Well, I also love Brutalism. Thanks to all for sharing views.

Even the Romans used travertine and marble veneer over their concrete buildings and bridges, which are still functional after 2,000 years. Apparently they couldn't stand the way bare concrete looks either.

As some of the people have replied to you and mentioned to you earlier, people can't judge the building or (even worse) a direction of architecture, based on trash in its surroundings. 

But, unfortunately, it is true that brutalist buildings which were built from the  50s or 60s onward, are very badly maintained if anything. This creates mold inside and around the object, dirt, sun and rain erosion on concrete and at the end people, who mostly don't have much knowledge in the history of architecture, judge based on their ''halo effect'' or first impression... And we should ask ourselves, if we can truly judge them for that. If a community or a society appreciates its' architectural inheritance, it should prove it with its' maintenance. Just like they maintain buildings from the 17th century. 

It is also true, that a lot of brutalist buildings, especially social housing blocks in the ex USSR countries and Yugoslavia, were mostly designed on cheap budget and thus cheap architecture, and societies, families that live in these conditions notice it, and loose respect for it and with that they loose interest in its maintainance. (if anything, they wanted to get out and get rid of it ) but these blocks have the lowest rents today, so it is a dillema. 


Here is a very good short documentary, showing how brutalist buildings (in this case a student dormitory) are maintained.
Location: Skopje, Macedonia.

It is not that the brutalist buildings are badly maintained; it's that they are shit to begin with.

Here is a photo of Boston College with it's collegiate gothic architecture and a photo of a brutalist college in London.

Brutalism as an architectural design concept is interesting and noteworthy. But often it was applied to institutional clients - ask any government employees their thoughts on such buildings and you will quickly realize why it is so disliked. As architects we tend to fetishize things like brutalism -- this type of taste making is not for the average person for whom buildings have significance for their utility or historicism. 

Billy is still a dick though even after 3 years.  That ungrateful twit had a lovely concrete trapezoid to play on.  

I disagree with many of he dislikes stated here. As a child I was in awe of Paul Rudolph's work and the sheer willingness to plan, design and build on a grande, complex and geometric scale. Remember, brutalism was modern and international style. All architects between 80 and 40 are supposed to love modern architecture because we were force fed it in architecture school. Brutalism at least attempted to stretch the box and the realm of reality when it was employed......given our bent for sustainability, perhaps brutalism will be revived someday.
Is not Louis Khans work brutalist.....was not some of Frank Lloyd Wrights work brutalist as well.....I don't know about you, but brutalist buildings such as Boston's City hall and many college campus buildings built during the 60s on Temple university's campus, and the One Merridian plaza tower, compelled me to become an architect. 

What about you?

Try harder, Volunteer. 

this is an irrelevant discussion, why don't y'all answer the question on this thread instead? I think that answer could shed light on some of the non conducive arguments here.

https://archinect.com/news/art...

I've liked Sternburg here in Colorado...

I think that Brutalist buildings individuate at the wrong scale for human pattern recognition to function properly.

It's funny you mentioned trash when all I can think of is the Dada art movement. And people seem to love it!

So not to dwell on the merits of the architectural style.

Why do common people, those not trained in art or architecture, hate brutalism.

1. they don't like the institutions housed in the buildings, Public housing city hall, public institutions of learning (desegregated schools and universities). These institutions are politically abhorrent to a lot of people and the architectural style most associated with providing housing for the poor and desegregated education is brutalism, and thus they hate the style of architecture.

2. They don't get the concept, it is too abstract or not clear and the meaning of the spaces and materials is lost.

3. the space, the materials, the physical conditions of wind temperature, glare or noise make them uncomfortable.

4. they lack a historic or human scale reference and can be from and located anywhere, there is no cultural or social attachment to the style or location of their sites.

5. They are not often looked at as light optimistic daring or futuristic,but more protected, anonymous and standoffish. These traits are not what the populace looks for or seeks as a form for housing, civic space or other architectural typologies. The architecture misses the mark as to what is expected and misses it by too much to be understood or valued.

I like brutalist buildings in the right setting and especially in the correct moment. Southern Illinois Carbondale has a fantastic brutalist building Faner Hall but they also have several high rise towers that have or are coming down. some are winners some are losers, the style brutalisum is often hard for people to understand, and in our ever changing and more frightening world people are looking for something that is easy to understand and sends the signal they want it to send. People don't have the time to think what a building is and they are more afraid now than ever to take risk and explore in an urban setting.

Over and OUT

Peter N

Brutalism evokes the warmth of North Korea, the joy of standing in line at the department of motor vehicles, the beauty of your average parking ramp. It is the architecture of socialism, communism, the gulag, the low-income housing development, the detention center.