I'd just be worried to walk under it incase someone pulls a string and it drops, trapping me!![]()
(The best way to catch birds, rats & possums btw
)
Gestalt,
Debate is good...and I'd love to get into one with you about brutalist form and function, but if I don't get back to work, my career will be directed away from architecture due to being sacked!
Just a quick note to leave on (can't leave it alone, can I?)...Modernism is a design that is ageless, and keeps reinventing itself, however the brutalist era (mid 1950s to 1960ish) was an experiment that didn't focus enough on function, otherwise it would have maintained its form through the following decades. Agreed that many screwed it up focusing on form and aesthetics and not enough on function and serviceability...Maybe we're due for a comeback, this time getting it right?![]()
The majority of the brutalist designs & buildings I've seen/studied have, as you said "failed the function test" and are of poor design, this could've been attributed a doco I saw years ago slamming the era...I guess I continued to view brutalism in that way instead of with an open mind. Because of your input Gestalt, you've got me interested in looking further into the brutalist fundamentals through a different perspective, thanks for that!![]()
I'll be taking note from now on with an open mind...but...pleeeease don't get me started on project 'volume-built' homes!?!
(I'm assuming we'll agree on that one?
)
(probably killed the original thread topic...sincere apologies sausage
)
brutalism is a design philosophy.
the ambition was to design utopian urban developments, "streets in the sky".
these socialist doctrines also required that the designs be cheap to construct and easily replicated so they could be rolled out to the masses. affordable housing and public spaces were to be the main benefactors to this doctrine.
in the uk, it was used as a response to the failing social conditions of the time with the welfare state ideals becoming more favorable as economic turmoil occurred.
unemployment was on the rise, crime was increasing and the government decided to undertake cheap/fast construction of public buildings and affordable housing complexes which happened to suit the brutalist philosophies.
what unfolded was a number of poorly constructed imitations with no functionality that ended up causing suburbs to die. as they appeared to look like brutalist buildings the movement as a whole was hated.
even the well designed examples of brutalism were starting to have their philosophy questioned. although the functional aspects of their design worked they came under fire as social conditions collapsed. in contemporary times the simple tasks of adding proper security and building maintenance programs have seen previously abandoned brutalist buildings take on new life and become very favorable places to live.
here is a quote i found - "The style had a huge and now generally lamented impact across England and in cities across the United States, in large part because the followers weren't as gifted as the progenitors."
www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/portfolio/azrul/html/prac1.html
www.nyc-architecture.com/UES/UES112.htm
www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/frequently-asked-questions/looking-open2net (click on the buildings tab and read the description of the buildings. it clearly outlines the issues and solutions. )
www.ontarioarchitecture.com/Brutalist.htm
blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2007/06/breuer_brutalism_a_history.html
Wow, the 8 gazillionth post by windsurfers on kiters wearing boardies. Who do you think really has the problem here? Build a bridge and get over it boys and girls.
Red thumb away!