The term originates from the French word for "raw" in the term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material béton brut (raw concrete).[1][2] British architectural critic Reyner Banham adapted the term into "brutalism" (originally "New Brutalism") to identify the emerging style.
The very first paragraph of the article is completely wrong:
it was a term of abuse for the work of architects whose buildings confronted their users — brutalized them — with hulking, piled-up slabs of raw, unfinished concrete. These same architects, centered on the British couple Alison and Peter Smithson, enthusiastically took up Brutalism as the name for their movement with a kind of pride, as if to say: That’s right, we are brutal. We do want to shove your face in cement.
This is depressing to think about this revisionist history. This was apart of the modern architectural movement of the 20th century, not some sort of audacious idea of an your face art movement.
I'm not seeing the conflict. Brutalism is an english term, embraced by British architects who were fully aware of what it suggested. If they didn't want the term for their brand of architecture to imply brutality, they would have gone with something different. Concretism or Rawchitecture or something, I don't know.
I feel this claim, that the term derives from "raw", seems super suspicious. It is repeated very often, but I've never seen any scholarly analysis of where the word comes from. If you look at the Wikipedia talk page, you'll find people pointing out that that etymology doesn't seem to make any sense: the oldest attestations of the word is from a Swedish (rather than French) writer talking about "nybrutalism", which got borrowed into English as "New Brutalism". And the building which was described as "nybrutalism" was made of brick, not concrete.
If you can find any information about how Le Corbusier coined the term and when, it would be great if you could add it to the Wiki page!
He wrote a letter in 1962 to a fellow architect in which he said:
"Beton brut was born at the Unité d'Habitation at Marseilles where there were 80 contractors and such a massacre of concrete that one simply could not dream of making useful transitions by means of grouting. I decided: let us leave all that brute. I called it 'beton brute' [bare concrete]. The English immediately jumped on the piece and treated me (Ronchamp and Monastery of La Tourette) as 'Brutal' -- beton brutal -- all things considered, the brute is Corbu. They called that 'the new brutality'. My friends and admirers take me for the brute of brutal concrete!" [1][2]
Based on that, it sounds like the original inspiration was indeed "raw", but it was almost immediately tagged as "brutal" in English, and its admirers knowingly embraced that term. So perhaps the article oversimplifies things, but the broad strokes seem to be correct.
And yet I find brutalist architecture to be, if not brutal, at least dehumanizing. It's a place that is cold, inhuman (in the sense of being a place where humans don't really fit). Forcing people to live in that environment may not be brutal, but it's kind of cruel, or at least uncaring.
It always makes me think Brave New World in the way it subordinates a sense of humanity to a specific design, and also in the way that design isn't as clever or durable as those who promulgate it imagine it will be.
Not wrong, just confusing two different movements. My understanding is:
I don't think it's clear where Brutalism first came from, or why Le Corbusier coined it. His style was something different again - detailed, sometimes whimsical, but in concrete.
Whether it started as "The New Brutalism" from the Reynar Banham essay or not, it was soon just "Brutalism". That was the architectural style: angles, textures, shadow, imposing mass. A plainer variation without texture or detail. Just ugly slab sided concrete. Both variations co-existed, not just cost-cutting, so probably architect preference too.
It didn't brutalise the users, or shove your face quite in it... yet.
"New Brutalism" was the urban planning movement that Alison and Peter Smithson created after falling out with CIAM. They might have named it more helpfully! "Streets in the Sky" etc. To them it was an impersonal socialist utopia. People were irrelevant. Much of the bad rep of Brutalism is here. The Smithsons seem to have been as good at architecture as they were urban planning (terrible). It's said they led the simpler, plainer variation, but their own buildings had many inconsistent variations from either Brutalist style, they made frequent use of brick. The odd fancy style at variance to everything. Heating and leaking issues were common from new.
Wikipedia conflates Brutalism and New Brutalism too.
We might remember the style less harshly, but it also coincided with significant economy - especially in Europe with post-war rebuilding, and the horrible fad of New Brutalism planning.
The reality was often living in an inconvenient slum in the sky, with poor access, little thought, and nowhere to sit, or let the kids out. They failed quickly as communities and places to live. They often needed repair before first use.
The better examples (most of those we kept) are mostly public buildings, had enough design to be interesting, but worked as buildings. The urban planning of New Brutalism is usually markedly absent. The worst, mostly now blown up, were some combination of the urban planning and cost cutting combined. Usually combined with the simpler slab sided brutalism. No consideration of humans, or life. Often built so cheaply as to need repair immediately. Brutalism of style, urban planning or brutality of life rapidly became indistinguishable.
We arrived at Brutalism the insult. The end of New Brutalism in the UK came with the building of Hulme Crescent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hulme_Crescents (It's an entertaining read - how to get everything wrong.)
Opened in 72, failing in 73, and the final nail of New Brutalism socialist utopias in the sky. Just three years after opening, 96.3% of residents wanted to leave. Later the estate had the highest suicide rate in the UK.
The architects had also given Manchester the universally reviled Arndale Centre, so far over budget it almost bankrupted the city. Numerous refurbishments were done to try and make it work. It improved, but never really worked before the IRA demolished it. No one killed, but hundreds injured.
The rebuild was dramatically better, though took some years to complete. How the architects got a second job in the city has never been explained.
There would still be the odd building with Brutalist achitecture, the urban planning movement was done.
The early Brutalism of texture, shadow, angles is vastly more interesting than modern curtain walled retail and commercial, with a cliche barn clock, or cutesy feature, and cost as first, last, everything.
Source: I'm old enough to remember them still building this shoddy junk, and making promises about brutalist buildings, Hulme Crescents, shopping centres etc. Fortunately never had to live in one.
"First and foremost, the Crescents’ system-built engineering was a disaster. The blocks were erected too quickly and their construction inadequately supervised. Reinforcing bolts and ties were missing; problems of condensation emerged from poor insulation and ventilation; vermin spread rapidly through the estate’s ducting.
Whose fault was that? Local authorities – pressured by central government and driven by their own ambitions to build big and build fast – can certainly take some blame. The Government’s National Building Agency, which promoted industrialised building but failed to provide any effective oversight, is also responsible.
But arguably it is the cartel of construction companies which dominated system-built housing in the sixties and early seventies which is most culpable. The construction industry sold products unfit for purpose and failed to meet even their own standards of quality control."
Right. I blame many, but I absolutely include the architects. The architects had very much been a part of the movement, and their previous work included Cumbernauld. New Brutalism was very much the cargo cult of the day. Wasn't just the architects, it was most people involved.
That site doesn't show the post war town plan for Hulme. Whilst modern it was still a community with amenities, church and I think swimming pool. The first phases of building were typical 60s semis and maisonettes with 4 stories. Amenities central to the marketing and town plan didn't get built at all, the end result bore no resemblance to the plans. That wasn't unique - it was increasingly common for the amenities to never arrive, or arrive as after thought long after people moved in.
That wasn't unique to New Brutalism of course - even Wythenshawe an estate that's far more traditional had issues with inadequate amenities.
There was certainly govt pressure, it was one of the reasons my father left local govt in '74 whilst central gov was reorganising for more centralisation. The bidding war for more housing by all post war govts meant less and less was being spent per family unit, and as you point out they got ever more industrial. For the record father was not town planning. :p
The design, and specifically streets in the sky, and the very limited number of stairways wasn't shoddy construction. Neither was having to walk 1/4 mile to get from your door to three floors below. Those were designed in. Those weren't uncommon features. Many developments with the new town planning suffered from appalling access, or lots of walking to get a hundred yards. It was a feature not a bug.
There's other factors too, like in an age of Police still walking the beat, they never patrolled the decks. They just walked through the middle at ground level. So much for streets in the sky. The Mancunian Way just added to the isolation, yet it would almost be the millenium before a footbridge was built.
Fortunately, whoever bore most blame, The Crescents saw off the last of the town planning cargo cult.
While I don't disagree with any of your analysis, I also believe that somewhere along the line the architects and engineers that design a building have to take into consideration that a building also has to be actually built. It's not enough to simply design something that can be built and can be shown to be structurally sound if built to your exact specs. If you know that your design will be built by lowest bidder, unskilled labor and contractors with no experience in more advanced building technique, then you probably shouldn't design a building that needs to built with very exacting tolerances using cutting edge materials and techniques.
Cutting edge materials and techniques? Please, these were cheap housing projects for low-income families. In fact the biggest cheap housing project of its time. And fail to see any fault in the architects, and I worked as architect for several decades.
OK, it really doesn't matter what tech you're using. You should be asking for affirmative consent if you're storing data that can affect privacy. Of course, _everything_ affects privacy these days, so even the exemptions for shopping cart data are kind of silly.
Cookies is a pretty household term - but distinct from local storage, so I wonder if sites are using that as a loophole.
i _was_ thinking about taking a browser fingerprint and using that to prevent people from reloading the article / trying a second time. So basically, either you read /grok it or you just don't get to share it -- but that felt like a little much.
Perhaps. I think the "prevent people from sharing until they know what they are sharing" is the most important part to me. Had a fun time hacking on it today though. Just a little Friday joke.
There is nothing 'brutal' or 'brutalizing' about brutalist architecture. I know I'm being a bit pedantic, but words matter. Right?