I do prefer brick buildings.
I have a fairly functional form of autism, but I sometimes struggle finding balance in points of interest I get enthusiastic about, and nobody really matches my enthusiasm, even though they try. It often feels like rejection, but this post really puts it in perspective for me. I’m not always reasonable/flexible when I’m like that. Thanks for sharing.
(To give an example related to this post; I wouldn’t assault someone for having a different opinion, but I could definitely debate them with a passion that’s a little out of place and not as reasonable as I’d like to believe it is. “Building with concrete blocks? What is even wrong with you, where you never thought proper construction? What do you mean cheap building costs? People who want to build cheap buildings shouldn’t be allowed to build anyway”.
“Building with concrete blocks? What is even wrong with you, where you never thought proper construction? What do you mean cheap building costs? People who want to build cheap buildings shouldn’t be allowed to build anyway”.
The internet suddenly makes a bit more sense to me
To be fair, brutalist buildings are fugly
To you.
The peak of brutality architecture beats any other type in my eyes. It’s beautiful in a way no other building or style compares.
Unfortunately many brutalistic buildings are far off from its peak and just look like lazily designed gray blobs. High-effort brutalism can look good (or can look inappropriately evil but that’s besides the point); low-effort brutalism always looks cheap.
Low effort brutalism looks cheap because it is. And that’s a good thing. In my country there’s a homeless crisis. The waitlist for government housing is five years. And that’s because too much of the government housing is single family detached houses. The politicians always say “we don’t have enough money to build government housing for everyone who needs it”. You know how many homeless we’d have if the government built soviet block style apartment buildings? Next to none. The people who can live on their own and just don’t have enough money can live in that, the people who need support can stay in the homeless shelters that have support, and only the people who want to be homeless would be left. Brutalism is efficient. American style suburbia is inefficient, so much so that it needs to be subsidized by the government using money taken from the city, because the suburbanites can’t pay for their own single family detached houses, even the ones with high paying jobs.
I completely agree, except with the suggestion that apartment blocks must be brutalist to be space efficient. It wouldn’t be very difficult to make apartment blocks which dont look depressingly gray and blocky. Its just the cheapest thing to do, but in my opinion even (or especially) the lower class deserves to live in homely conditions too.
Well I may be biased because I think brutalist architecture is beautiful, but I disagree. Every penny saved on the appearance of the building is a penny towards the functionality of the building, or towards housing more people. Would I rather have a pretty brick facade or 1% better thermal and sonic insulation? I’ll pick the insulation. Would I rather have a visually interesting architectural shape or rooftop solar? I’ll pick the solar. Visual appearance has never been a factor in my living needs, ugly wallpaper aside. I don’t really understand the mindset of that stuff being important. I’ll pick a nice colour for my bedsheets, and that’s as far as it goes. And besides, elegance of form and function is a beauty all its own. I recently got a new mouse and it’s beautiful to me because it works well. It has a pleasing heft, comfortable shape, no waste, and that’s beautiful. A mouse in the most pleasing colour, but with poor ergonomics, would be ugly to me. Single family detached houses are hideous to me.
I get where you’re coming from, but making the slightest effort towards aesthetics when designing the apartment blocks doesn’t cost much comparatively. I think brutalist architecture has its place too, but I could definitely see how coming home to apartment #5722 on floor #12 of block 31 in a trite and looming concrete labyrinth isnt very appealing to a lot of people. Making homely and livable apartments costs only slightly more and would do wonders in getting people to accept them.
Yeah nah I don’t get it. Homeless is homeless, housed is housed. I’m currently homeless and I’d take apartment #5722 in a heartbeat, long as it was near public transport and had good insulation. Guess there’s some people who’d rather rough it than stay in a boring apartment, but I think maybe we should house all the people who are willing to stay in boring apartments before we worry about catering to picky people. If they’re comfortable enough on the street that a boring apartment is worse than the street, maybe they can stay on the street a little longer than the rest of us and be relatively okay. I definitely believe in helping them, but I think we should be trying to help the most people the soonest with the limited budget available.
Cheap brutalism can look good.
Can you share examples of good and bad brutality buildings that are cheap? I’m just curious what you like
For good brutalised, look at the Barbican or Habitat 67
Yes but I’m currently traveling and have very limited Internet access… I’ll try and remember to do this in a couple weeks when I’m back into good connectivity.
Plus being home will let me pull out my Big Book of Brutalism to reference.
They look depressing and I hate being around them. A city should be a nice place to live, not a playground for architects’ experiments
I dunno, I think they’re kinda … neat, I guess? Like, yeah, they’re technically pretty ugly, but somehow in a way that makes them interesting.
Trying…and failing, to think of a good portmanteau of interesting and ugly.
Edit: intugly? Ugteresting?
Love me some good old fachwerkhäusers
I like the cut of this dudes jib.
He’s right though, we aren’t building as sustainable as we did back then.
Uh-oh, this guy has no mental tools for self-regulation.
