What does Veeky Forums think about Brutalist architecture when it's done correctly?

...

That's what happens when you use fucking concrete as the only building material.

If nazism would have stayed around, it would do even better.

The dumb shits shouldn't have painted it.

>because unpainted concrete buildings that are falling apart just look that much nicer

The library in the OP has massive ribbon windows all over it. It's the comfiest thing ever in real life. Here's what the place looks like in color.
Brutalism is a pretty dynamic style, and off the top of my mind, I can think of three individual stylistic forms that it takes: art experiments, commieblocks, and military bunkers. "Art experiments" are the kinds of abstract, unpainted-concrete structures that most people have never even seen in real life before. They're highly-identifiable as Brutalist. Here are some examples:
>67.media.tumblr.com/87a866b754a484a606704f9b5d21dea1/tumblr_o4m5rtZoKB1sld6dyo1_1280.jpg
>ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/1280_720/images/live/p0/3x/fy/p03xfyvv.jpg
>phaidon.com/resource/ins-filip-dujardin-3.jpg
"Commieblocks" are Brutalist buildings that look like commieblocks, plain and simple. They're made of unpainted concrete 99 percent of the time, as well as being enormous. Examples:
>images.adsttc.com/media/images/5038/0e23/28ba/0d59/9b00/0b9b/large_jpg/stringio.jpg?1414198475
>20bedfordway.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Robin-Hood-Gardens.jpg
>static.dezeen.com/uploads/2014/09/Park-Hill-Brutalism-RIBA-Library-Photographs-Collection_dezeen_sq01.jpg
"Military bunkers" are Brutalist buildings that look like the OP library, and I'll have to finish the rest of this section in another post, because this reply is the size of the Sun.
It really just depends on what kind of form it takes. On one hand, a Brutalist building can be an imposing, impersonal, menacing monolith. On the other hand, you have buildings like the library in the OP. It's surrounded by plant-life, constructed from red bricks as opposed to unpainted concrete, has large ribbon windows to let in natural light, and represents the then-recent progressive values of the '60s and '70s within a collegiate environment and atmosphere, as it's located at a university.

Ugly Commie shit.

(continuation of previous post)
Common features of military bunkers are diagonal slopes, diagonal recessions and less-common diagonal protrusions for window-placement, frequent use of ribbon windows of various shapes and sizes, and materials not being predictable. Most military bunkers are either concrete or brick, but basically any material can be used. Military bunkers tend to be modest and aesthetically-pleasing, and painted concrete is not uncommon. Obviously, not all of them are pleasing to look at, like the first example, which needs to be painted brown in a bad way, or the second one, which is only bad due to water damage over the course of 42 years, but these "military bunkers", when done correctly, look great. The last thing I have to say is that unpainted concrete is perfectly-fine as long as it's used for a small, inoffensive structure, like the Calvert City city hall before it was painted.

Pretty much anything is good when it's "done correctly" the real question is how to do something correctly.

Personally I think it's got a particular charm to it. Even that dilapidated arc/building shows a semblance of strength and a (by now outdated) sense of modernism that intends to be impactful and impressive rather than show off with pretty details (Really whose was the idea to paint that white and then let it rot however?).

Beautiful in small quantities.

so many fucking plebeians here

brutalism is top tier

absolutely when done right and maintained well and not a ton of them together

when they get dirty of it rains or whatever they can turn to utter shit

Sci-fi as fuck.

I like it when it's done well, but when it's done anything less than superbly it looks like utter shit. Also has it right, when the material or colour is uniform, it almost invariably looks like moon prison. Not that that's a bad thing, moon prison looks cool, but it's completely inappropriate for somewhere you might want to live.

>when it's done correctly
So never?

Speaking as someone who grew up in Eastern Europe and had to see these eyesores every other day, I want every single brutalism lover to be fucking hanged.

Brutalism is A E S T H E T I C but it always looks a bit evil.

Your pic is probably the only brutalist building I've ever seen that's well maintained.

Brutalist architecture?

9 mil get

wat?

2 million posts

By the way, Marx was a turboqueer

"New" Boston City Hall
I think its a good example of brutalist architecture but it kinda clashes with the rest of the city's style.
Also it was voted the ugliest building in America at one point.

What building is this?

...

>I'm from eastern europe
>implying

Then kys.

To be fair to commies, the field of architecture is probably one of the worst possible examples of focusing on societal functionality over aesthetics / luxury.

I just don't believe you.

Don't believe I'm Eastern European or don't believe I hate brutalism? And why?

Don't believe you're eastern european, and call it a hunch.

Well I grew up in Czechoslovakia/Slovakia so believe what you want.

This is on the U of Minnesota campus. For being a big damn hunk of concrete, it could be much worse. But I still think there's something missing, and you bet I'd prefer if it was coated in aluminum or steel like a real American building. It's just so dreary inside and outside.

whoops

What is it about emphasising functionality that makes for a terrible aesthetic? Any art / humanity anons here?

Reminds me of Woodfield mall

I will. Have a good day anyway.

Brutalism is proof you can get people to like anything. "Yes, I do want to look at featureless sheer concrete monoliths from a 1984 adaption."

Of all the historical precedents we learn about, there has never been a notable work that highlighted solely functionality. In fact, we do not use that work function too much, instead preferring program.
It was that elements of an exterior were informed by elements inside - never that a building's form represented function 1:1.
It may start out like that - Seattle Public Library by Koolhaas and his OMA are prime examples of where the design process STARTED OUT with the breaking down of program into blocks, and then they literally translated and wrapped up those programmatic blocks from paper into 3D.
What you all call 'Brutalism' is no more nor less about programmatic spotlighting than many other styles - it simply appears very utilitarian and spartan because of its simple, orthogonal geometry and spartan material variety. We perceive concrete as cold and unfeeling and so utilitarian, but that is simply sentiment.

A precedent that 'emphasized functionality' yet many consider to be a masterpiece is the Salk Institute in La Jolla by Louis Kahn.
Each cubicle a scientific unit, each with a window towards the Pacific sunset. Easy to decipher the programmatic elements, yet so beautiful.

This is, of course, still a subjective observation.

Visit Bratislava someday. It's a great example of how to turn a cozy baroque/classicist city into a horrifying brutalist theme park.

Are there any decent pre-brutalist landmarks there?

Anything in the old town.

Where's that? It looks nice.

Brutalism is still better than modernism

Old town, right on the northern bank of the Danube.

Brutalism along with Modernism ruined the aesthetic of the west

I like Brutalist architecture, but it ages really poorly. It's also better when it's not so extremely Brutalist, like in the OP picture or here

literally anything is better than neoclassicism

It's ugly as fuck and depressing to actually live in or around. It has no sense of place.

All of you are Western pseuds who have never spent a day in such a building and have no idea how depressing these are

They're not depressing in small amounts, and especially when they're not abstract monstrosities made of unpainted concrete with no plant-life in sight. It just depends.

Give me an argument as to why that's a bad thing.

that place is spooky, is it a prison?

hnngggggg

moar pls

star wars vibes from this one

Brutalist library in my city.

...

...

...

...

...

same thing i think about (((marxism))) when its done (((correctly)))

...

...

...

All the pic ITT are ugly as fuck

...

For you

This is slightly better

...

...

...

...

...

It's just another example of progressivism killing the West and its culture in every single medium and way it can think of.

Looks like a kit kat without all the chocolate bits from that angle

>They're not depressing in small amounts.
You missed exactly what he was trying to say, dumbass. Brutalism might be fun for art students to look at pictures of on the internet and discuss or possibly even walk by in real life, but these buildings are a crime against every person who has to live or work in them on a daily basis. What should matter in architecture is not some dumb Marxist or modernist statement or whatever the ideological-aesthetic justification for brutalism is, but how it affects the community that the building has to exist within. The psychological effects of architecture are criminally underestimated and undertested, but what has beens shown is the profound effect one's environment, aesthetic and otherwise, has on one's longterm mental state, and brutalism as a whole probably has the genuine depression of millions of people on its hands.

>brutalism as a whole probably has the genuine depression of millions of people on its hands

wow nice source

did you pull that one fresh from your ass?

tell 'em, Boss.

i want my youth back after wasting it inside an ugly windowless school that looked like a pile of blocks.

It's obviously wholly conjectural, as shown by my deliberate use of "probably," but before any formal scientific study on the matter is done, extrapolating from the related experiences of those who have lived in this architecture is the best we have. While you can yell all you want about anecdotal evidence, reports of these experiences are quite widespread and easy to find, especially compared to glowing reports from those who lived in a brutalist building of the quality 99% of them ended up being. This board never cites sources anyways, and most still-respected early history was people getting a feel for the mass zeitgeist of circumstances through personal perception of their world and intuition sans anything we would call scientific rigor, so you resorting to that argument on this board seems to indicate that your interest is more in defending your favorite architectural style than upholding integrity of discourse.

brutalism is a style that people who know nothing about architecture but want to convey some knowledge of latch onto (i.e. dilettantes)

same with futurism in the visual arts

I don't think emphasising functionality makes for a terrible aesthetic. It's just the way you do it. My father is a carpenter and builds extremely functional houses. But they are absolutely beautiful. Very simple, modern design, just post and beam, brick/concrete foundations, and wooden walls, with tall wide rooms with large windows wrapping around. Totally functional, more expensive but quicker to build than a concrete house, and far more attractive than a concrete house of the exact same layout. It's just because the people who emphasise functionality are forced to use concrete and steel because wood doesn't work for large buildings. On a small scale, with materials that aren't fugly, functionality can be aesthetic.

Nice to look at not nice to live in.

>>I think its a good example of brutalist architecture but it kinda clashes with the rest of the city's style.
most architects do not give a shit about the other buildings. they just want to ''express themselves'' by building their hideous buildings, which always renders the environment uglier.

I probably should have been more clear with my post. I'm strictly referring to inoffensive examples like pic related or the OP image, and I have a strong dislike for the vast majority of Brutalist architecture. It only appeals to me under the following conditions:
>the concrete is painted
>the building is made of an entirely-different material
>the size of the building is modest
>the building doesn't convey a sense of dread
>the building is surrounded by plant-life
Also, I'm strongly against Brutalist housing. Commercial housing absolutely needs to be in a traditional style.

what you referring to is certain kind of modern architecture style that's not exactly should be called brutalist, I guess its something like alvar alto or current architects like david chipperfield

That's so soulless. Architecture should enhance the spirit, not depress it.

This. I grew up next to brutalist shit. Lovers of brutalism have never experienced what it is like living in an actual city full of those buildings, or they are so deluded by all the po-mo propaganda that they actually unironically think it is beautiful. It makes you feel dead inside.

There are a lot of Eastern Europeans on Veeky Forums. Just look at the boards that use flags. They are full of 'em.

>but that is simply sentiment.

Why is that wrong?

The overwhelming majority of people all over the world instinctively like most "traditional" pre-war architecture, and dislike post-war modernism.

"Eating junk food is not terrible in small amounts"

You're arguing against yourself, by saying that brutalism is only tolerable when you minimize its prevalence as much as possible.