first floor doesn't have a single full wall that could be used to prop up a bookshelf. Boxes with large open spaces are affectations of the wealthy who can afford to be wasteful.
Also, don't you dare try to say that people who hate ugly architecture are just driven by an agenda. Pot, kettle, black. It's impossible to love ugly architecture for its own merits, because it doesn't have any. You love it because you claim it's "humanist." I hate it because, by being ugly, it is inhumane. Being humane is more important than being humanist. That's why ornamentation, which is to say being beautiful, is more important.
I do appreciate Brutalism architecture, I find it charming in its unique way. I think modern people nowadays yearn for characteristic designs but they happen to find concrete fixture elements are bland.
I love brutalism! But I seriously don't think these guys understand it's a very niche design for the enthusiastic connoisseur, not for the everyday human being. I understand why people want them gone. I don't blame them. Let's just be grateful for what's left.
God is good.
Get rid of all of them. Those buildings give me the creeps. o.O
please tear all this crap down
Well, let people vote. Ask them. "Do you like those buildings?", "Do you think they should be preserved?"... let the people decide.
Brutalist architecture can be really beautiful sleek and clean looking if implemented well and complimented with color and greenery to soften the very bold look and liven it up.
Like many here say it looks like dystopian and personally I don't want to live in a dystopia, I want to live in a Utopia, somewhere beautiful.
My city once had a beautiful city hall (it looked like a smaller westminster), but it was demolished and replaced with a tall brutalist tower (which is the new city hall), because it was cheaper to do it instead of renovating.
I really don't like brutalist architecture.
That German guys mustache is fucking brutal
OK what in God's holy name us wrong with the people in the comments?
You mad bruh?
What's wrong with this kind of architecture?
Really?
You don't like it because y'all emotions find it unpleasant?
If you find that unpleasant, then your nothing but a bunch of pompous idiots with only cares about the looks instead of its function, id rather live in house that makes me feel safe, strong and is cheap, if you don't like it's look then PAINT IT and whatever you like. Associating these these buildings with oppression or brutal dictatorship mades me think y'all a bunch architectural snowflakes, literally. I ain't going reply to your comments cause I know what you lot are gonna bloody say. I have a strong preference for simple, but resilient buildings so brutalist architecture somewhat fits my taste. Beside there are way worse types of architecture out there
That is all, there will be no further communication.
PEACE!
@Mona Duran The reason that this architectural trend is so polarizing is certainly also due to the unfortunate choice of the term, which originally comes from the French *Beton Brut* and actually means nothing other than *exposed concrete*.
hollywood made brutalist buildings look scary tho!! don't you understand?? hahahah
"The principle is much space for little money." This is me.
A small handful of the more interesting examples of the style are worth keeping. But in my opinion the other 99% of brutalist buildings are just horrible lumps of concrete with no redeeming features. I wouldn't live in one if you paid me.
I come across the first brutal building is Unite Habitation in Marseille. It's strong and delicate rather than heavy or bulky. It's gray, vital under the sun, not dark, dirty or depressing. It's powerful but intimate, not a horrible monumental. But when I saw some of brutal buildings in England, they are oppositly dull, bulky and depressing (of course some are not). The reason may be about lack of maintainance or bad design or construction. I also find a very good one in Tokyo , it's a gymnasium at 築波大學， it is also a large bare concrete building in 70's style but atmosphere is welcoming both in an out. You can also find good examples in 上野park of Tokyo.
youre absolutely right. one of the big problems with alot of uk brutalist buildings is that they didnt properly take into account the british weather vs french and also lack of maintenance is a big problem with most brutalist buildings!
Is a our style , and who made it...not the condition is in....smh...people are closed minded , and don't like building cuz of the condition.....
But if not creative , seek knowledge , open minded....we go beyond the horizon and creativity thinking.....
@@aitor.onlineIs the condition , people don't think beyond the horizon ...
Look I don't care what it looks like. But it's a FACT that concrete sucks as a building material. It's either cracked or will crack and requires constant repairing. If you compare that too steel, clay, wood, stone, sandstone, marble.
@Saintpatrick76 Did you know, that the 2000 year old Roman Pantheon's dome is still the world's largest unreinforced concrete dome? 😲
The rejection of ornamentation is as pretentious as its over use. These buildings need to exist so that people have some kind of "looking like this may be pushing it a bit much" sort of warning.
Cheap corrugated cardboard. I couldn't think of a better medium to represent Brutalist architecture.
Yep, indeed the museum people did a good job there!
Dynamite. Every. Building. Brutalism is an obscenity, and a blight on human civilization.
Nonsense. It is my favorite architectural style and I'm building my own home to be as brutalist as possible. Besides that, I find High Victorian style to be stuffy and emotionally repressive, but I admit that there is merit to it. Same deal with Brutalism. People MUST realize that it has merit.
Meine Uni-Bibliothek und Mensa ist in diesem Baustil. Ich fühle mich dort sehr wohl. Die Decken sind hoch, große Fensterflächen bringen viel Licht, die Treppen sind breit und raffiniert angeordnet, so dass man aus verschiedene Blickwinkeln auf die Etage unter einem gucken kann und einen Überblick bekommt. Manchmal gibt es halbe Etagen mit Geländer. Das Gebäude ist schon alt aber immer noch sehr schön von innen.
Schön! :-)
Knock all these prisons down
These Hipsters don't live in them or near them
Most Depressing, Dystopian buildings ever
Dang I found a connection to something and everyone wants to get rid of it.
You* / Yourself* / Also*
I love brutalist architectures so much that I wanted to have a house modeled after a brutalist building. I love the cold, raw and honest materials and aesthetic quality of brutalism. People may see it as dystopian but I love it.
People don't understand nothing ...close minded people,lack creativity and ideas... understand pyschology....not everyone thinks or have the mindset
i wouldnt want to see a building that actively makes me feel depressed
I see Brutalism as almost comforting, in a weird way. The cold concrete, tight spaces and lack of natural light: it's almost cave-like. It just feels homely.
Is the Embarcadero in San Francisco Brutalist architecture? Brutalist Architectur reminds me of music videos in the 80s like U2 and others it does evoke maybe the mood at the time. I like them.
Also the funny thing is... These people who champaign for "saving the brutalism buildings" will go back to their own home which is either a glass shiny condo, or fancy house with stones and woods.
Sure...?
i'd love to live in a brutalist home. also, i certainly don't live in a skyscraper yet i still wish for them to exist.
@@dweuromaxx All brutalist buildings (except a few that we keep for history and a warning for the future) should die.
lmao as if everyone can just find a perfect brutalist house in their area. i know if i saw one for sale in my area id buy it
People who say destroy them all sound ...well, dumb. True some if not many are ugly but certainly NOT ALL. Stop it. Some are quite interesting and beautiful even. If they no longer were their function, or the are a blight to today’s aesthetic standards then fine replace them but to say tear them all down implies an expansive ignorance of the movement. Many of these buildings have great architectural and aesthetic value. Not ALL are oppressive monstrosities. Besides if we destroyed them all then what would Science fiction use to depict a dystopian future.
That is right. How many of this buildings were houses of poor people, their homes, their roof? And now torn them down. They are ugly but cheap, with nice quality, and for homeless people even brutalism apartment buildings would be perfect. People only like what is beautifull no matter how bad, how experience, how weak is it they just want to say: Woooooooow this is gorgeous and sweet tinny sh**. I am sick of Capitalism, rasist and retarded American life style. Finally someone with normal comment.
ignore the SOS. Tear down those inhumane eyesores!
You must lack taste, I guess you also enjoy David Guettas music?
@@rederickfroders1978 : So anybody who does not share your masochistic love for these oppressing and depressing buildings has no taste?
P.S. Never heard of David Guetta before.
Tear it all down!
3:55 perfect example of the arrogance of architects
It's not arrogance. It is having a "taste".
It was love at first sight for me back then. Still love them today!
For me it was hate at first sight, still hate it today!
I love them a lot! The city where I live is small and with a history of the working-class people, so we don't have interesting architecture. The capital, however, is full of interesting things to look at, but of all of them, the rare brutalist buildings are the most eye-catching ones, bar to none! Brutalism can be beautiful and stands out from all other architecture, and I love it dearly.
Brutalism is about PTSD.
In Germany we have the old WW2 Flakbunkers - really no need to add to the misery with more concrete giants - plain modernism is depressing enough as it is.
I saw the Vienna flak towers for the first time in 2018. Absolutely terrifying . . . like something out of a nightmare, and basically impossible to tear down.
exactly. NYC could really use another building with a glass exterior, am i right?
They look like gravestones ; soulless and cold
brutalist buildings give the feeling of safety and nostalgia somehow in my opinion. It feels timeless, solid and unmovable. It‘s like a mountain that lasts longer than we will live. It got that kind of strong personality.
It also reminds of brutal dictators
I wonder if there's a psychological argument to be made here in the same vein as "people who like certain types of art have certain personalities".
Not sure, but it's undeniable that people who want to destroy certain types of art have a certain personality. ;)
... So we have to keep ugly stressfull monstruosity because some dudes who doesn't have to lives in them thinks they're nice and don't give a fuck about how stressfull and dehumanising those things can be?
Art deco and gothic architecture are my favorite. Brutalism is a crime.
Nonsense. It is my favorite architectural style and I'm building my own home to be as brutalist as possible. Besides that, I find High Victorian style to be stuffy and emotionally repressive, but I admit that there is merit to it. It's the same deal with Brutalism for most people.
Brutalism is my favourite. Art Deco and gothic architecture is a crime.
I think it is a bad idea to tear down buildings that still work unless they are unsafe.
Also the most incline tower in the world.....a oblic monorail and belvedere at the top
Brutalism is more than just an architectural style, it’s a deep understanding of the complexities of the world, whilst striving to find simplification and minimalism within it.
The goal of brutalism was to do nothing more than just “be”, at the very basic and core level. You have a concrete room, some glass to see out of, and nothing more. Overall, there’s a sense of not needing anything more than that, with which to survive.
Exterior facades in brutalism can (or cannot, depending on the designers tastes) display individuality, but the original premise behind brutalism was that it was not supposed to.
I think brutalism is the ultimate definition of human/social/world understanding in architecture, because it forces the person beholding it or within it to re-evaluate what it is they do and do not truly need in life. For most of the population (sadly) who are cognizant (consciously or subconsciously) of the fact that they have far more than they need, this can be an extremely uncomfortable feeling. Looking at a brutalist building, or being in one, can make the average person feel very cold and desolate - distanced from all that provides comfort.
However, for those who understand their place in nature as well as their overall value as an individual, and who recognize that they only truly need the necessities by which to survive (ultra-minimalist’s of sorts), brutalism is inviting, soothing, calming... it can even evoke a larger-than-life emotional response. It’s this very evocation that makes brutalist buildings scary to the standard layman: a building built solely for the purpose of being a building with the most basic materials possible (concrete and glass), and nothing more.
I can understand how that’d be intimidating. I’m sure we all can.
Brutalism will always exist, but it will never ever be quite as powerful as it was after WWII, when people recognized how fragile life could be, how little was truly needed to live comfortably, and how much more vast the world was beyond their own comfort zone. During that era, a brutalist building provided relief to the viewer by reminding them of how small and insignificant they truly were, and how much there was to truly treasure. It offered the exact opposite feeling that most people (who have never truly struggled to survive a day in their lives) feel today. That’s why it’s imposing... it rises above them and reminds them of bare necessity - nothing more. Modern people don’t want to be reminded of a life without luxury; it’s scary, it requires introversion and deep contemplation with ones own soul.
For this reason alone, brutalism and the love some hold for it stands at an emotional/psychological/mental/physical intellect level that only those who have suffered and survived can truly appreciate.
Great! - I love your "I’m sure we all can." We too!
The” Grayness “of some of those structures just make me sad. Others just impress me, even to the degree of being scared of them. I dont find the joy and sense if awe I get from glass and steel (other shiny metals) structures. But for sure they aren’t boring... just morose...
I do like brutalist architecture but when you grow up as a child of the 60s living in high rise flats in Scotland. It really was burtal living in them as they were freezing in winter. When 11 floors up and the lifts don't work that was brutal. They were good for families in the early days but soon became slums that no one wanted to live in. I do still like concrete though.
They look better in cardboard than they do in concrete.
gothic, brutalist and Victorian, with natural overgrowth that's both useful and beautiful looks amazing and should be more normalized in my opinion
I would appreciate it, if we could demolish them all or at least 90% of it. As warning sign, we could let 10% stand. But for the very short time frame of this architecture style, it is overrepresented in our cities.
Every architectural style has its own good and bad side.
It’s just an endless competition and struggle for “character”.
For me; minimalism is just another brutalist design done neatly and clean. Organic architecture is another modern design that is trying to fit in and live with nature. Deconstructivism is just your regular contemporary architecture that struggled to keep a solid straight line. Something like that. Damn, all this came from my four year architecture school knowledge. What a headache.
Monstrous architecture!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architecture
@@SuperGreatSphinx bot?
Monstrously beautiful yes
I’d love to learn more , I’ve been using brutalist architecture in my sci-fantasy story and it has been so amazing looking at all this beautiful architecture
Beautiful indeed
I like how a beautiful example is used to open the video... with a bunch of ugly buildings
Recently I've been taking an interest in architecture, and I believe that some Brutalist strutures have their place in the world. Most of them are ugly, look like a scar on the land scape, but maybe a handful of the finer ones deserve to stand.
To me it almost is allegorist to something like heavy metal or an early avant-garde work. While these things aren't usually "pretty" and most people wouldn't want to fill there life up with them, there may be an understandable reason why they exist. Black Sabbath put out their first album in 1970, inspired by the ugliness of the industry town Birmingham. Just as well, Avant-Garde came into being in the 20's, after everyone was cooling off from the horrors of ww1.
I'd like more pretty buildings to be built, but maybe a few "harsh" ones have their place to remind us of what could go wrong.
Good point... rememberance.
I love this architecture even though it depresses me 😂
3:29 Revamping concrete's pour image depends on whether that method or precast was used.
Well, yes, they work really well as sculptures. Unique landmarks not fit for living near, but visiting.
so I am also fascinated by brutalism, but probably different from Mr Elser. I would not look back at how many people are currently commenting on the preservation of brutalist buildings, most of them are snobs who will prefer what is just cool. Certainly there are brutally designed projects and in a way beautifully unique and they should definitely be preserved, honestly few buildings fascinate me more than brutalist, if it is successful from my point of view of course :-) Most brutalist buildings are monsters bullshit which was late yesterday is demolish
Interesting point of view. Brutalism is certainly popular within young, cool people 🤪
I think greenery complements brutalism quite nicely. Most of the buildings shown would look much less dystopian if it had greenery complementing its wonderful structure. I'm not an architect or anything but I feel like most of the bad rep comes from underfunding and Hollywood movies focusing on the powerful structures. The buildings of the university I'm going to is of brutalist architecture and I love it. The buildings are integrated with greenery, we have a forest and a lake etc. I always appreciated he architecture of the campus. It had always been relieving from the stress of classes for me. But If it wasn't for the greenery, I think that would definitely be dystopian for sure.
Everything looks better with greenery, and neoclassical architecture complements greenery much better than brutalism.
Bio-brutalism is practically an oxymoron.
@@MiScusi69 neoclassical is mad ugly. i dont wanna see marble and boring gaudy white domes everywhere
@@circleinforthecube5170 and I don't want to see ugly, flat, undecorated concrete everywhere either.
@@MiScusi69 its not everywhere though, also you replied to a 2 year old comment with your unwanted viewpoint
Like all genres, there's good and bad brutalist architecture. I went to Temple University Law School in the 1980's and it totally felt like being in a prison block. There were some good brutalist buildings on that campus. I'd say the College of Education was a lot better. I did classes there too. All in all it was cheap and easy to to put up monumental buildings.
you felt like you were in prison at temply university because temple is in Philadelphia, and Philadelphia is a prison and nobody told the people there that there are better places to live
The problem is that these architects are purists static unable to tap into the generation we live in now. Instead of turning it into a library or office use it as a club or restaurant. Commercialize it to keep it from being forgotten so young people can grow with them into the next era.
Kinda sad, I thought they looked cool
We need to update brutalism for people to like it more.
I like how the concrete reflects light
I love brutalism. It has the idea of efficiency and almost somekind of a cubist style. It may come off as dystopian to some, but I just see it as a socialistic style of building that favors efficiency, functionality, modernism and the psychological effect of form.
Also I'm very into futurism and brutalism looks very futuristic if done right. If you make brutalism less "ugly" by actually painting the naked concrete, you can get actually beautifull results.
Not a sad style at all.
We need to stop demolishing brutalist stuff and instead apply brutalism to areas where it doesnt conflict with more classical infrastructure. ITS NOT A BAD STYLE!
I would not be surprised if a lot of it is a misunderstanding of the origin of the name.
and hollywood movies using the large structure as some kind of menacing force
Brink it back baby.
No brutalism exists because everything was destroyed after the World wars so buildings were needed Quick and since brutalist buildings only work in cities only using brutalist architecture i don't think it is a good idea
Leave it to the Germans to love this dehumanizing nightmare of a style.
its only cool in places with zero culture. i want to live in one. Because i dont live in Europe. in Europe this should be called monsters, slay some of it.
@Aroxar look at how Berlin would have become germania all except the Führers palace would habe been grey with no personality nor happiness in them only bleakness
We would rather not turn our cities in the equivalent of hitlers world capital germania
I don't know how accurate that is. The Nazi aesthetic was a kind of Neo-Classical art deco kitsch.
so who's going to tell this guy that the main proponent of Brutalism was the USSR?
I'd recommend CE Europe for brutalist art lovers. Behind the thick damn walls there is always some bureaucrats lurking...
As someone who grew up with grand gothic and romanesque churches, classical buildings and stuff like that, i hate brutalism. It's just depressing, doesn't really have a soul. It's just some concrete geometric shapes.
As millenials and zoomers are increasingly remembering brutalist structures as places where they used to go shopping as kids or where grandma used to live, slowly there will be more sentimental value attached to brutalism, and that will save it.
This is a good point!
SOS Brutalism? Doesn't SOS stand for Save Our Souls? And one of the most common terms of opprobrium hurled at Brutalism is "soulless."
Peace
Hello, I am new to this. In 1992, I was a student at the Medical Building in the Jersey City Medical Center complex. There was something soul-crushing about this huge gray building, and the feeling stuck with me all these years. Recently, I came across brutalistic architecture. Would someone be so kind as to google image this building and tell me if it qualifies? I only found one description of this building and it said Art Deco. Maybe this is up for interpretation? Thanks in advance.
im like 98% sure that doesnt count as brutalist
Yes, it's 1930's, Art Deco, although quite a plain example of it. The Empire State Building and Rockefeller Center are what you get with a bigger budget.
The Jersey City Medical Center complex is not a brutalist structure. It's just an ugly building.
Brutalism is in many ways the same as modern arts: hated by most, loved by few, remembered by none.
Brutalism is like minecraft for the bunker mentality of WWII
Much love
These buildings are kind of scary, I think they have a story to tell we just need to understand them
Dune 2020 will look gorgeous!
Nope lol
Some people have done interesting things with the concept. But the vast majority are just ugly unimaginative buildings put up quickly and cheaply to fill a gap. They age in an ugly way, getting dirty and slowly crumbling apart. They have fulfilled their purpose and it's time to put something new there.
Ignore this SOS, this inhumane buildings should disappear.
Mexican brutalist buildings are awesome!
Maybe you could give us an example....
@@dweuromaxx yes, of course, revistacodigo.com/arquitectura/arquitectura-brutalista-en-mexico-modernidad-y-concreto/
here a few more mxcity.mx/2019/02/brutalismo-en-la-ciudad-de-mexico-10-formidables-edificios/
Give it the Hundertwasser treatment
Many Brutalist buildings look like the fort of an occupying army. Brutalist architecture looks like it's cheaply built and reflects a strong Socialist/Communist theme, that of the working classes. If it hurts to look at it, too bad for you. It doesn't reflect a feeling of wealth and happiness, only fear and protectiveness. I, for one, dislike it.
They are just depressing. Atleast add some color.
The only brutalist building I respect are the pyramids of Giza.
Brutalism reminds me of Backrooms
Brutalism belongs in a museum, not on our streets. Tear it all down like Corbusier wanted to do with Paris.
@TagusMan You refer to the so-called "Plan Voisin" by Corbusier. Well, his real motivation was not to destroy something because he didn't like it, but to create something radically new. Didn't work out after all..
I love the concept of building more space with less material. But that’s in opposition to the profit driven capitalist building materials market.
There are a lot of exposed concrete buildings with many rounded openings in ME like Syria and Iraq. Are those Brutalism?
Most are crap but there are a few gems. I like Boston City Hall but most don't
It's beautifully ugly! I meant that in a positive way.