Its style is “brutalist,” which looks exactly like it sounds: big, blockish, hulking. Basically, a fortress of concrete... But what if these homely structures are actually tomorrow’s historic architecture? What if we just don’t appreciate them yet, and later generations will embrace them even though we think they’re monstrosities? — radioboston.wbur.org
9 Comments
The above picture (Boston City Hall) is "good brutalist," including the space that surrounds it. Yale's School of Architecture is "bad brutalist." What a foreboding p.o.s. However, they at least they identify themselves as Yale, and not as GSD or GSAPP. The scariest thing in Boston is clearly not City Hall, but that Philip Johnson hotel with the repetitive Serlian (or Palladian) windows. If there was ever a major "miss" by a starchitect, that would be it.
This goes back to why architects don't design what the public likes, because what the public wants goes against what many architects where taught. The original article points out that many modernist (1960's era) buildings are not very loved. Instead of asking why, many architects get in a defensive crouch. This observation will be seen by some as an attack against the profession rather than a call to reform it to be more responsive to the public that lives in and around our creations, but that can't be helped. When large institutions have invested so much in a particular ideology, it's very hard to pivot to the world at large which, by and large, doesn't view the built world through ideological lenses. At least archinect shows the larger conversations happening.
This was just a style. Not everyone likes every style. I'm almost sure brutalist has few fans, except for maybe those who like Salk Institute. Its siting and its views are great. The buildings themselves are foreboding. There are probably few aficionados of French Second Empire, aka the Bates Motel, but we don't go around knocking them down. We'll just rely on people to like some buildings and styles more ... and others less. It's sad enough that the Pan Am Worldport at JFK has or is biting the dust. Sad.
I really enjoyed the hour or so I spent in Boston City Hall's outdoor plaza, probably eating a hamburger I had bought somewhere. I think that more variety, at its upper levels, would have made it somewhat "nicer," from the photo that is shown. However, its scale, some variety in its articulation, and decent enough integration with what's around it for being so much newer don't make it all that bad.
I'm not saying one can't like the Boston City Hall. Of all the modernist styles, I'm kind of partial to Brutalism, if only because it looks like it will last more than 50 years and I can read it's structure. (remember "honesty" in architecture?) IMHO, the Boston city hall has an interesting enough composition, it's the public space and how the building engages it that makes for a negative experience, for some people.
^ Hi. I was responding to the quote with the photo which launched the thread, and the words it contained like "these homely structures." When I saw Boston City Hall, I thought it was different, sturdy and stout, and slightly "machine like" (a la Bauhaus, in a weird sort of way), but not homely.
I think homely means ugly to most people, but probably not the best adjective to describe such an assertive building. Too similar to homey I guess, which it's definatly not.
Although I like the Boston city hall, the plaza surrounding it had too much brick for my taste. Could have used some trees. But maybe it's changed since I was last there 20 odd years ago.
I think the concepts of beauty and ugly have alot to do with our anthropomorphizing of buildings, How we look at people and judge what is beautiful in persons carries over to our architecture. Do we really need such metaphors to appreciate architecture?
I like brutalism. It makes me feel shitty which is better than feeling nothing. Most places are mundane. IMO anything that evokes an emotional response is good in moderation. I also like some pain as long as its not for too long. I like happy places too but also in moderation. Disney land is good for a day or two. Rainy days are best followed by sunny days and visa versa. Its good if its memorable.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.