Why didn't they just... paint them white, or some nice colour?
 It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Brutalism
Why didn't they just... paint them white, or some nice colour?
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14 |
same reason they don't have windows, they are deliberately plain and "industrial"
why though? I went to a 60s apartment block that is student accommodation and there was barely any natural light and all the corridors were claustrophobic because they were narrow and the walls thick, like some sort of maze
brutalism = atheist creation = souless
>brutalism = atheist creation = souless
It's not even the problem. Shiny glass and steel buildings look bland and souless. The problem with brutalism is that even when these buildings are new, they already look filthy. Dried concrete just has this naturally grimey look.
Oh you prefer cathedrals with gargoyles (demons), everywhere on the building, as well as literal satanic and kabalistic decorum in it?
Hmmmm American protestshit
They thought it was futuristic and edgy at the time. To put things into context, the 1960s were only 15 to 25 years after the second world war, it all seemed very flashy.
It was literally just a bunch of edgy morons who thought that since old buildings - representative of obsolete, bourgeois thinking - were aesthetically pleasing and had all sorts of embellishments, progressive ideologies should embrace designs that were stark and featureless. It was genuinely that fricking stupid. Concrete was also just becoming feasible for large-scale building projects, so because it was the new thing everybody wanted to build with it. Same reason the '80s had a lot of shit electronics in music. 'We have this shiny new toy so we're going to use it just because we can, without stopping to think about whether it actually improves anything.'
So it was just novelty for novelty's sake, with a dash of socialist contrarianism thrown in.
It was the carpet bombing of Europe during WW2 that led to brutalism becoming popular. Obviously, Europe in the postwar period had a lot of rebuilding to do and not a lot of money to do it with, so the fact that Brutalist buildings were cheap kickstarted the first wave.
But it wasn't just that. Think about an architect's career progression: what is the number one thing that will give an architect influence over their field?
Actually getting their buildings built, of course.
Because institutions were forced to turn to Brutalist architects due budgetary constraints, a bunch of otherwise talentless hacks were propelled to the top of their profession and were able to open their own agencies and give lectures at universities and generally pretend that they were artistic geniuses rather than just the cheapest option available. But at the end of the day, they were the ones who actually got their buildings built, so critics, academics, and other architects went along with it, because everyone will make excuses for you if you're successful. Once the Brutalists had established themselves at the top of their field they naturally used their money and influence to spread their ideology.
Seethe.
dude, the Pantheon of ancient rome is made with concrete. Concrete is fine.
its really that someone thought about how much free time a worker could have if different techniques were used in fabrication and how much more could be produced. its just practicality. and all embellishments are figments of imagination - some arent worth investing in anymore - so new ideas had to come into play. Those new ideas were primarily SPACE LIGHT MATERIAL FORM SHADOW TEXTURE COLOR - actual shit in the real world, not doodads stuck onto the necessary bits, but the arrangement and construction of the bits themselves. nothing novelty about it.
'brutalism' as a 'marketing / branding' tool happened immediately in the London gallery and architectural press - there was no waiting to be come a professor and get multiple building built and lecture.
that it became a style in vogue has more to due with its being built around the world then 'budgetary constraints"
you dont know very much.
first - you prolly dont know when it was built, second, ahem, "student accommodation" equals 'please make cheap and we dont care they will be gone soon anyway"
ive also experience narrow corridors in student dorms - but EACH INDIVIDUAL ROOM HAD ALMOST FULL WALL OF GLASS ans was filled with light
deal with it - people skimp and aim for stocking people, not beautifully housing them.
that of course has nothing to do with brutalism, which of course isnt entirely a thing, and the first Smithson bit of brutalism is in fact a steel and glass school - filled with light.
because frick you that's why
no this is not an exaggeration, the actual reason behind this disgusting style existing is "frick you, dear ordinary citizen, get depressed"
once oyu paint these, they look decent, but the maniacal idiots who stand behind these were specifically aiming for a building as ugly as possible, for the beholder to feel uncomfortable, sad and bleak
t. Eastern Euro
lol thats because youre bleak
if you werent, youd enjoy the buildings
>sad and bleak
not sure if you can blame the buildings for that tbh
What else?
the collapse of the eastern european economies?
>not sure you can blame the buildings
>posts a picture of ugly buildings
You're truly an idiot
those buildings are apartment complexes, and they're no more ugly than apartment complexes in general
the reason they look run down is because the entire country is run down.
They looked like shit even when they were built
Cities in Britain are even uglier than Eastern European cities because they're packed with this ugly crap
ok buddy
Yes
But that's an example of an ugly and boring building, whereas
is an interesting and distinctive building that's been poorly maintained. Are you arguing that ugly buildings don't exist in any style of architecture other than brutalism?
They're all ugly and shitty and poor ass rural Eastern Europen villages look better thsn the rich cities anyway it has nothing to do with muh economics brutalism is just garbage deal with it
The 'artistic' reason is that the style was meant to be 'forwards looking', 'futuristic', and 'intentionally transgressive'. In practical terms though it was inspired by the commie-block apartment buildings the USSR put up to quickly repair cities damaged by WW2, which were designed to be as cheap as physically possible without just collapsing the moment the first occupant farted - and that doesn't exactly lend itself to building something beautiful.
wrong. the block as a monolithic and singular organism goes back at least to Hausman rebuilding Paris if not further. - neither commie nor cheap nor to repair damaged cities.
Are you too moronic to understand what the phrase 'inspired by' means?
lol that building is like all windows
the first 'brutalist' building is steel frame and glass, its a school, if full of light
those aren't windows they're peep holes
no
YOURE a peep hole
get some fricking scale chumpanzee
It's meant to look like ass
it looks cool tho
No it doesn't you're just a contrarian marxist moron
yes it does, ex-fedora LARPing as a christcuck
>unfinished blocky crap that accumulates soot and grime
>no you don't get it it looks cool when it looks filthy and cheap
Die in a fire communist homosexual
wash your fricking architecture, dumbass.
It's porous unfinished concrete it's a feature not a bug israeli moron
lol no it isnt
just like all the travetine in rome is porous huh? cant wash that, huh?
dumbass
The concept is novel, bare concrete looks nice, but don't architects realize that exposing bare concrete to the elements makes it rot? Nearly all brutalist style building end up looking dystopian after a few decades.
All those bunker designers after the war getting jobs building city blocks....
That looks awesome tbqh
Based
I genuinely like the fact that it looks like some border fortress compound because I like to look at those.
SOVL!
SOVL!
SOVL!
I actually like brutalism but for the same reasons that everyone else doesn't like it.
waste of resources
What does that even mean? They famously don't use many resources.
it's a waste of resources to paint a building and then continuously maintain the paint, aesthetics serve no practical purpose and not everyone can even agree on them
>aesthetics serve no practical purpose
The urban population’s psychological wellbeing
>urban
>psychological wellbeing
No such thing.
He's saying there's a minimal expenditure required to make something valuable, like if you were to visual the value curve there would have to be a minimal threshold to attain inherent value and brutalism falls before the curve shoots upward.
I like how it looks tbh. It's cool, like a fortress. I don't mind a few buildings like that just not too many.
I like it, it looks strong and there is plenty of sunlight
They've already been trying to brighten up the Southbank Centre for years.
My soul feels like it's being crushed when looking at these images.
reality doesnt need a coat of paint
Because they are meant to be semi-interactive public sculptures and/or line studies, not actual buildings for actual people to live in.
>pic
Sad thing is there are actually morons who would defend the bottom and say it looks better.
>why yes i do live in a hydroelectric dam
>apartment with wonderful view directly into your neighbor's window
why do homosexual architects do this
I hate it so much bro it's unreal.
Tfw I have to keep my blinds closed all the time because of this.
yeah
YOU do
Where is this?
~~*London*~~
>paint them white
They where intentionally designed to get weathered and develop a patina like in 's pic.
A lot of architects will literally dissemble old derelict factories like pic related to repurpose the kino looking vinatge brick. New shit looks frickin revolting.
This is actually kino as frick.
Brutalism/foliage combos are like Babylon but futuristic.
>Brutalism/foliage combos are like Babylon but shit
FTFY
It's like a beautiful garnish on a pile of shit.
Looks cyberpunk more than anything
Just slap on some grungy white paint and you get a scene straight out of half life
Dead vegetation really sells the copypaste design.
>YO DUDE WHERE EXACTLY IS YOUR HOUSE ALL I SEE IS THE SAME SHIT EVERYWHERE
needs more trees
this shit looks lit af, wtf is wrong with tradtrannies
autism mostly
>lit af
Another zoomzoom who talks like a Black person and loves dogshit what a shock
If it was meant to look at all decent, it wouldn't be brutalist
unironically they do this shit to laugh at the plebs who aren't in on the joke
This. And then they give their friends prices for their ugly buildings
I honestly can't even comprehend the existence of people who don't think this is beautiful. I mean, I know there's a substantial population out there, possibly even a majority, that hates it, but to me it's as alien of an idea as unironically believing that it should be acceptable to eat babies.
Its not supposed to be beautiful.
Not that anon. I think it’s gorgeous as well
Beauty isn't the result of intention.
Because they felt that camouflaging concrete structures under fake stone or brick facades amounted to homosexualry and dishonesty
the whole point of brutalism is of showing raw (brute) concrete. why? because it's product of moronic french commies, that never actually expected it to spread outside some student projects. they knew it was ugly, it was the same as today's dress exhibitions.
> because it's product of moronic french commies
It was invented by Brits and the most famous French Brutalist was straight up a fascist.
Corb was a fascist?
Kind of.
He absolutely hated israelites and the only reason he wasn't a Nazi collaborator is because the Vichy government turned him down. He also wanted to redesign Algiers so he could deliberately put the Arabs in shittier houses than the whites, that was his stated reason for wanting to redesign it.
wtf i love brutalism now
Corb really wasn't a Brutalist. Social and design concepts made famous by le Corb ended up inspiring later movements including Brutalism. He's most associated with International style. I don't think he would ever have adopted anyone's label, and working over the course of five decades, he was an influence and observer of an array of modern movements in the interwar and postwar periods. The moment of Brutalism began later in his life and career and really took off after he was gone. He made some stuff that appears that appeared Brutalist in this period and plenty of stuff that totally doesn't.
Not every building that depresses the average person is Brutalist. There is a whole range of styles that can do that. Archetypal "commieblocks" and many other instances and templates of public and low-income housing complexes owe a lot to le Corbusier. But they aren't Brutalist, even if they convey to most viewers a sense of brutal everyday reality.
He wasn't really fascist either. He was deeply interested in social engineering through built environment and regimenting communities. These were voguish progressive ideas that had a lot of adherents in academia at the time, from a range of ideological streaks, but especially socialists. Fascism was just one expression of some of these same ideas with a defining reactionary and anti-Communist element. Never mind that the same ideas had currency and adoption in socialist thinking and were (are) in fact enthusiastically practiced by communist regimes. Brutalism in itself is mostly associated with socialism.
All that said, pretty much every nasty thing that has been said about le Corb as a person is basically true to my knowledge.
Idk but when the nukes drop that concrete blob would probably be a good place to be
Why would you think that? It's not a bunker. What makes a bunker strong isn't just that it has thick concrete walls, it's that it is also tightly constructed so outside forces can't get inside when it is sealed. Brutalist buildings are full off openings. A blast wave will rip it apart because of this. It's all the ugliness of building to look strong without actually being strong.
I’m not talking about being directly hit, or near the epicenter because you’re probably fricked there. Even Cheyenne mountain couldn’t take a direct hit. But you are much, much more protected from the blast wave in a sturdy structure like that. Sure, a bunker is better, but you can’t expect people to live in a bunker. That brutalist structure won’t collapse, won’t burn, and will block more of the radiation than any other civilian structure I know of.
You can survive a nuclear blast if you’re lucky enough: https://www.inicom.com/hibakusha/akiko.html
>I’m not talking about being directly hit, or near the epicenter because you’re probably fricked there
Neither am I. I'm talking about the blast wave that flattens everything for hundreds of meters around the epicenter.
>But you are much, much more protected from the blast wave in a sturdy structure like that.
No you aren't. Your own linked source describes a person who was terribly mangled despite being "protected" and describes her own survival as "miraculous". You have a slight chance of surviving but the building clearly does not offer very much protection because it has too many means of entry for the blastwave.
> person who was terribly mangled despite
Who cares if she was hurt, she lived and so did her coworker, and it was because she was in the bank building. And she was only 300m away. Everyone outside was zorched by the heat wave, but she lived. If you put a few miles between you and the blast and you were in the interior of a big squat concrete building you would have as good of a chance of living as you could hope for in those circumstances, unless you’re Swiss or something
How many suicides do you think brutalist architects have directly contributed to? I say we prosecute and charge them for their horrendous crimes against humanity.
there's no way you can prove that. You can always jump of a building and blame brutalism though.
If you live in a miserable enviorenment it will start to have an effect on your mind
Play devil's advocate here but living in a place full of pretty buildings doesn't make your life better if you're the maid either.
We were talking about environment not occupations but still being a maid in a rathole of a house and neighborhood is comparatively worse than being the maid at a place full of pretty buildings and a good neighborhood. tl;dr GET ME OUT OF THIS BIRMINGHAM THIS PLACE IS A FRICKING SHITHOLE
>BIRMINGHAM
be glad you don't live in bristol
Given that it's mostly government buildings that are brutalist, I'm going to assume that the point of brutalism is to instantiate a psychological state or feeling in the population that they can't win against the government if they ever felt like trying.
People say this but I feel like it's such a caricature that it would have an opposite effect.
Nah, a pathetic caricature is something like pic related.
Isn't this literally just a billboard
Yeah, but the point is that brutalism isn't playing at being oppressive, it actually feels and looks oppressive. Actual totalitarianism on the other hand is so over the top that you can't not laugh at it for being cliché.
That's just an artpiece.
You mean a propaganda piece.
It's art. Get over it.
Well all art is propaganda.
art is inseparable from politics
I don't think this is an attempt at being totalitarian. Seems more like some weird avant garde propaganda art piece like they liked to do. If you want something actually oppressive look at the buildings fascist italy constructed.
post some buildings from fascist italy please, I'm curious
lol thats literally a timeline quirk of what was gaining in popularity when certain things were needed
aint no other message
wait till yo see spain's postwar churches
a brutalist church is a very bad idea
Looks like a parking garage
that's what i've always thought
the inside is like an opressive dungeon
i hate post civilwar architecture so much you wouldn't believe, why couldn't they rebuild the previous church??
this looks like they're role playing having to hold mass in an underground bunker after a nuclear fallout
You and your small potatoes...
bump
This
is actually aesthetically pleasing
If more brutalist buildings looked like it, I think less people would write it off as as style.
combined with lots of greenery brutalism can actually look pretty decent imo. Without it tho it often ends up looking like some architect just tried to live out his dystopian industrial hell hole fantasy
The raw concrete accumulates so much grime the entire structure will look like it's decaying just a few years in.
That's why it pairs well with heavy planting. It takes on a patina that matches the environment and kind of starts to blend the structure into the landscape. Also takes on sort of a "lost ruins" sort of aesthetic.
>morons want their cities to look like literal ruins
Architects were a mistake
Literal ruins are some of the most beautiful and spiritual places on earth.
>Ruin value (German: Ruinenwert) is the concept that a building be designed in such a way that if it eventually collapsed, it would leave behind aesthetically pleasing ruins that would last far longer without any maintenance at all. The idea was pioneered by German architect Albert Speer while planning for the 1936 Summer Olympics and published as "The Theory of Ruin Value"
That's extremely interesting!
I've been there. It feels strange looking back on it.
>blow a city up
>"it's more beautiful this way"
No wonder it was German who came up with it
Captcha: JGAY2
>>blow a city up
>>"it's more beautiful this way"
Completely missing the point. Despite being in a literal state of ruin, the blown up cities of the ancient greeks, romans, egyptians, mayans are considered aesthetic masterpieces, and some of the human race's most invaluable cultural treasures. Now contrast the Parthenon or Bagan with the charred lump of carcinogens that only hours ago was your coomer bug-pod before Antifa/blm torched your condo.
The ruins that are nice are the ruins that are beautiful and spiritual because they're infused with the great spirit, history, and culture of the societies that built them. The buildings in your pic were aesthetic and beautiful when they were standing.
Brutalism is a fricking joke and will never be anything but a standard for hopelessly autistic and contrarian homosexuals to rally around to try and be special by liking something horrible.
>germans coined a term to larp as civilization when they inevitably fail at it
kek
Depends on how you look at it. I think ruins are comfy and give the feeling of a deep history and rich sense of place. But I can definitly understand why some would see it as living in forgotten and dilapidated structures and find that indignent.
I don't dislike brutalism for certain types of buildings. Institutional buildings in brutal style makes sense. Residential and religious buildings though, no.
You people are seriously overreacting. Brutalism looks fine.
No it doesn't. There's a Maze bank in my city that's just a grey cube with hundreds of holes lining each side. It looks like the most soulless bugman shit. I mean bug man in the literal sense; it resembles a hive.
I know this might not strictly speaking be brutalism, but I like the way it looks.
Fake and gay. It'll be gone in 80 years.
So? It's an office building. It's the place a few biomedical, financial, and educational companies do their paperwork. It's got a gym, a cafe, a few conference rooms, and at least one of their tenants runs a hair regrowth scam. It's not a place of worship for a city's patron.
The Parthenon was built for a purpose the Athenians considered sacred and central to their society. The Pyramids (Indianapolis) were built for a purpose the Indianapolitans consider moderately useful but ultimately mundane and interchangeable with any other office building. They're not comparable. One is atop the acropolis, the other on the middling outskirts of a metropolitan area. One is a crowning achievement of a culture at its' height, the other is a moderately novel variety of a commonplace construct.
You posted something nice.
"What should we paint it, comrade chief exterior design consultant?"
"We'll paint it SHIT!"
And they painted it shit.
This one looks cartoonish in a good way.
It looks neither cartoonish nor good.
Raw concrete is the ideal building material
No joke, I love concrete. With concrete, anything is possible.
Based. I love it too. It’s fricking gorgeous. Can’t believe people doing see it.
>people hate Boston City Hall
unreal
have a nice day
>Why didn't they just...
They were made exactly as they were for a reason. You wouldn't get it if you weren't a marxist living in the middle part of the twentieth century who genuinely believe in the overthrow of the west and the imposition of a new utopia.
The gays who shit on brutalism are the same people that dream of owning a McMansion.
Whatever youtell yourself to kope
Go jerk off to hyperrealist art, mong
Go back to Haifa circumcized marxistbhomo
everytime I look at these buildings whether it's in picture or in real life my mood always drops significantly and I don't know why. There's just something really sinister about Brutalism...is it the rotting look of the concrete? The dull, soul-rending grey color that permeates the entire building? I can't seem to pin it down.
>YOU MUST MAKE YOUR BUILDINGS COMPLEX IN SHAPE FOR NO REASON
>YOU MUST MAKE THEM OUT OF EXTRAVAGANT EXPENSIVE AND FRAGILE MATERIALS
>YOU MUST MAKE THEM ATTRACTIVE TO TUMBLR 14 YEAR OLDS
söyjack posting is peak söy
ywnbaw
>everytime I look at these buildings whether it's in picture or in real life my mood always drops significantly and I don't know why. There's just something really sinister about Brutalism...is it the rotting look of the concrete? The dull, soul-rending grey color that permeates the entire building? I can't seem to pin it down.
literally the expression I have when I see brutalist architecture
I crie ;(
>söyjack posting is peak söy
if Vlad The Impaler was an architect
When your people are so ideologically corrupt and morally backwards you need an entire form of architecture that soley exists to remind them of their brief mortality.
It's the way of sacrifice reflected in every space and every world. Also a way of resistance to cosmopolitan norms and it's arrogance towards the world. It's a meditation on reality, against an obscure mystic confusion it is the stone in the sea.
does this count? because this along with the buildings in Blade Runner 2 and East Euro Goth Album covers are the only times I like brutalism, if they can make it look good why don't they?
Brutalism looks good in retro sci fi movies but that's about it
Brutalism works great as a cohesive aesthetic.
A fully brutalist city would be beautiful, but one lone brutalist building just looks like an eyesore on an otherwise ordinary street.
Same reason every flattering photograph of a brutalist building is careful to put everything else nearby outside the shot.
Fully brutalist city would look like a nightmare
Yes an aesthetic nightmare with a nightmare aesthetic. If you don't commit to it the brutality looses its charm as its just a building that looks like it is unfinished.
And that would be kino
I'm somewhat pro Hitler but these Speer abominations make my eyes bleed
>I'm somewhat pro Hitler
cringe moron
Frick up israelite
You have to like shitty Nazi architecture to be a full fledged member of the NeetSocs? No wonder that gay failed art school.
>I'm somewhat pro Hitler but these Speer abominations make my eyes bleed
Did you know the New York Times wrote about "moderate Nazis" in the 1930s? What was that about? "I'm somewhat pro-Hitler. I don't have much of a problem with the genocide, but I don't much care for the architecture."
post times article
>doesn't recognise anon is imitating Seinfeld
Zoomer
>not recognizing gay israelite shir
That's a good thing
>A fully brutalist city would be beautiful, but one lone brutalist building just looks like an eyesore on an otherwise ordinary street.
>*Banned for Racism
All shiny glass, not enough dull grey concrete. Not brutalist.
yea but it clashes, can I also point out how the OWTC tries and fails to copy the original towers? maybe it looks nice from some angles but, I'm not sure
Original towers were just some min-maxed rectangular steel and glass box. Nothing special about them, ugly as sin
except there being 2 of them, standing next to each other? I found that remarkable when looking at the skyline
You're that bong arent you
What is it with anglos and making everything look like hell
Well Magnitogorsk actually exists, a planned utopian socialist city built in the 30s but I have no idea if the architectural style is full on brutalism
And nowadays
Actually lowkey kinda SOVL, ngl.
It's like 2nd Empire Paris caught autism.
The line is not necessarily bad but ironically it is the greenspace which is the problem. It makes it so that everything is farther away from everything else than it needs to be. "Parks" as a definite location that people would go to are superior to merely viewing green space as the negative space between buildings. Ironically the issue is exactly the same as that of American suburbia except they have created the additional problem of having to deal with noise from other apartments.
this looks fricking great, low like paris, friendly like london with nice scale variety totally great
nothing brutalist about it mind you, but really nice
One of the ugliest cities in Russia only Norilsk can top it with nightmare fuel aesthetics
>Norilsk
Now THIS is kino.
only while there's snow to hide the mud
the actual 'inventors' of ""brutalism"" werent even born until 1923 and 1928 . . .
must have been awfully talented to be building by age 2
Nah, that's Stalinist style which incorporated some neoclassical elements. Pretty eclectic.
>communism would actually work great if the whole world could become communist
>Manhattan_Detention_Complex_North_building.jpg
When capitalism does bad thing, its actually communism
why do they do this
Avengers looking motherfricker
the manhattan skyline is getting more ridiculous by the year. all new skyscrapers are fitting scars upon the used up face of new york
The AI has answered your question.
good to know the AI takeover is a decade or 2 off
Brutalism is a CIA psyop anyway, they wanted to create big thicc concrete nuke resistant buildings similar to ww2 pillboxes, but not want the soviets to catch on to their true purpose.
brutalism is literally a neologism from some young kids in London, dumbass
looks pretty comfy to me.
can’t wait till you morons find out about international style
ornaments are reactionary
beauty is fascist
You are transgender
Because le cobusier suffered from autism And everyone else pretended he was brilliant
I love it when brutalist buildings are decorated with ferns and hanging gardens, makes them look like an ancient jungle temple or something
im a big fan of eco brutalism, and while i can see that wooden components in the exterior is less practical than pure concrete, i still think it looks way better when concrete combined with wood
because after all, concrete does not grow on trees, but trees do
so i say, lets build the core structure out of concrete but lets use wood for the rest
>im a big fan of eco brutalism
Yeah that pic is from Bali. There's a decent amount of brutalism in Hawaii too and I think the style works well in the tropics.
Take a look at the Kyoto International Conference Center.
looks like my old college.
something about this material choice makes it look inherently dirty, even if it's not
maybe it's just the power of suggestion as I grew up in a post-soviet world with a lot of run down brutalist architecture
Brutalism can be peak kino if it fits the theme.
Pic related is an animal experiment lab kek
kino
Fine you may hate brutalism, but what about RETROFUTURISM?
Picrelated
I'm pretty sure that's called "high tech"
Giant HVAC system
Brutalism is so kino. I mean, don't you see that these building will still stand hundreds of year from now, with minimal maintenance? Classical building are cucked, phony, and horribly insulated.
Modern glass skyscrapper, we don't know how long they will last. They look fragile, and replacing the glass will cost a lot.
Brutalism was always the best choice. And i hope it comes back in the future.
144 DIRECT NOT THY MIND TO THE VAST MEASURES OF THE EARTH, FOR THE PLANT OF TRUTH IS NOT IN THE GROUND
...
145 STOOP NOT DOWN TO THE DARKLY SPLENDID WORLD; IN WHICH CONTINUALLY LIES A FAITHLESS DEPTH, AND HADES
CLOUDY, SQUALID, AND DELIGHTING IN IMAGES UNINTELLIGIBLE, PRECIPITOUS, WINDING, A BLIND PROFUNDITY ALWAYS ROLLING, ALWAYS ESPOUSING AN OPACIOUS, IDLE, BREATHLESS BODY.
149 LOOK NOT UPON NATURE FOR HER NAME IS FATAL.
>brutalism
>nice colour
maybe you dont understand shit about brutalism
reality is already a nice color
>maybe you dont know as much as you think you do
i have a soft spot for brutalism architecture because when i was a little kid my mom would take me to this big library building and i would play the bugs life computer game in there.
Brutalism is the spiritual offspring of israeli spatial moronation. They're simply incapable of creating beautiful 3D objects.
I can think of some beautiful israeli 3D objects.
Louis Kahn fricked your mother
>"I've been found out"
Ok, there's this one israeliteess but on average they're a disgusting race.
Decoration is reactionary bourgeois garbage, you fricking /misc/tard
Stop asking questions and just eat ze bugs
A central idea in the movement was to show the structural elements of the building as they are for what they are. They thought it was unnecessary and even dishonest to bury them or dress them up, as though there was something shameful about a building being made of steel beams and concrete. Instead they should be proud to be practical, basically. A given building may be a house, or a school, or a wastewater treatment plant, once it's put to use. But before and beneath all that, a building is a structure.
As a matter of personal taste, I appreciate that and I like the style. I get why lots of people don't. I'm not an architect but if I try to think like one might, it makes for that certain beauty that you get more from design than from art. While most people will only see a building from the outside -- I mean that inclusive of the face presented by its interior -- architects and engineers see a building from the inside out as well, from its skeleton outward. Naturally they're going to appreciate those ordinarily hidden elements so fundamental to what a building really is a lot more and much differently than most of us will. The question then s whether they should try and make the public like it the way do...
Paint is not only useless, its costly to maintain/create/paint, harmful to the environment, and serves no purpose.
Brutalist architecture go for minimumalism/functionalism and roughness of the rock on the mountain side to maintain that eternal natural beauty.
>a rubik cube crossed with a gas station
the absolute state
Its cooler without paint.
>Buffalo City Court Building
Its pretty cool how the area this building is in is laid out.
Next to it is a very modernist Courthouse here.
And a very art deco city hall
Brutalism is beautiful.