Painful architecture - it hurts to look at it

[Kulindahr]

The newly revamped Art Gallery of Alberta Building...

E-town's very own Hommage to Frank Gehry.





Which replaced this-

A brutalist building constructed in 1968.



*sigh*

It's definitely an improvement.

 

[bankside]

Brutalism is terribly misunderstood if you see it as an attempt to look ugly.

It is an attempt to look monumental.

It's really not all that different from the look of old fortresses meant to impress; simple, bulky, and large. Similar, for that matter, to the Pyramids.

They play with the apparent scale in order to convey a certain kind of grandeur. Not the fussy rococo kind of grandeur; it's more just the sheer scale of them that imparts a sense of inevitability or permanence, scale on the magnitude of geological features. It's supposed to be a bit overwhelming and a bit humbling. Plain and impressive and in a way very organic once you realize the geological inspiration.

Given the era in which brutalism emerged, it's almost even touchy-feely-earth-mothery (...if you're used to looking at volcanos or salt plains or sheer cliffs or endless dunes, when you think of nature. You'd miss the point entirely if you spend all your days looking at snowflakes and orchids and quaint mountain creeks in moss-filled forests.)

A masterpiece of scale and function, shown at http://www.andreas-praefcke.de/carthalia/world/cdn_ottawa_national.htm.

And great for public buildings. In the case of the National Arts Centre in particular, it pays tribute to the geographical "pingo & polygon" landforms of Canada's north.

I tend to agree with how alienating it can be to live in a brutalist building, but then who wants to live in a monument? The pyramids, a fortress, all rather stern places for daily life.

 

[bankside]

It's definitely an improvement.

It's not an improvement, merely a competent replacement! I love the new building. Designed by a very talented American, actually, and the only one of the candidates to show his proposed design in winter. I thought that was incredibly smart, given that Edmonton has snow for 6 or 7 months of the year, and not something obvious for a person from Tennessee to do.

He was up against stiff international mega-star competition: Zaha Hadid, Arthur Erickson, and Will Alsop on the short list. Zaha Hadid was the one who held the most promise for my money, and the one who disappointed me the most. Her design, or the design made in her name by some hack on the back of a napkin (a used napkin... from mcdonalds...) had some cantilevered feature "overlooking the river," though the building itself is situated half a kilometre away from the water with no possible vistas...but i digress...)

But I loved the old building too. Both of them were spectacular in their ways. I can picture people ascending the stairs in the original building for a night on the town...an exciting statement that a little prairie farm hub was now Part of the Urban Fabric™ and A Real City™.

It seems a quaint sentiment now, but it meant something to them then, and to be honest in many ways this city is still trying to prove itself. Often fucking up badly in the process. But that building showed great art for many decades and was born from a mood of optimism about the future, and that was worth keeping (the mood and the building which embodied it).

What would have been an improvement is building the new one exactly 200 metres east, on the other side of 97th Ave, in one of those useless parking lots surrounded by derelict housing. That way we would have had the best of both architectural universes, and we would have started doing something about the "East of 97th" zone, mixing people and opportunities for revitalization into another part of the neighbourhood instead of allowing it to continue to stagnate, where the only social mixing that occurs is between panhandlers and people too cheap to pay for parking underground in the main core.

 

[Críostóir]

Rocabar...I wouldn't have thought I could say that new building was an improvement over anything...until I saw the old one.

GHOD I hate brutalist architecture.

 

[Críostóir]

Brutalism is terribly misunderstood if you see it as an attempt to look ugly.

It is an attempt to look monumental.

Then it is a failure in every case I've seen. It doesn't look monumental and it is ugly...except the DC Metro ceilings. I have to admit I like those. It never would have occurred to me to include those under the Brutalist rubric, but I see the relationship now.

It's really not all that different from the look of old fortresses meant to impress; simple, bulky, and large. Similar, for that matter, to the Pyramids.

Old fortresses were designed for utility: to be defensible. Nothing is defensible in that sense, now (one word: aircraft), and the design resemblance should be abandoned.

And btw the pyramids were originally covered with white stone, shining brilliantly in the sun. They must have been GLORIOUS. The resemblance to Brutalist architecture is much like the resemblance of the sun to a lump of coal.

ETA: There's a resemblance NOW, of course...Brutalist buildings look like something nicer has fallen off their outsides.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Everybody else thinks it's ugly; I think it's beautiful. (Color could have been different, though.)

Just look at the geometry of this building, in Kaliningrad, Russia:

I think it looks like Lego Blocks.

 

[Críostóir]

I think it looks like Lego Blocks.

Lego blocks come in colors.

 

[SLOPPYSECONDS]

Brutalism is terribly misunderstood if you see it as an attempt to look ugly.

It is an attempt to look monumental.

It's really not all that different from the look of old fortresses meant to impress; simple, bulky, and large. Similar, for that matter, to the Pyramids.

They play with the apparent scale in order to convey a certain kind of grandeur. Not the fussy rococo kind of grandeur; it's more just the sheer scale of them that imparts a sense of inevitability or permanence, scale on the magnitude of geological features. It's supposed to be a bit overwhelming and a bit humbling. Plain and impressive and in a way very organic once you realize the geological inspiration.

Given the era in which brutalism emerged, it's almost even touchy-feely-earth-mothery (...if you're used to looking at volcanos or salt plains or sheer cliffs or endless dunes, when you think of nature. You'd miss the point entirely if you spend all your days looking at snowflakes and orchids and quaint mountain creeks in moss-filled forests.)

A masterpiece of scale and function, shown at http://www.andreas-praefcke.de/carthalia/world/cdn_ottawa_national.htm.

And great for public buildings. In the case of the National Arts Centre in particular, it pays tribute to the geographical "pingo & polygon" landforms of Canada's north.

I tend to agree with how alienating it can be to live in a brutalist building, but then who wants to live in a monument? The pyramids, a fortress, all rather stern places for daily life.

20th century methinks brutal won gold at da brutal games ans 19th ans ya know

how stop 21st be da series 21 ans etc so on

ans etc so on

' SSSH! '
ooohhhhh
' just say it a little bits? '
NO

anyway

thankyou

 

[frankfrank]

City Hall - Ann Arbor, Michigan

I hadn't even heard of the term "brutalist architecture" until this thread...and I see the term alerts the spellcheck.

But, then, "spellcheck" alerts the spellcheck as well, LOL.

 

[cityboy-stl]

Lego blocks come in colors.

OK. I think it looks like all gray Lego blocks.

 

[Críostóir]

OK. I think it looks like all gray Lego blocks.

I didn't mean to disagree with you, exactly, just to point out that it's not only Legos, but COLORLESS in addition.

 

[Paradigm]

I don't particularly hate brutalism. I think a lot of the ugly examples of the style are due to them being public projects that end up getting committeed and cost cut to death. I also think they suffer from material problems - when they did try to introduce color, they looked even worse. and concrete never ages well - if those same buildings were built of stone, or at least a stone like substance, I think they would look much, much better.

One issue with a lot of brutalism is that they are always designed in isolated contexts and with lots of addition softening in mind - hanging plants, landscaping, banners, etc. If you were to add those to a lot of brutalist buildings it would spiff them up greatly. Get rid of the brick around Boston City Hall and add some hanging plants, and I think it would be much more impressive.

 

[pat grimshaw]

....lots of addition softening in mind - hanging plants, landscaping, banners, etc. If you were to add those to a lot of brutalist buildings it would spiff them up greatly......

HOW amusing!

I think the Brutalists and the Modernists were making a philosophical statement. I'm sure they'd disapprove of your tinkering suggestions.

In my country a few of the extreme Brutal examples have been painted in pastel colours or the foyers have tizzied-up with faux marble and glass veneers.

 

[Críostóir]

HOW amusing!

I think the Brutalists and the Modernists were making a philosophical statement. I'm sure they'd disapprove of your tinkering suggestions.

In my country a few of the extreme Brutal examples have been painted in pastel colours or the foyers have tizzied-up with faux marble and glass veneers.

The more the Brutalists would hate it, the better. Bastards deserve to spin in their useless graves.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^
But they would say it was the right thing to do in the conditions of the time in 1950s, 60s etc.

Most architects unfortunately insist they have a moral purpose in what they do. While I maintain most architectural movements are in reaction to the one before it.

 

[bankside]

The more the Brutalists would hate it, the better. Bastards deserve to spin in their useless graves.

Ahh. I see we've departed completely from the "everything we say in this thread is opinion" motif and moved on to the "fuck them all" motif. Well, with that, I move back to the "You're just objectively wrong" position. They did good work, subject to the same problems of any design era (imitation to the point of tedium; cut-backs in the name of 'prudent budgeting,' and the backlash that sets in whenever anyone does something just a wee bit innovative). A failure to appreciate what they achieved is nothing to do with the inherent quality of their work, which is exemplary.

 

[pat grimshaw]

^

I agree with what you say.

…prudent budgeting…

is also a big element in the decision-making and also respect for the surrounding area. My city's most popular architect would always design on the assumption that nothing existed on the blocks surrounding his creation. He'd prefer they'd all be demolished to allow a better view of his creation.

 

[Críostóir]

Ahh. I see we've departed completely from the "everything we say in this thread is opinion" motif and moved on to the "fuck them all" motif. Well, with that, I move back to the "You're just objectively wrong" position. They did good work, subject to the same problems of any design era (imitation to the point of tedium; cut-backs in the name of 'prudent budgeting,' and the backlash that sets in whenever anyone does something just a wee bit innovative). A failure to appreciate what they achieved is nothing to do with the inherent quality of their work, which is exemplary.

Hey, my hatred of Brutalists and Brutalism is just an opinion. And so is your statement that their work is exemplary.

 

[pat grimshaw]

… Brutalists and Brutalism …

I have to live with their work but I wasn't around when they were being built in the 60s etc. I wonder if they were happy with the 'Brutal' label.

 

[unloadonme]

This is the city library in Birmingham, England. It looks more like some sort of nuclear bunker to me. Happily, the city is building a replacement and this eyesore is only likely to last a few more years.