Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Man everything is so damn Brutal...
Gotcha 
And you all thought this was going to be just another meta thread...
Ready why this style is making a comeback!
Why Brutalist Architecture Is So Hard to Love
Roman Mars’ podcast 99% Invisible covers design questions large and small, from his fascination with rebar to the history of slot machines to the great Los Angeles Red Car conspiracy. Here at The Eye, we cross-post new episodes and host excerpts from the 99% Invisible blog, which offers complementary visuals for each episode.
This week's edition—about Brutalism—can be played below. Or keep reading to learn more.
https://soundcloud.com/roman-mars/99-invisible-176-hard-to-love-a-brute
[center]
[/center]
No matter which James Bond actor is your favorite, it’s undeniable that the Sean Connery films had the best villains. There’s Blofeld, who turned cat-stroking into a thing that supervillains do, and then there’s Goldfinger—Bond’s flashiest nemesis. Fun fact: The author of the James Bond books, Ian Fleming, named Goldfinger for a real person—an architect by the name of Erno Goldfinger, who made giant, hulking, austere concrete buildings. Fleming disliked these buildings so intensely that he immortalized their architect as a villain in pop culture.
And Fleming wasn’t the only critic. Goldfinger’s buildings were decreed “soulless.” Inhabitants claimed to suffer health problems and depression from spending time inside of them. Some of Goldfinger’s buildings were vacated because occupants found them so ugly. Yet, architects praised Goldfinger’s buildings. His Trellick Tower in London, completed in 1972 and once threatened with demolition, has been awarded landmark status.
This divide—this hatred from the public and love from designers and architects—tends to be the narrative around buildings like Goldfinger’s. Which is to say, gigantic, imposing buildings made of concrete.
[center]
[/center]
Some people refer to this building style as Brutalist architecture, but Brutalism is a big, broad label that’s used inconsistently, and architects tend to disagree on a precise definition of the word. Furthermore, the word brutalism has intense connotations, even though it’s not actually related to brutality. The word originates from the French béton brut, which means raw concrete.
Roman Mars’ podcast 99% Invisible covers design questions large and small, from his fascination with rebar to the history of slot machines to the great Los Angeles Red Car conspiracy. Here at The Eye, we cross-post new episodes and host excerpts from the 99% Invisible blog, which offers complementary visuals for each episode.
This week's edition—about Brutalism—can be played below. Or keep reading to learn more.
https://soundcloud.com/roman-mars/99-invisible-176-hard-to-love-a-brute
[center]
[/center]
No matter which James Bond actor is your favorite, it’s undeniable that the Sean Connery films had the best villains. There’s Blofeld, who turned cat-stroking into a thing that supervillains do, and then there’s Goldfinger—Bond’s flashiest nemesis. Fun fact: The author of the James Bond books, Ian Fleming, named Goldfinger for a real person—an architect by the name of Erno Goldfinger, who made giant, hulking, austere concrete buildings. Fleming disliked these buildings so intensely that he immortalized their architect as a villain in pop culture.
And Fleming wasn’t the only critic. Goldfinger’s buildings were decreed “soulless.” Inhabitants claimed to suffer health problems and depression from spending time inside of them. Some of Goldfinger’s buildings were vacated because occupants found them so ugly. Yet, architects praised Goldfinger’s buildings. His Trellick Tower in London, completed in 1972 and once threatened with demolition, has been awarded landmark status.
This divide—this hatred from the public and love from designers and architects—tends to be the narrative around buildings like Goldfinger’s. Which is to say, gigantic, imposing buildings made of concrete.
[center]
[/center]
Some people refer to this building style as Brutalist architecture, but Brutalism is a big, broad label that’s used inconsistently, and architects tend to disagree on a precise definition of the word. Furthermore, the word brutalism has intense connotations, even though it’s not actually related to brutality. The word originates from the French béton brut, which means raw concrete.
Read More about this architecture style, and the building which represent it including my hometown's city hall.
Boston's City Hall...
[center]
[/center]
33 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Thanks 
and that is the general feeling I get as well.
http://www.boston.com/ae/theater_arts/articles/2010/03/21/readers_have_their_say_about_greater_bostons_ugliest_buildings/?page=full
Half-timber a close second!
which I didn't know until you posted this thread, but I did remember the harshness of the design - apparently, one of the design principles was that the structures should be able to withstand bomb blasts and rioting, of which there were lots of both during the 60's and early 70's on college campuses.
http://www.uic.edu/master_plan/history.html
It might be said that the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) began back in 1867 as a promise - a promise to establish a "polytechnical" branch in Chicago if the main land-grant university campus could be built downstate - a promise that would not be fulfilled until 98 years later in 1965 when state and local dignitaries cut the ribbon officially opening the University of Illinois Chicago Circle campus (UICC). Chicago architect Walter Netsch of Skidmore, Owings and Merrill designed and master planned the campus in the, at the time, revolutionary Brutalism style. (The Chicago Circle was the name of the interstate highway interchange at the northeast corner of the new campus.)
Probably one of the most depressing public spaces ever.
I think they recently redesigned it, and no longer have the whatchamacallit - elevated sidewalks.
And further:
In Part 1 of this two-part blog post, I introduced the development of the University of Illinois at Chicago. Now let’s explore the experimental architectural style for this college campus, especially because it’s a style that many people don’t understand.
Brutalist architecture is an austere style of architecture that came into being in the 1950s-1970s. Characterized by massive forms, often of poured concrete, and usually devoid of exterior decor, brutalist buildings often end up looking like modern-day fortresses. Since the UIC campus razed a community of thousands of people, I kind of wonder…couldn’t they have designed buildings that architecturally welcomed the surrounding area with open arms, to make up for their damage to the community?
In my opinion, these massive, dark, concrete and brick buildings are uninviting. Now trust me, I appreciate concrete very much, but not so much with brutalism. It’s all about the execution, people. Some of the campus buildings have cool geometric forms, yes....
http://www.chicagodetours.com/uic-brutalist-architecture/
Now, as a lover of public gathering spaces, I wish the Greek amphitheater they had in the center of campus still existed. It was torn down along with the second floor walkways; they were falling apart, and it was an effort to de-concretize the campus a bit. While the Chicago Pedway System works in downtown Chicago, the theory behind pedestrian walkways on the UIC campus seemed better than the practice.
So yes, apparently, they did tear down the walkways and also, sadly, the amphitheater, which actually was my favorite public area of the campus - it was kind of like you're walking above ground level - all about campus - on this elevated concrete campus, and then you come to the amphitheater which resembled a huge woofer, where you could have a cigarette or sunbathe, chat with friends.
And the exterior fits the contents as well!
but have grown into an appreciation for it now. (Well, a lot of it, not all.)
I find it rather fitting for our increasingly dystopic universe. 
