Edinburgh University Main Library. The university knocked down 75% of the Georgian townhouses around a beautiful garden square and replaced them with enormous brutalist constructs.
I feel like one important thing that determines whether brutalist architecture looks good is it's relation to the surrounding nature, if it feels like just a box of dominant concrete without ornamentation it can feel too imposing and bland, but if it is blended in with the surrounding nature in the right way it can evoke the same kind of beauty that mountains can.
In Brazil that is well done. Mostly in Brasilia, the capital. There are structures called “cobogós” that allow the light to enter the building but prevent the heat.
Perfect example of this in my mind is the Salk Institute in San Diego. With its courtyard river flowing towards the ocean and the sun moving through sunwells to illuminate it efficiently, it fits so neatly into its context that it's hard to imagine it anywhere else.
My main beef with Brutalism as a movement is that it always seems to revolve around the egos and artistic sensibilities of the architectural community, as opposed to any serious consideration for people who have to use the buildings on a daily basis. I have lived and studied on two brutalist campuses, and it can be a really unpleasant experience. Cold, hostile, uninviting, dark, damp, incoherent, and always feeling completely out of place. If you want to build a massive concrete sculpture in your own backyard, be my guest. But please don't make the rest of us live and work in it.
I kind of agree with you. Most people have conservative sensibilities in art. Music, paintings, sculptures, movies, etc, can be appreciated privately. Architecture cannot. It affects everybody. I understand architects really appreciate their avant garde stuff, but to the layman like myself it's hard to see beauty in some buildings.
THIS. I went to school in a brutalist building for 8 yrs and so many students said they felt uncomfortable in the building. Personally I felt like it enhanced my existing anxiety.
Fully agree. It's the worst kind of ivory tower leftism where it ostensibly tries to be egalitarian while completely scorning the opinions of the normal people who have to use it. It's like demanding that everyone listen to avant garde jazz music instead of pop songs.
Totally agree, it is someone designing something that they would never actually want to have to see on a daily basis. They are depressing buildings, and adding shapes to them will not help. Your description of them is on point, they are just not good to look at. Architects should be given a brief that includes a consideration of the people who will use the building. These seem to be more like the ridiculous styles you see on a runway at a fashion show, they may look good, but no one would actually want to be seen in them.
I work right next to Evans Hall and it is worth emphasizing just how much it blocks the view of the bay and SF. It's wild. PLUS: It has ominous lore since, being the math building, it also had the distinction for being the most jumped-off building on campus (before it was retrofitted to prevent that from being possible).
The Unabomber did not have an office in Evans, though he mailed a bomb to Cory Hall. (Which may be replaced soonish too). Supposedly he left Berkeley in 1968-69 and Evans was built in 71.
@@blahblah55237I had a Berkeley computer science professor who claimed that Evans Hall (where his office was) was built that way because of bombings done by radicals in the late 60s. But if it's not earthquake proof it can't be very bomb proof.
In my opinion, a photograph is the only place where brutalist buildings actually shine. But even the most depressing towns with 50yrs of overdue maintenance looks chearful on a photo in bright sunlight. Doesn't mean you wanna live or work in it.
This - buildings designed for architectural magazines and artsy dutch-angle photographs, not for people. No thought for context, maintenance and the actual human experience of living and working in them. The ultimate expression of form over function.
I do. I want to live there. I want to work there. There is something stable and honest about it. It feels solid and supportive. And nothing else. But hey, that's just me.
@@Dramat1c_Irony Who said form comes over function? I didn't. However, I am sure that we can have both function ánd form. If we could make nice looking functional buildings hundreds or even thousands of years ago, why not now?
@@Dramat1c_Irony That is the irony. Brutalism is NOT functional. Everything is about the shape of the building and achieving a particular 'modern' aesthetic. How it functions is a distant second (as anyone who has had the misfortune of being responsible for the maintenance of a Brutalist building will tell you). "Form ever follows function" (a maxim by architect Louis Sullivan) does not mean that buildings can't have 'ornamentation' or surface detail. Just look at Sullivan's own designs. This is one of the most misunderstood sayings in all of design. In fact, ornamentation is what allows form to follow function e.g. a building might need gutters and downpipes to manage rainwater. They are practical but you can build on their practical function and make them beautiful also. They may be embellished, but almost every feature you see in a traditional building also has a practical function. As soon as 'ornamentation' became taboo, the entire building became the ornament. The building became a single sculptural form. It must look 'modern' above every other consideration. Practical features, like pitched roofs, gutters, window sills, drip edges, quoins etc. are avoided because they might make a building look 'tradtional'. This means a whole lot of function was thrown out of the proverbial window just to make buildings look a certain way.
There's something to be said for "leaving it raw" in a society where everything is ornate. But that's just not the society we live in anymore. So many cities in North America are filled with bare concrete walls. Some brutalist, others just cost-cutting. But regardless, the end result is the same: spending the majority of your life in a world surrounded by soulless, bare concrete. I'd also argue that just because something makes for a good instagram picture, doesn't mean it's somewhere you'd want to inhabit. Just look at the whole "liminal space" trend of finding the grimiest, emptiest mall hallway possible So much of the justification for these buildings seems to be abstract philosophy too, rather than "do people actually enjoy this?" Some buildings are historically significant, some are interesting, but when brutalism has gained a reputation of being despised by the people who actually coexist with these buildings, maybe it's time to learn from it and move on to something better.
As mentioned in another comment, with the natural surrounding this kind of architecture works - and I'd add that it works in the warm climate. In the areas where winter is cold, naked concrete is not very energy efficient. Also, based on the responses some of the buildings are not very well built, related to the style or not - that makes sense to demolish them.
I work inside Evans Hall and (shockingly) being inside Evans is much worse than looking at it from the outside 😅None of the grad students in my department have windows, and many of the biggest classrooms in the building also lack windows. Not to mention that it is incredibly seismically unsafe, has extraordinarily poor ventilation, asbestos contamination, no air conditioning, terrifying elevators, etc. They claim they're moving us but I have no expectation of that happening before finishing my PhD 🙃
Asbestos isn't a contamination. It's an insulation and safe if you don't bust it up and breath it in. I get your point though...time for a safer, energy efficient beautiful building. BTW if there's an earthquake with damage to the building, put on a real painter's respirator. The kind with cartridges.
Yes, this is how Univerisyt of Illinois-Chicago is. Inside is terrible and depressing. The Behavioral Sciences Building does an excellent job of making you feel like you're in a maze for the purposes of analyzing your behavior. This video misses the major aspect of how it is to inhabit these architecture as art projects.
I personally find the style cold and sterile yet still dingy and definitely uninviting. I grew up in Boston. City hall square was famously done this way years ago. Everyone I know absolutely hates it.
Why everyone hates this concrete building 1551pm 6.11.23 brutalism is horrendous. and if you have lived in such a building you'd know how tedious they are... brutalism is horrendous. that's the attraction. they should have saved rochdale bus station as opposed to the more pretentious preston city bus station.
I think we should also be reminded of the time period when brutalism was initially popular. This was around the time when neighborhoods were being destroyed to build highways and new housing (which was often not maintained well). One of Le Corbusier's most famous plans (Plan Voisin, which was never implemented) was the destruction of central Paris to build a few highways and some "towers in a park," which was just some tall housing complexes surrounded by green space. This style of architecture has historically been in contrast with older styles, to the point of its architects wanting the destruction of those older styles. I think that's one of the main reasons why it is despised; historical neighborhoods and buildings were bulldozed in order to put in some concrete brutalist structures which age poorly.
Brutalism is anti humanist. It's less concerned about the people that are going to live in and around the buildings and more interested in some kind of centrally planned "perfection".
The argument I've heard most often is "It was the architecture of oppressive cold-war regimes." which is definitely was. However, I still love it. There is something so honest and stable feeling about it. I hate how people only associate Brutalism with cold uncaring government buildings. My dream home is concrete, steel, and glass (Probably at the edge of a forest, with some water nearby). That or a converted loft in some industrial warehouse. (Exactly the kind of place a protagonist from a 90's show shot in Toronto would live. Highlander, Forever Knight, Etc)
I am a structural engineer and I graduated a few years ago from Berkeley. I'm glad that the seismic rating of Evans was brought up. However, I feel that comparing Evans with other buildings on campus that have a "poor" seismic rating is a bit unjustified. Evans is one of the largest buildings on campus and is used by orders of magnitude more students than the other buildings. It is also home to several university departments, I believe, such as Math and Data Science. Therefore, its poor seismic performance will have a more severe impact on students' life safety, compared to other buildings. Another similar building, the Moffit Undergraduate Library, which also appeared in the video, recently went through a comprehensive seismic retrofit. However, a retrofit may not be feasible for Evans given its sheer size. When it comes to the demolition decision, I think these are some of the most important factors considered. Obviously, other factors such as architecture, coherence with the surrounding environment, and functionality of the building itself, are also brought into the equation. In the case of Evans, keeping the building just for the sake of preserving its architecture style just does not add up.
Brutalist is divisive in the sense that posh detached architects who live in nature immersed mansions love it, and us people who actually have to live those atrocities day by day hate it.
It's maybe a bit ironic that the creators of the brutalist Barbican arts centre & housing complex in London didn't simply "leave the concrete raw" in many places - instead they hired a team of Italian artisans to bash a it up and cover it with little dents - making it look even more raw than it originally was.
I've had a guided tour in the Barbican complex and I came out of that experience with a new found love for brutalist architecture... I still prefer neogothic but I understand the necessity for raw concrete
It's also ironic that almost none of the architects themselves dare to live in the complexes that they create. Instead they live in beautiful classic villas and townhouses.
Brutalism can look and feel good. On the U.C. Berkeley campus exists Wurster Hall (architecture and design bulding) and the former art museum (now a bioresearch facility). Both building are very interesting even if one doesn't "like" them because of the use of exposed concrete. Evans Hall is an example of a building that nobody likes, is overscaled to its surrounding environment, and is a failure on all fronts. It's actually painted with no raw concrete visible. It has windowless classrooms. It's a very depressing place to be inside. Tearing it down will harm no one on any level. If this Vox video suggests NOT tearing it down just because it's an example of concrete brutalism, then they need to admit that they're wrong.
Thanks for reminding me how depressing Evans Hall is. I had math classes there - the fluorescent lighting did not help in combating the image it is a depressing place.
The real sadness is that we have billions of people with astronomically more education, tools and law-defying materials at their disposal compared to the medieval ages, renaissance, etc, yet despite several decades, we have not come close to having any sort of iconic architecture that does not involve concrete bricks or samey skyscrapers.
Brutalism can be done really well, but I feel like the litmus test should be whether or not a building looks good in bad weather, something which older styles are better at.
@@cmul7651 It's everything actually. We've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of older architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. There is also a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being, which is why architecture is so important and the reason why modern architecture (that throws this rule of thumb out of the window) is so disliked; it essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like.
@@8is I'd be curious to read this research you mentioned, and whether or not it actually demonstrates a tangible link to modernism, or if that's just something people extrapolate to be able to claim their aesthetic taste is somehow inherently superior. Even if it were true, a large part of the human experience is rational thought and knowledge allowing us to overcome our base instincts. One could just as easily trot out the old trope of people not liking modernism because they don't understand it.
@@jc3drums916 Sure. Since you can't write links in TH-cam comments, I'll just refer you to TAC's video "What Makes Buildings Beautiful (And Why Beauty Does Matter)" where he lists a ton of great books, articles and polls in the pinned comment; you really ought to check him out, he explains the data much better than I can. As for humans' rational thought, I think what you're really alluding to is taste because taste is the part of how we perceive beauty that can be trained. Studies show how architect students and the general public rate buildings completely opposite from each other, especially the longer the student has studied architecture. However, it's not as clear cut since, by all means, a lot of modern architects don't live in the types of buildings they design and many do indeed still chose to pay a premium to live in traditional housing. This still points in the direction that beauty is something inherently biological and that, the same way we cannot chose to decide what people look beautiful and not, their is objective beauty in architecture independently of any rationality.
Oh, so brutalism is the architect equivalent of electronics having clear plastic on the 90s/00s to show off the construction. That puts a new light on the style
To me brutalism is like the 12-tone music of architecture: it's "out with the old, in with the new" just for the sake of it and it has a philosophy about how people _ought_ to be, what they ought to like, not how they actually are. There's a reason why we've moved on to postmodernism.
They both suffer from the same problem though. There is a lot of evidence for objective beauty when it comes to basic shapes that is derived from our evolution. For example, we've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of older architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. Modern architecture throws all this out the window; it essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like and there is a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being.
While a defiantly think we should try and preserve architecture, I think this undersells how unpleasant most brutalist buildings are to be in. Especially in a college campus, every brutalist building I have had classes or worked in has just been...uncomfortable as a space. And there has had to be a lot of interior work done to it to make it more pleasant. Like all architecture, it's not just an aesthetic choice, but also one that influences the daily interactions people have with the space
I like when there’s an added element to balance the brutalism a bit more. Usually nature or more irregular shapes/designs. If it’s all grey rectangles and hard lines it feels too impersonal and unwelcoming to me.
Yeah I agree. Even though I'd probably never call a brutalist building beautiful, in "proper" context it can have it's appeal. But that context is almost never where you can find actual brutalist buildings.
I work in a university building that was "renovated". It ended up with raw plywood interior walls (no sheetrock!), unpolished concrete floors, and crumbling exposed brick in the restrooms. Raw architecture can be a nightmare when it's just an excuse for being lazy.
As a former music student at UW-Madison, I spent hours a day, every day in the humanities building mentioned in the video, which is known for its lack of windows, frequent cockroaches, leaky walls and ceilings, draftiness, and people constantly asking you how to get places. There is even a campus myth about it being built to be riot proof because of how inhospitable and confusing it is. Yes, it photographs well, particularly against a bright blue sky, but the daily experience of using it was confusing and oppressive and future students will be lucky when there is a building that replaces it.
These buildings are Instagrammable because of their sculptural form, that's why they went viral on the Internet. It is a reminder of how deceiving the medium of photography is.
Central Washington University has a building with similar lore - the whole riot-proof, built to protect staff, etc. Students generally referred to it as a prison because of its appearance. It was not a popular building.
I studied in Universidade de Brasília that was built entirely in brutalism architecture, but what differentiates itself from the rest was the way it blends with the nature. There are gardens inside and outside the buildings, the trees are not pruned or cut down to highlight the architecture, they are part of the architecture.
UNB is ridiculously good! One thing that Latin Americans have to keep in mind when we see this content is to understand that in general, brutalism here is significantly better than the US average, for example. Brutalism here sought inspiration, for example, in traditional buildings, they were more concerned with bioclimatic adaptation, which led to much better integration with the landscape. They are much more elegant buildings, and with solutions on a much more humanized scale. That makes a huge difference.
@@brianwhite2104 well I think the original comment was just about biggest mistake when it came to building and designing stuff...the biggest creation and artistic mistakes...not talking about the preservation or destruction of buildings.
@@slenderfoxx3797 Well in that case I can still think of worse mistakes... like bridges that were structurally unsound and collapsed like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
I read the earthquake report and Evans and Moffitt were the worst rated but Moffitt is only a 5-story, partially underground building and it went through renovations to reinforce it for earthquake safety last year. Evans is not nearly as easily reinforced. Evans is the clear contender for bull-dozing and replaced with smaller buildings. Its position on campus blocks the view of much better buildings.
Just taught in Evans Hall this morning! It’s awful in any kind of heat: most first-floor classrooms have no windows or much at all in terms of ventilation, and it can get rather unpleasant. Some fabulous chalkboards, though!
Why everyone hates this concrete building 1557pm 6.11.23 has sean scully had his painterly depictions implemented into the united nations' building construction (as seen in london?)
I like how Yale's old buildings look. They have a classic charm that tells you about the history of the University. I think people hate brutalism because the buildings have no life to them. They are utilitarian and expendable. The decoration involved in the older style shows craftsmanship at the human scale. Modern architecture typically has large areas of nothing between the large blocks used to create the structure.
There is a lot of evidence for objective beauty when it comes to basic shapes that is derived from our evolution. Modern architecture essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like and there is a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being. For example, we've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. Brutalism throws all this out the window.
Not many people talk about the subcategory of brick brutalism. Essentially brutalism but predominantly with red bricks in running bond instead of concrete. Ulrich Franzen was a notable architect who worked in this style. It's very common at Cornell University, including Franzen's own Bradfield Hall, an 11-story plant biology research building with only two windows each for 10 of the 11 floors. Franzen also designed the Harpers Ferry Interpretive Design Center (at almost the same time as Bradfield), which sits out of view of the historic town but is unmissable for anyone hiking the Appalachian Trail. Currently I'm at the University of Vermont and we have Howe Library, and a few other brick brutalist structures were demolished a few years ago.
Sounds similar to my old high school, except that used off-white bricks. It was pretty good. It had high ceilings, lots of light, and was mostly built from the aforementioned bricks, with some cast concrete for pillars and stairs, and some wood in the doorways and benches outside classrooms.
I live in a medieval city in the UK. In the 1960s the socialist local authority bulldozed churches and old buildings and built brutalist architecture everywhere sometimes in brown concrete. One of them has now become Listed which means it is protected as 'it is one of the finest examples of cantilevered concrete'. In fact, it is truly 'brutalising' because in the case of my city it was done deliberately to erase history. Le Corbusier did it for that reason as well. It was designed to force humans to relinquish the ties that bound them family, community, culture and history. They knocked down one of the finest medieval lychgate in Europe (where the coffins of the dead would wait before entering the Cathedral) and then they built a foul concrete multi storey car park and hotel on it. Brutalism happened in many cities in the UK in the 1960s where they created vast soulless tower blocks in concrete that destroyed old neighbourhoods and atomised a human sense of identity.
Living, working, studying or even just being in a brutalist building is cold and depressing, just my personal feeling but wood and stone work with big windows feels so much more cozy
"Why not these buildings?" Well based on the one second image of each I'd say for one they aren't as tall as Evans and therefore there's less risk, something like that might, you know, inform the prioritization of one building over another.
As SOON as I saw the thumbnail I was like yooo that HAS to be my college math building. Most buildings on campus are in brutalism and then some buildings are more early 20th century. It almost clashes but part of me kinda likes it.
Architects are a strange group of professionals who seem to hate people who have to look at the results of their work. Brutalism is a good example of this. Most people do not want gray buildings in their living environment. This should be the most important instruction for architects. Not some artistic nonsense.
I do. I want to live there. I want to work there. Brutalism is solid, honest, functional. I understand if another style is better for environmental or efficiency reasons. But don't come here arguing that "No one likes the look." because PLENTY of us do. It is my favorite style. And it is okay to have a different opinion.
The rejection of paint in favour of bare concrete shows the philosophy is a lie, it makes them almost impossible to properly maintain well. Nothing functional about that. Their tendency to be out of scale harms efficiency. it's also dishonest the building is imposing an ideal not serving the people already there.
@@Prophes0r There is a lot of evidence for objective beauty when it comes to basic shapes that is derived from our evolution. Modern architecture essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like and there is a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being. For example, we've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. Brutalism throws all this out the window.
Brutalism looks great on paper and in pictures, but for those who have the unfortunate luck of working in such a building day-to-day, it's horrifically depressing and it's like walking into a federal prison everyday.
As a Stony Brook grad, I'm really happy you included our university hospital. Alot of the brutalist architecture on campus was horrible (Roosevelt Quad) but the hospital was a standout beauty!!!
*"Brutalist architecture" looks like cheaply and hurriedly constructed, WWII German fortifications: it's dehumanizing, threatening and, indeed, psychologically **_brutal,_** in the English-language sense of the word.* Wherever brutalist buildings are said to "match surrounding nature," the effect is that of those abandoned, but still ominous, WWII bunkers: sitting silent, just waiting for nature's power to erase men's horrific mistakes. *Just like "Bauhaus," brutalism is the accounting-inspired and -enforced product of cost-cutting, not of uplifting design: it's architecture by and for "the suits."*
Brutalism is so caught up in the ideals of the movement and it's philosophy that the design of these buildings usually fail to think about any aesthetic appeal for everyday people
Living in an area where brutalist buildings are being torn down and replaced with more inviting building sesigns, I can't say I'm sorry to see this type of building disappear. Concrete exteriors/interiors with few windows aren't inviting. The design coldness is not what the world needs rn. Nope! ✌️
I'm a UMass Amherst student and can't get over how this video fully glossed over the functionality and livability of brutalist buildings. Many of our brutalist buildings have inadequate natural light and interiors that are clearly made just to serve the exterior---not the inhabitants. These buildings also have concrete that is chipping away, leaving visible rebar. Not a fun experience.
As an alum of UMass Amherst, they should’ve shown Du Bois library. It’s a tall red cuboid structure in the center of campus. I initially didn’t like its simple nature at first but I grew to see it as a very distinctive beacon of the college to the surrounding area. Definitely recommend looking up pictures of the new Isenberg building as well.
It's not on a college campus but the barbican gallery in London is one of the most amazing brutalist buildings, I remember going On a trip there with college when I was doing my graphic design BTEC and being in awe at the design.
I spent roughly 4 years studying biology in the Brutalist building of the Utrecht University. I love that building, not just because of the memories made there. I loved it from Day 1!
If there is a single brutalist building on a nice green campus that can actually be nice. Worst is if there is an entire neighbourhood full of brutalist apartment blocks that have gone into disrepair.
@@Prophes0r Brutalism ages exceptionally badly because of the bare concrete. All the talk of function over form is shown false by the rejection of simple paint.
@@SkateSka not Just Eastern Europe, go to Street View and have a look at the Swiss Suburb of Bern Bumpliz Nord. If I woke up there and didn’t know where I was Switzerland would have been my last guess, I would have assumed somewhere in 1980s GDR!
My favorite brutalist buildings are the ones with large windows and plentiful light, and that do fun things with the malleability of concrete, like showing the wood grain of the forms it was in. I know being in brutalist buildings can make some people uncomfortable, but I feel like, when done artfully, they can be warm, solid places. The school I work at is in a brutalist building, but there is an abundance of light on every floor as it's an architecture school and students need light for their drawing and modeling.
My high school was like that, too. High ceilings, lots of light, and most walls light-coloured bricks with the odd cast-concrete pillar or staircase and wooden doorways. It was wonderfully tactile and not remotely depressing.
When Professor Rohan is talking about the "Flagship campus" (4:16) you show a picture of UMass Lowell. Professor Rohan teaches at UMass Amherst, which you cited correctly in his introduction. They're different schools, although both feature brutalist buildings.
For a moment that beige building I thought was lederle and it was a shot from northeast, but at closer inspection I was like, where did that river come from!
Our Christiansen Hall of Music (apparently pronounced "Chris-Johnson Hall of Music") here at St. Olaf College in Minnesota has a pretty neat brutalist awning that I think would look SO good with some vines! Just goes to show that brutalism isn't just for big, awe-inspiring buildings; it's also for little things!
UW-Madison was shown in the part discussing "tearing down" buildings. For context, when the State Regent President (head of all universities) was on campus discussing failing infrastructure, a 5 x 5 foot cube of concrete fell off a brutalist building about 50 feet from where they were standing. "Deferred maintenance" is what caused these problems.
The building that appears briefly at 0:22 looks like the International House of Philadelphia, just off the University of Pennsylvania campus at 37th and Chestnut streets. I lived in that building for my senior year (a long time ago) and really liked it. Apparently it is called something else these days. There are also three high-rise towers on campus that are used as residence halls which might be considered Brutalist. I lived in one of those as well.
there are distinguished Brutalist buildings that are considered great works of architecture, but Evans Hall is not one of them. It's considered mediocre by wide agreement. Why will it be torn down because of its seismic rating while other buildings will not be? That's obvious - it's a high rise, and it's housing, both of which are judged seismically at a higher standard.
At UWM there is a grey concrete building on campus. It is so hideous compared to the gorgeous red brick building which are pops of color. Ironically that building was selected as a winner of an architecture contest. Like seriously. Wut?
I never understand this. It is like this in the art world too. A whole room of artwork. Dude with banana duct taped to wall wins. go figure. (that was an example... don't think it was the case, directly, but he kinda did win. Everything is banana duct taped to wall. )
im a uc berkeley student, everyone hates this building, and the inside of evans is even worse. its a depressing dungeon with tiny dingy windowless rooms where you go to suffer for math office hours. its unfortunately located smack in the most beautiful part of campus, literally right in front of our clock tower, the glade, and 3 other libraries. its such an eyesore but it has SO many rooms inside that i also wouldnt know where people would go w/o it, not on a campus limited to a few city blocks with 43,000 students 🤣
My big issue with many brutalist buildings is that they’re out of scale with their environment. Boston City Hall is one that I’m pretty familiar with. It’s this massive structure around this massive plaza. When I look at it, I feel small and insignificant. In my opinion, a city hall should make anyone there feel at home, like the building is there for you. Not like the building is there and you’re insignificant relative to it.
Boston City Hall is a good example. It's quite awesome, but also not particularly welcoming. The center of Albany, NY is similar. Although I think that might be better...
definitely seen worse. this just looks unapologetically functional. most brutalist buildings would benefit from a paint job imo. wish people thought of that more often.
Honestly, Evans Hall looks better than some of the other Brutalist architecture I've seen. I agree that just because we find something unfashionable doesn't mean we should eradicate it, but on the other hand, I'm just going to have more initial respect for a class in a Gothic or Georgian building than in a concrete building. Brutalism is too avant-garde for my old-fashioned tastes.
paul rudolph designed my high school! sadly i never got to see it because it was demolished in 2009 but the new verison is still very brutalist inspired. also love the design of the sarasota high school building that was featured in the video, one of my favorites in sarasota.
As an undergraduate, I attended classes nearly every day in Paul Rudolph's Yale Art & Architecture building. Besides using the library, I attended lectures by Ken Kesey (who brought with him a tank of nitrous oxide) and Raoul Walsh. It's a great building. I enjoyed being in it.
it hurts that this is the majority view on brutalist architecture. please look at yugoslavian brutalism people! it's so breathtakingly beautiful i can't stand it
My city in England had several brutalist buildings. Only one remains, and that has recently been scheduled for demolition. My alma mater had a few brutalist structures, but I believe that none remain. One of the reasons why these structures do badly here is the weather and its effects upon the concrete. The concrete deteriorates quickly, becomes badly stained by rain, and visually it becomes depressing. Grey, stained buildings in a place where grey days are almost the norm, makes for a miserable townscape. It is a shame. Some brutalist architecture used concrete to create imaginative shapes that looked amazing on the skyline. I firmly believe that had one of the brutalist buildings been adapted, then it would have been an incredible addition to the city. Although not true to the original concept, it could have been an amazing building. Instead it was demolished, and replaced by soulless glass boxes.
VOX: Goes bancrupt year ago (get woke go broke) VOX documentary after bancrupcy: actually funny and doesnt sound political. actually good and watchable.
Yeah, its almost as if the word Woke means so moterfluff-ynothng and absolutely-nothing it won't affect anything in the end. Want good Cityplanning? Not-Just-Bikes, Edenicity, Cody Johnston, they all have talked about this epicly
@@slevinchannel7589 I am not a watcher of vox, just saying - im positively surprised with a non-politicial partisainship filled vid. on a vox side none the less
Oh lord do I hope brutalisim doesn't take off again. All but a few of the most creative buildings are absolutely putrid. There is a reason classic styles are classic
A lot of post-war Germany looks like this, because things had to be rebuilt fast and in a time where brutalism was en vogue. Even important government buildings are utter eyesores. The U.S. is faring far better in that regard.
that was why they're often used for public housing right? as depressing as some find the Brutalist style it's miles less grim than mass homelessness...
My high school was brutalist, I couldn‘t wait to leave that soul crushing place behind. Since then it has been remodelled (bc of leaky roofs, rodent problems, a nightmare to climatize and it was simply driven to the ground), I hear for the better, but I never set a foot into it again. Put it into a museum but don‘t force anyone to inhabit it
i can appreciate brutalism sometimes but i feel architects should also take into consideration the people that have to actually spend time in the buildings… for example why was mcmaster children’s hospital a good choice for brutalism lol
Where was this video during my senior exhibition? I struggled finding a diverse array of American Brutalist examples besides Marcel Breuer (with sources).
What’s the infamous brutalist building on your college campus? Let us know in the comments below 👇
Our monstrosity isn't a college bldg. It's Boston City Hall. FUGLY FUGLY FUGLY.
Edinburgh University Main Library. The university knocked down 75% of the Georgian townhouses around a beautiful garden square and replaced them with enormous brutalist constructs.
Buell building at Lawrence Technological University - looks like it belongs on the Maginot line...
Sci-li at Brown❤
Bobst Library - NYU
I feel like one important thing that determines whether brutalist architecture looks good is it's relation to the surrounding nature, if it feels like just a box of dominant concrete without ornamentation it can feel too imposing and bland, but if it is blended in with the surrounding nature in the right way it can evoke the same kind of beauty that mountains can.
In Brazil that is well done. Mostly in Brasilia, the capital. There are structures called “cobogós” that allow the light to enter the building but prevent the heat.
Yes, true. But even without the cobogós there are options in Brutalism to remain true to its fundaments/basis/laws.
its relation not it's (=it is)
There is a famous college in india that is IIM Banglore that has his structure blended with trees looks good
Perfect example of this in my mind is the Salk Institute in San Diego. With its courtyard river flowing towards the ocean and the sun moving through sunwells to illuminate it efficiently, it fits so neatly into its context that it's hard to imagine it anywhere else.
I love the term "deferred maintenance." It's a classy way of saying "neglect."
It's not
My main beef with Brutalism as a movement is that it always seems to revolve around the egos and artistic sensibilities of the architectural community, as opposed to any serious consideration for people who have to use the buildings on a daily basis. I have lived and studied on two brutalist campuses, and it can be a really unpleasant experience. Cold, hostile, uninviting, dark, damp, incoherent, and always feeling completely out of place. If you want to build a massive concrete sculpture in your own backyard, be my guest. But please don't make the rest of us live and work in it.
I kind of agree with you. Most people have conservative sensibilities in art. Music, paintings, sculptures, movies, etc, can be appreciated privately. Architecture cannot. It affects everybody.
I understand architects really appreciate their avant garde stuff, but to the layman like myself it's hard to see beauty in some buildings.
Well said!
THIS. I went to school in a brutalist building for 8 yrs and so many students said they felt uncomfortable in the building. Personally I felt like it enhanced my existing anxiety.
Fully agree. It's the worst kind of ivory tower leftism where it ostensibly tries to be egalitarian while completely scorning the opinions of the normal people who have to use it. It's like demanding that everyone listen to avant garde jazz music instead of pop songs.
Totally agree, it is someone designing something that they would never actually want to have to see on a daily basis. They are depressing buildings, and adding shapes to them will not help.
Your description of them is on point, they are just not good to look at.
Architects should be given a brief that includes a consideration of the people who will use the building. These seem to be more like the ridiculous styles you see on a runway at a fashion show, they may look good, but no one would actually want to be seen in them.
I work right next to Evans Hall and it is worth emphasizing just how much it blocks the view of the bay and SF. It's wild. PLUS: It has ominous lore since, being the math building, it also had the distinction for being the most jumped-off building on campus (before it was retrofitted to prevent that from being possible).
I was also told by my GSI that the unabomber had an office at Evans when he used to work for UC Berkeley.
The Unabomber did not have an office in Evans, though he mailed a bomb to Cory Hall. (Which may be replaced soonish too).
Supposedly he left Berkeley in 1968-69 and Evans was built in 71.
@@_mball_ - Thanks for the correction. I guess my GSI was just passing on the campus mythos and rumors.
I totally thought he did too! But then I had to check the dates.
…now to see if can where his office actually was.
@@blahblah55237I had a Berkeley computer science professor who claimed that Evans Hall (where his office was) was built that way because of bombings done by radicals in the late 60s. But if it's not earthquake proof it can't be very bomb proof.
In my opinion, a photograph is the only place where brutalist buildings actually shine. But even the most depressing towns with 50yrs of overdue maintenance looks chearful on a photo in bright sunlight. Doesn't mean you wanna live or work in it.
This - buildings designed for architectural magazines and artsy dutch-angle photographs, not for people. No thought for context, maintenance and the actual human experience of living and working in them. The ultimate expression of form over function.
I do.
I want to live there.
I want to work there.
There is something stable and honest about it.
It feels solid and supportive. And nothing else.
But hey, that's just me.
@@Prophes0r Well, that’s what the artist argued.
@@Dramat1c_Irony Who said form comes over function? I didn't. However, I am sure that we can have both function ánd form. If we could make nice looking functional buildings hundreds or even thousands of years ago, why not now?
@@Dramat1c_Irony That is the irony. Brutalism is NOT functional. Everything is about the shape of the building and achieving a particular 'modern' aesthetic. How it functions is a distant second (as anyone who has had the misfortune of being responsible for the maintenance of a Brutalist building will tell you).
"Form ever follows function" (a maxim by architect Louis Sullivan) does not mean that buildings can't have 'ornamentation' or surface detail. Just look at Sullivan's own designs. This is one of the most misunderstood sayings in all of design.
In fact, ornamentation is what allows form to follow function e.g. a building might need gutters and downpipes to manage rainwater. They are practical but you can build on their practical function and make them beautiful also. They may be embellished, but almost every feature you see in a traditional building also has a practical function.
As soon as 'ornamentation' became taboo, the entire building became the ornament. The building became a single sculptural form. It must look 'modern' above every other consideration. Practical features, like pitched roofs, gutters, window sills, drip edges, quoins etc. are avoided because they might make a building look 'tradtional'. This means a whole lot of function was thrown out of the proverbial window just to make buildings look a certain way.
There's something to be said for "leaving it raw" in a society where everything is ornate. But that's just not the society we live in anymore. So many cities in North America are filled with bare concrete walls. Some brutalist, others just cost-cutting. But regardless, the end result is the same: spending the majority of your life in a world surrounded by soulless, bare concrete.
I'd also argue that just because something makes for a good instagram picture, doesn't mean it's somewhere you'd want to inhabit. Just look at the whole "liminal space" trend of finding the grimiest, emptiest mall hallway possible
So much of the justification for these buildings seems to be abstract philosophy too, rather than "do people actually enjoy this?" Some buildings are historically significant, some are interesting, but when brutalism has gained a reputation of being despised by the people who actually coexist with these buildings, maybe it's time to learn from it and move on to something better.
As mentioned in another comment, with the natural surrounding this kind of architecture works - and I'd add that it works in the warm climate. In the areas where winter is cold, naked concrete is not very energy efficient. Also, based on the responses some of the buildings are not very well built, related to the style or not - that makes sense to demolish them.
I work inside Evans Hall and (shockingly) being inside Evans is much worse than looking at it from the outside 😅None of the grad students in my department have windows, and many of the biggest classrooms in the building also lack windows. Not to mention that it is incredibly seismically unsafe, has extraordinarily poor ventilation, asbestos contamination, no air conditioning, terrifying elevators, etc.
They claim they're moving us but I have no expectation of that happening before finishing my PhD 🙃
Asbestos isn't a contamination. It's an insulation and safe if you don't bust it up and breath it in. I get your point though...time for a safer, energy efficient beautiful building. BTW if there's an earthquake with damage to the building, put on a real painter's respirator. The kind with cartridges.
I will say though, Evans hall had great rooms for sections. Loved those little moving desks
Yes, this is how Univerisyt of Illinois-Chicago is. Inside is terrible and depressing. The Behavioral Sciences Building does an excellent job of making you feel like you're in a maze for the purposes of analyzing your behavior. This video misses the major aspect of how it is to inhabit these architecture as art projects.
"None of the grad students in my department have windows,".....perhaps they have Chrome.
I personally find the style cold and sterile yet still dingy and definitely uninviting.
I grew up in Boston. City hall square was famously done this way years ago. Everyone I know absolutely hates it.
This is exactly what it is
Who would have thought that barren, wind-swept spaces were not good at being places people wanted to visit?
True. They feel too far from the human element so to say. A symbol of the cold, stiff systems that we work for instead of the reverse.
I love Boston City Hall.
@@Ebb0Productions Good for you.
Brutalist buildings can be beautiful, but exceptions like Evans Hall are plentiful.
The exception is where brutalism is beautiful, not the other way round
@My_pfp_beats_all_dog_breeds. brutalism is pure raw beauty there is no architectural style LESS dystopian.
Why everyone hates this concrete building 1551pm 6.11.23 brutalism is horrendous. and if you have lived in such a building you'd know how tedious they are... brutalism is horrendous. that's the attraction. they should have saved rochdale bus station as opposed to the more pretentious preston city bus station.
@My_pfp_beats_all_dog_breeds.Cyberpunk is more dystopian than brutalism, usually brutalist buildings have large parks around.
@@ligametis Both are dystopian for how they go against what made us humans.
I think we should also be reminded of the time period when brutalism was initially popular. This was around the time when neighborhoods were being destroyed to build highways and new housing (which was often not maintained well). One of Le Corbusier's most famous plans (Plan Voisin, which was never implemented) was the destruction of central Paris to build a few highways and some "towers in a park," which was just some tall housing complexes surrounded by green space. This style of architecture has historically been in contrast with older styles, to the point of its architects wanting the destruction of those older styles. I think that's one of the main reasons why it is despised; historical neighborhoods and buildings were bulldozed in order to put in some concrete brutalist structures which age poorly.
oh wow so it goes hand in hand with car centric infrastructure which plagues us. No wonder I hate brutalism.
Brutalism is anti humanist. It's less concerned about the people that are going to live in and around the buildings and more interested in some kind of centrally planned "perfection".
The argument I've heard most often is "It was the architecture of oppressive cold-war regimes." which is definitely was.
However, I still love it. There is something so honest and stable feeling about it.
I hate how people only associate Brutalism with cold uncaring government buildings.
My dream home is concrete, steel, and glass (Probably at the edge of a forest, with some water nearby).
That or a converted loft in some industrial warehouse.
(Exactly the kind of place a protagonist from a 90's show shot in Toronto would live. Highlander, Forever Knight, Etc)
Brutalism also seems to go hand in hand with totalitarianism.
The joke is sort of right?/history.
I am a structural engineer and I graduated a few years ago from Berkeley. I'm glad that the seismic rating of Evans was brought up. However, I feel that comparing Evans with other buildings on campus that have a "poor" seismic rating is a bit unjustified. Evans is one of the largest buildings on campus and is used by orders of magnitude more students than the other buildings. It is also home to several university departments, I believe, such as Math and Data Science. Therefore, its poor seismic performance will have a more severe impact on students' life safety, compared to other buildings.
Another similar building, the Moffit Undergraduate Library, which also appeared in the video, recently went through a comprehensive seismic retrofit. However, a retrofit may not be feasible for Evans given its sheer size. When it comes to the demolition decision, I think these are some of the most important factors considered. Obviously, other factors such as architecture, coherence with the surrounding environment, and functionality of the building itself, are also brought into the equation. In the case of Evans, keeping the building just for the sake of preserving its architecture style just does not add up.
Want good Cityplanning? Not-Just-bikes, Edenicity, Cody Johnston, they all have talked about this epicly!!
Brutalist is divisive in the sense that posh detached architects who live in nature immersed mansions love it, and us people who actually have to live those atrocities day by day hate it.
Ha omg I think you might have nailed it there.....
100%
I agree.
People advocating for more brutalism clearly havent lived in a city dominated by it. Its the bleakest dreariest type of city you can imagine
True!!!
It's maybe a bit ironic that the creators of the brutalist Barbican arts centre & housing complex in London didn't simply "leave the concrete raw" in many places - instead they hired a team of Italian artisans to bash a it up and cover it with little dents - making it look even more raw than it originally was.
Like jeans with shotgun holes.
I've had a guided tour in the Barbican complex and I came out of that experience with a new found love for brutalist architecture... I still prefer neogothic but I understand the necessity for raw concrete
It's also ironic that almost none of the architects themselves dare to live in the complexes that they create. Instead they live in beautiful classic villas and townhouses.
They bulldozed the thousand-year old market town of Croydon to replace it with a brutalist hellhole. Although I find it quite charming.
What are you guys talking about, Barbican is beautiful.
Brutalism can look and feel good. On the U.C. Berkeley campus exists Wurster Hall (architecture and design bulding) and the former art museum (now a bioresearch facility). Both building are very interesting even if one doesn't "like" them because of the use of exposed concrete. Evans Hall is an example of a building that nobody likes, is overscaled to its surrounding environment, and is a failure on all fronts. It's actually painted with no raw concrete visible. It has windowless classrooms. It's a very depressing place to be inside. Tearing it down will harm no one on any level. If this Vox video suggests NOT tearing it down just because it's an example of concrete brutalism, then they need to admit that they're wrong.
Thanks for reminding me how depressing Evans Hall is. I had math classes there - the fluorescent lighting did not help in combating the image it is a depressing place.
The real sadness is that we have billions of people with astronomically more education, tools and law-defying materials at their disposal compared to the medieval ages, renaissance, etc, yet despite several decades, we have not come close to having any sort of iconic architecture that does not involve concrete bricks or samey skyscrapers.
Does it still have carpet on the walls instead of on the floor???
Yeah, I think it's the inside that really does it for most folks.
An no, no carpets on the walls that I am aware of.
Spent years taking classes there; agree with your sentiments. Dark. Dungeony. Hospitalish interior.
Brutalism can be done really well, but I feel like the litmus test should be whether or not a building looks good in bad weather, something which older styles are better at.
Its the colour
@@cmul7651 It's everything actually. We've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of older architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. There is also a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being, which is why architecture is so important and the reason why modern architecture (that throws this rule of thumb out of the window) is so disliked; it essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like.
@@8is I'd be curious to read this research you mentioned, and whether or not it actually demonstrates a tangible link to modernism, or if that's just something people extrapolate to be able to claim their aesthetic taste is somehow inherently superior. Even if it were true, a large part of the human experience is rational thought and knowledge allowing us to overcome our base instincts. One could just as easily trot out the old trope of people not liking modernism because they don't understand it.
@@jc3drums916 The sample size is the world's tourism sector. Nobody is going to new build cities in China to see their spectacular brutalism.
@@jc3drums916 Sure. Since you can't write links in TH-cam comments, I'll just refer you to TAC's video "What Makes Buildings Beautiful (And Why Beauty Does Matter)" where he lists a ton of great books, articles and polls in the pinned comment; you really ought to check him out, he explains the data much better than I can. As for humans' rational thought, I think what you're really alluding to is taste because taste is the part of how we perceive beauty that can be trained. Studies show how architect students and the general public rate buildings completely opposite from each other, especially the longer the student has studied architecture. However, it's not as clear cut since, by all means, a lot of modern architects don't live in the types of buildings they design and many do indeed still chose to pay a premium to live in traditional housing. This still points in the direction that beauty is something inherently biological and that, the same way we cannot chose to decide what people look beautiful and not, their is objective beauty in architecture independently of any rationality.
Oh, so brutalism is the architect equivalent of electronics having clear plastic on the 90s/00s to show off the construction. That puts a new light on the style
At least the clear plastic still looks cool, sustainability aside.
The idea isn't to over-use materials, but use them well. As mentioned in the three fundaments.
And we learnt that clear plastic and raw concrete just never age well. And they both evolved into something else,
@@Caterfree10 About as cool as tacking a wing and large tailpipe on a car.
@@jc3drums916 ‘scuse you, those are also still cool. :p
To me brutalism is like the 12-tone music of architecture: it's "out with the old, in with the new" just for the sake of it and it has a philosophy about how people _ought_ to be, what they ought to like, not how they actually are. There's a reason why we've moved on to postmodernism.
They both suffer from the same problem though. There is a lot of evidence for objective beauty when it comes to basic shapes that is derived from our evolution. For example, we've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of older architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. Modern architecture throws all this out the window; it essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like and there is a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being.
Exactly. And created by the same cohort of edgelords who wanted to show the world to recognize their genius because of how "intense" they were.
@@willcwhiteThat's how art is. Got tired of the current and trying out something different.
While a defiantly think we should try and preserve architecture, I think this undersells how unpleasant most brutalist buildings are to be in. Especially in a college campus, every brutalist building I have had classes or worked in has just been...uncomfortable as a space. And there has had to be a lot of interior work done to it to make it more pleasant. Like all architecture, it's not just an aesthetic choice, but also one that influences the daily interactions people have with the space
I like when there’s an added element to balance the brutalism a bit more. Usually nature or more irregular shapes/designs. If it’s all grey rectangles and hard lines it feels too impersonal and unwelcoming to me.
Yeah I agree. Even though I'd probably never call a brutalist building beautiful, in "proper" context it can have it's appeal.
But that context is almost never where you can find actual brutalist buildings.
A prison scene
I work in a university building that was "renovated". It ended up with raw plywood interior walls (no sheetrock!), unpolished concrete floors, and crumbling exposed brick in the restrooms. Raw architecture can be a nightmare when it's just an excuse for being lazy.
As a former music student at UW-Madison, I spent hours a day, every day in the humanities building mentioned in the video, which is known for its lack of windows, frequent cockroaches, leaky walls and ceilings, draftiness, and people constantly asking you how to get places. There is even a campus myth about it being built to be riot proof because of how inhospitable and confusing it is. Yes, it photographs well, particularly against a bright blue sky, but the daily experience of using it was confusing and oppressive and future students will be lucky when there is a building that replaces it.
These buildings are Instagrammable because of their sculptural form, that's why they went viral on the Internet. It is a reminder of how deceiving the medium of photography is.
THIS!! Fellow UW-Madison alumni who completely agrees.
Central Washington University has a building with similar lore - the whole riot-proof, built to protect staff, etc. Students generally referred to it as a prison because of its appearance. It was not a popular building.
I studied in Universidade de Brasília that was built entirely in brutalism architecture, but what differentiates itself from the rest was the way it blends with the nature. There are gardens inside and outside the buildings, the trees are not pruned or cut down to highlight the architecture, they are part of the architecture.
UNB is ridiculously good!
One thing that Latin Americans have to keep in mind when we see this content is to understand that in general, brutalism here is significantly better than the US average, for example.
Brutalism here sought inspiration, for example, in traditional buildings, they were more concerned with bioclimatic adaptation, which led to much better integration with the landscape.
They are much more elegant buildings, and with solutions on a much more humanized scale.
That makes a huge difference.
I'm not saying brutalism is the greatest mistake in architecture, I just can't personally think of a bigger one.
Sphere buildings
Maybe wait for a few decades and people will look back with nostalgia or bewilderment.
I can... Tearing down so many beautiful Victorian-era structures in the 1950s-60s was a bigger mistake.
@@brianwhite2104 well I think the original comment was just about biggest mistake when it came to building and designing stuff...the biggest creation and artistic mistakes...not talking about the preservation or destruction of buildings.
@@slenderfoxx3797 Well in that case I can still think of worse mistakes... like bridges that were structurally unsound and collapsed like the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.
I read the earthquake report and Evans and Moffitt were the worst rated but Moffitt is only a 5-story, partially underground building and it went through renovations to reinforce it for earthquake safety last year. Evans is not nearly as easily reinforced. Evans is the clear contender for bull-dozing and replaced with smaller buildings. Its position on campus blocks the view of much better buildings.
Just taught in Evans Hall this morning! It’s awful in any kind of heat: most first-floor classrooms have no windows or much at all in terms of ventilation, and it can get rather unpleasant.
Some fabulous chalkboards, though!
Good to find all the berkeley folks in the comments of a Vox video. 🤣
Yeah, it's no fun to teach in... especially the basement.
I'm an Economist and studied at Evans hall... such a depressing, yet iconic place. I miss it.
Why everyone hates this concrete building 1557pm 6.11.23 has sean scully had his painterly depictions implemented into the united nations' building construction (as seen in london?)
This kind of architecture is great.
When you don't have to look at it every day.
Yeah, ike bunkers.
I like how Yale's old buildings look. They have a classic charm that tells you about the history of the University. I think people hate brutalism because the buildings have no life to them. They are utilitarian and expendable. The decoration involved in the older style shows craftsmanship at the human scale. Modern architecture typically has large areas of nothing between the large blocks used to create the structure.
While cool to watch, these buildings are so lifeless to look out. There’s no soul in these buildings, thats why everyone I know hates them.
This particular one is awesome to look out, at the Bay view.
There is a lot of evidence for objective beauty when it comes to basic shapes that is derived from our evolution. Modern architecture essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like and there is a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being.
For example, we've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. Brutalism throws all this out the window.
Not many people talk about the subcategory of brick brutalism. Essentially brutalism but predominantly with red bricks in running bond instead of concrete. Ulrich Franzen was a notable architect who worked in this style. It's very common at Cornell University, including Franzen's own Bradfield Hall, an 11-story plant biology research building with only two windows each for 10 of the 11 floors. Franzen also designed the Harpers Ferry Interpretive Design Center (at almost the same time as Bradfield), which sits out of view of the historic town but is unmissable for anyone hiking the Appalachian Trail. Currently I'm at the University of Vermont and we have Howe Library, and a few other brick brutalist structures were demolished a few years ago.
Sounds similar to my old high school, except that used off-white bricks. It was pretty good. It had high ceilings, lots of light, and was mostly built from the aforementioned bricks, with some cast concrete for pillars and stairs, and some wood in the doorways and benches outside classrooms.
In Brazil, we call this type of style "Favelas" you can Google It to see the best ones.
I live in a medieval city in the UK. In the 1960s the socialist local authority bulldozed churches and old buildings and built brutalist architecture everywhere sometimes in brown concrete. One of them has now become Listed which means it is protected as 'it is one of the finest examples of cantilevered concrete'.
In fact, it is truly 'brutalising' because in the case of my city it was done deliberately to erase history. Le Corbusier did it for that reason as well. It was designed to force humans to relinquish the ties that bound them family, community, culture and history. They knocked down one of the finest medieval lychgate in Europe (where the coffins of the dead would wait before entering the Cathedral) and then they built a foul concrete multi storey car park and hotel on it. Brutalism happened in many cities in the UK in the 1960s where they created vast soulless tower blocks in concrete that destroyed old neighbourhoods and atomised a human sense of identity.
Living, working, studying or even just being in a brutalist building is cold and depressing, just my personal feeling but wood and stone work with big windows feels so much more cozy
"Why not these buildings?" Well based on the one second image of each I'd say for one they aren't as tall as Evans and therefore there's less risk, something like that might, you know, inform the prioritization of one building over another.
also they are not soul crushing grey nightmares.
As SOON as I saw the thumbnail I was like yooo that HAS to be my college math building. Most buildings on campus are in brutalism and then some buildings are more early 20th century. It almost clashes but part of me kinda likes it.
Architects are a strange group of professionals who seem to hate people who have to look at the results of their work. Brutalism is a good example of this. Most people do not want gray buildings in their living environment. This should be the most important instruction for architects. Not some artistic nonsense.
I do. I want to live there.
I want to work there.
Brutalism is solid, honest, functional.
I understand if another style is better for environmental or efficiency reasons.
But don't come here arguing that "No one likes the look." because PLENTY of us do.
It is my favorite style. And it is okay to have a different opinion.
The rejection of paint in favour of bare concrete shows the philosophy is a lie, it makes them almost impossible to properly maintain well. Nothing functional about that.
Their tendency to be out of scale harms efficiency. it's also dishonest the building is imposing an ideal not serving the people already there.
@@Prophes0r There is a lot of evidence for objective beauty when it comes to basic shapes that is derived from our evolution. Modern architecture essentially goes against what we are hardwired to like and there is a lot of evidence that the beauty around us has a great effect on our health and well being.
For example, we've evolved to live in our natural habitat, nature, which we know is stimulating by research and as such a lot of architecture tries to implement the natural patterns, ratios and colors of nature. Brutalism throws all this out the window.
Meh. When it comes to matters of taste, I rarely trust the judgment of the majority.
@@jc3drums916 You can never forget who you are building these buildings for.
Brutalism looks great on paper and in pictures, but for those who have the unfortunate luck of working in such a building day-to-day, it's horrifically depressing and it's like walking into a federal prison everyday.
Bro really likes Soviet Style Buildings
As a Stony Brook grad, I'm really happy you included our university hospital. Alot of the brutalist architecture on campus was horrible (Roosevelt Quad) but the hospital was a standout beauty!!!
*"Brutalist architecture" looks like cheaply and hurriedly constructed, WWII German fortifications: it's dehumanizing, threatening and, indeed, psychologically **_brutal,_** in the English-language sense of the word.* Wherever brutalist buildings are said to "match surrounding nature," the effect is that of those abandoned, but still ominous, WWII bunkers: sitting silent, just waiting for nature's power to erase men's horrific mistakes. *Just like "Bauhaus," brutalism is the accounting-inspired and -enforced product of cost-cutting, not of uplifting design: it's architecture by and for "the suits."*
Well said.
Brutalism is so caught up in the ideals of the movement and it's philosophy that the design of these buildings usually fail to think about any aesthetic appeal for everyday people
Living in an area where brutalist buildings are being torn down and replaced with more inviting building sesigns, I can't say I'm sorry to see this type of building disappear. Concrete exteriors/interiors with few windows aren't inviting. The design coldness is not what the world needs rn. Nope! ✌️
Brutalism is just depression of The architect manifested into a building.
I'm a UMass Amherst student and can't get over how this video fully glossed over the functionality and livability of brutalist buildings. Many of our brutalist buildings have inadequate natural light and interiors that are clearly made just to serve the exterior---not the inhabitants. These buildings also have concrete that is chipping away, leaving visible rebar. Not a fun experience.
Exactly.
Kid gloves for the kids drawings.
As an alum of UMass Amherst, they should’ve shown Du Bois library. It’s a tall red cuboid structure in the center of campus. I initially didn’t like its simple nature at first but I grew to see it as a very distinctive beacon of the college to the surrounding area. Definitely recommend looking up pictures of the new Isenberg building as well.
Hi, Evans Hall, never expected to see you on Vox - GLHF in your remaining years - a Current Cal student
It's not on a college campus but the barbican gallery in London is one of the most amazing brutalist buildings, I remember going On a trip there with college when I was doing my graphic design BTEC and being in awe at the design.
I spent roughly 4 years studying biology in the Brutalist building of the Utrecht University. I love that building, not just because of the memories made there. I loved it from Day 1!
Thank you for sharing with us that you have a bad taste.
If there is a single brutalist building on a nice green campus that can actually be nice. Worst is if there is an entire neighbourhood full of brutalist apartment blocks that have gone into disrepair.
IMO, the problem is the disrepair, not the brutalism.
I love the solid, honest, reliable feel of raw concrete.
@@Prophes0r brutalism feeds disrepair. No one cares about mantaining an atrocious slab of concrete.
@@Prophes0r Brutalism ages exceptionally badly because of the bare concrete. All the talk of function over form is shown false by the rejection of simple paint.
Oh you mean like half my country 😂 Or half of eastern Europe I suppose.
@@SkateSka not Just Eastern Europe, go to Street View and have a look at the Swiss Suburb of Bern Bumpliz Nord. If I woke up there and didn’t know where I was Switzerland would have been my last guess, I would have assumed somewhere in 1980s GDR!
Comiblocks made their way even in the USA, I see
"What's more depressing than Soviet combloc apartments?"
"Homelessness"
The view FROM Evans Hall is fantastic.
My favorite brutalist buildings are the ones with large windows and plentiful light, and that do fun things with the malleability of concrete, like showing the wood grain of the forms it was in. I know being in brutalist buildings can make some people uncomfortable, but I feel like, when done artfully, they can be warm, solid places. The school I work at is in a brutalist building, but there is an abundance of light on every floor as it's an architecture school and students need light for their drawing and modeling.
My high school was like that, too. High ceilings, lots of light, and most walls light-coloured bricks with the odd cast-concrete pillar or staircase and wooden doorways. It was wonderfully tactile and not remotely depressing.
During the zoom days I made Evans my virtual background and every professor and student loved it
When Professor Rohan is talking about the "Flagship campus" (4:16) you show a picture of UMass Lowell. Professor Rohan teaches at UMass Amherst, which you cited correctly in his introduction. They're different schools, although both feature brutalist buildings.
For a moment that beige building I thought was lederle and it was a shot from northeast, but at closer inspection I was like, where did that river come from!
Our Christiansen Hall of Music (apparently pronounced "Chris-Johnson Hall of Music") here at St. Olaf College in Minnesota has a pretty neat brutalist awning that I think would look SO good with some vines! Just goes to show that brutalism isn't just for big, awe-inspiring buildings; it's also for little things!
UW-Madison was shown in the part discussing "tearing down" buildings. For context, when the State Regent President (head of all universities) was on campus discussing failing infrastructure, a 5 x 5 foot cube of concrete fell off a brutalist building about 50 feet from where they were standing.
"Deferred maintenance" is what caused these problems.
Beautiful. A wonderful documentary AND THANK YOU.
When I read the title, I knew that UMASS Amherst would be included in this video. Its buildings are a work of art!
all my homies disapprove of people who don't like brutalism
The building that appears briefly at 0:22 looks like the International House of Philadelphia, just off the University of Pennsylvania campus at 37th and Chestnut streets. I lived in that building for my senior year (a long time ago) and really liked it.
Apparently it is called something else these days.
There are also three high-rise towers on campus that are used as residence halls which might be considered Brutalist. I lived in one of those as well.
there are distinguished Brutalist buildings that are considered great works of architecture, but Evans Hall is not one of them. It's considered mediocre by wide agreement. Why will it be torn down because of its seismic rating while other buildings will not be? That's obvious - it's a high rise, and it's housing, both of which are judged seismically at a higher standard.
I think the video game Control is worth mentioning here, its supernatural brutalism is incredible.
Absolutely. It was my first aproach to the style and i've loved it ever since.
The Brutalism in that game really helps sell “I am in a place not suitable for human beings.”
@@matthewcreelman1347 never seen it that way. Interesting!
I am actively sitting in this building right now, I opened up TH-cam and saw this thumbnail. What a trip!
Petty fact check but the image shown at around 4:15 is UMass Lowell not UMass flagship
Ngl, at first I thought it'll be about soviet blocks 💀
At UWM there is a grey concrete building on campus. It is so hideous compared to the gorgeous red brick building which are pops of color. Ironically that building was selected as a winner of an architecture contest. Like seriously. Wut?
I never understand this. It is like this in the art world too. A whole room of artwork. Dude with banana duct taped to wall wins. go figure. (that was an example... don't think it was the case, directly, but he kinda did win. Everything is banana duct taped to wall. )
I hope the trend raises again, love these bizarre buildings
im a uc berkeley student, everyone hates this building, and the inside of evans is even worse. its a depressing dungeon with tiny dingy windowless rooms where you go to suffer for math office hours. its unfortunately located smack in the most beautiful part of campus, literally right in front of our clock tower, the glade, and 3 other libraries. its such an eyesore but it has SO many rooms inside that i also wouldnt know where people would go w/o it, not on a campus limited to a few city blocks with 43,000 students 🤣
This is like the opposite feeling of watching bygone times in hd photography…
I’m seeing old pictures of ‘new’ buildings that already look run down…
My big issue with many brutalist buildings is that they’re out of scale with their environment. Boston City Hall is one that I’m pretty familiar with. It’s this massive structure around this massive plaza. When I look at it, I feel small and insignificant. In my opinion, a city hall should make anyone there feel at home, like the building is there for you. Not like the building is there and you’re insignificant relative to it.
Boston City Hall is a good example. It's quite awesome, but also not particularly welcoming. The center of Albany, NY is similar. Although I think that might be better...
Yeah no, that’s the least inviting building imaginable. It definitely has that penitentiary feel
SILENCE WORM
Lol, had to check it out.
Looks like a fanciful meatpacking facility.
I bet they perform human sacrifice on a regular basis.
It looks like a repurposed ancient temple to me.
new glass boxed are not better at this
definitely seen worse. this just looks unapologetically functional.
most brutalist buildings would benefit from a paint job imo. wish people thought of that more often.
God I want to buy that Lloyd Wright house with the waterfall underneath it 😊
Brutal video! As always, Thanks, Vox!
as someone who grew up in one of those soviet apartments id say thats a nice building youve got there
I'm glad you included a photo from Temple University in the beginning, there's a bunch of brutalist buildings on that campus.
Honestly, Evans Hall looks better than some of the other Brutalist architecture I've seen. I agree that just because we find something unfashionable doesn't mean we should eradicate it, but on the other hand, I'm just going to have more initial respect for a class in a Gothic or Georgian building than in a concrete building. Brutalism is too avant-garde for my old-fashioned tastes.
Brutalism should be the exception for buildings, not the norm, which it sadly is.
paul rudolph designed my high school! sadly i never got to see it because it was demolished in 2009 but the new verison is still very brutalist inspired. also love the design of the sarasota high school building that was featured in the video, one of my favorites in sarasota.
As an undergraduate, I attended classes nearly every day in Paul Rudolph's Yale Art & Architecture building. Besides using the library, I attended lectures by Ken Kesey (who brought with him a tank of nitrous oxide) and Raoul Walsh. It's a great building. I enjoyed being in it.
it hurts that this is the majority view on brutalist architecture. please look at yugoslavian brutalism people! it's so breathtakingly beautiful i can't stand it
I don't understand the hate for brutalism.
After WW2 no one had time and patience for gothic like decorations covering steel skeleton
My city in England had several brutalist buildings. Only one remains, and that has recently been scheduled for demolition. My alma mater had a few brutalist structures, but I believe that none remain.
One of the reasons why these structures do badly here is the weather and its effects upon the concrete. The concrete deteriorates quickly, becomes badly stained by rain, and visually it becomes depressing. Grey, stained buildings in a place where grey days are almost the norm, makes for a miserable townscape.
It is a shame. Some brutalist architecture used concrete to create imaginative shapes that looked amazing on the skyline. I firmly believe that had one of the brutalist buildings been adapted, then it would have been an incredible addition to the city. Although not true to the original concept, it could have been an amazing building. Instead it was demolished, and replaced by soulless glass boxes.
If the outside of these buildings were kept clean or at least given a color they might not look so miserable
VOX: Goes bancrupt year ago (get woke go broke)
VOX documentary after bancrupcy: actually funny and doesnt sound political. actually good and watchable.
Yeah, its almost as if the word Woke means so moterfluff-ynothng and absolutely-nothing
it won't affect anything in the end.
Want good Cityplanning? Not-Just-Bikes, Edenicity, Cody Johnston, they all have talked about this epicly
@@slevinchannel7589 I am not a watcher of vox, just saying - im positively surprised with a non-politicial partisainship filled vid. on a vox side none the less
Oh lord do I hope brutalisim doesn't take off again. All but a few of the most creative buildings are absolutely putrid. There is a reason classic styles are classic
I have a simple rule to building design: it needs to be easy to see outside from inside. And easy to see the inside from outside... simple
A lot of post-war Germany looks like this, because things had to be rebuilt fast and in a time where brutalism was en vogue. Even important government buildings are utter eyesores. The U.S. is faring far better in that regard.
Is Western and Eastern Germany different in that regard?
I live in a famous brutalism apartment building and I love it, there’s something peaceful about the immense spans of concrete
If arcitecture and dorms must be cheap so be it
So... completely failing to asnwer the question in the video title
classic vox
I’m kinda sad he didn’t mention anything about brutalist buildings being cost efficient or convenient to build
that was why they're often used for public housing right? as depressing as some find the Brutalist style it's miles less grim than mass homelessness...
Ok but like almost every time I see one it looks like it’s in desperate need of a good power washing
Vox is one of the best channel in the world.❤
After watching "Spider-head" on Netflix, I really got to appreciate brutalism for its raw beauty.
My high school was brutalist, I couldn‘t wait to leave that soul crushing place behind.
Since then it has been remodelled (bc of leaky roofs, rodent problems, a nightmare to climatize and it was simply driven to the ground), I hear for the better, but I never set a foot into it again.
Put it into a museum but don‘t force anyone to inhabit it
Efficiency vs Looks
i can appreciate brutalism sometimes but i feel architects should also take into consideration the people that have to actually spend time in the buildings… for example why was mcmaster children’s hospital a good choice for brutalism lol
many memories in evans hall gonna miss it!
Where was this video during my senior exhibition? I struggled finding a diverse array of American Brutalist examples besides Marcel Breuer (with sources).