This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I was introduced to
Brutalism for the first time when I was working as an assistant chaplain at St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center in Chicago. The building has been described as a "giant concrete air conditioner". It struck me as pretty funny that a hospital would be built in a brutalist style!
Jschroe
Home Office Building history? Anyone? - KeithTyler 20:56, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a WP convention on sorting lists of buildings, but I'm going by the following arbitrary rules:
- KeithTyler 22:51, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)#
Another for gallery
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?
Under Gateshead carpark.
~andy
My best online research suggested (though not definitively) that Wes Corgan was the designer of the Rees Carillon. However, the webmaster of the Rees Carillon page, Karel Keldermans, responded that the architect's name was Fred Turley. - [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 17:43, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Could disputes like this come down to architectural practice vs. project architect? FrFintonStack 11:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that I revisit this, it seems WP:NOR would invalidate the Turley assertion, since I got it from email. (Grr, grr, and grr. Doesn't pay to do any real legwork around here anymore.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to mention Private Eye's architecture column "Nooks and Corners", which began life as "Nooks and Corners of the New Barbarism", with "new barbarism" clearly intended as a reference to "new brutalism". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Is London's Barbican [2] considered brutalist? And if not, how does it differ? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
How about the Arndale in Manchester (the 1972-79 Wilson & Womersley part, not the recent additions)? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
How about Seattle's Freeway Park? [4], [5] (Sorry I keep coming up with these one by one.)
I think it's time to pare down the list of buildings to a list of *notable* buildings. I'm not sure how to determine notability though. I'd probably include for sure:
Probably also any building with its own article dealing with its architecture.
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The list has been growing again. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I added St. Peter's which, while it doesn't have its own article, is an incredibly important building. FrFintonStack 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The list is getting silly now; people seem to be adding every brutalist building they've heard of, including ones with no wikipedia page or with no photos on the page, or without even artictect or date contributions. Could we restrict the list to buildings of international significance? I don't have time at the minute, but will probably prune the list next week unless someone does it before then or if anyone has any objections. FrFintonStack 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Could we try and make sure that there is consitency when giving the locations of various structures. To give locations such as Norfolk, UK and then Cardross, Scotland seems rather silly. All of those that are located in the United Kingdom should be categorised as such or, if it is preferred, to be referred to as such and such, England and such as such Scotland and so on. hedpeguyuk 09:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone ever touched upon the similarity between "Brutalism" & the word "brutal" (or "brute"), either explicitly pointing this out or alluding to it with a pun? This is so obvious that I'd be surprised if I were the first to point this out. (And until I read the article, I assumed that this is where the name came from.) -- llywrch 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Like you say, it's obvious. I'm sure it occurs to virtually everyone, and I don't really think it's worth pointing out. FrFintonStack 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, in fact for a while, I thought the name was derived from the appearance of the buildings, and that it was called so by critics. Eddy1701 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(no, not seperate data and program memory) There's a great deal of architecture on the campus of Harvard University that is generally considered to be in the Brutalist school: The Holyoke Center, Mather House, the Leverett House towers, William James Hall, Canaday Hall on Harvard Yard, possibly Peabody Terrace... they were all built during the 70's, during the Brutalist heyday. Not sure how/if this information should be incorporated... -- Clay Collier 10:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm no architecture student, but isn't Trent University in Canada a really stong example of brutalist architecture? I'm pretty sure the architect was Ron Thom, and there is a book about Trent's architecture ot there somewhere too
The List of notable brutalist structures in this article lists the Cameron offices as having been demolished in 2002. Having driven past then within the last fortnight I can assure you that they haven't been - at least not yet. I beleive that the buildings are/were being (progressively?) decomissioned, but haven't seen any demolition work yet. I will remove the "demolished" reference in the article, but if anybody has any further detail, they might want to update the listing further. Adz 06:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I question the usefulness of the Arcaid link. Nice site, but in three minutes I located only one image of a brutalist building. Perhaps a deep link to somewhere in this site would be relevant, if someone can supply one. Otherwise, I think it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Recently the attribution for Boston City Hall was changed from I.M. Pei to Kallmann and McKinnell. Granted, the text above the notable buildings section says "architect". Typically I would think to equate "architect" with "designer", but it seems this is not always the case. Regardless, it seems to me that the style of a building is determined based on the design, and therefore whoever designed the building should get the credit for its position as an example of a style. How should this be addressed? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the Geisel library as being in the brustalist style - it strikes me more as international or postmodern Jgassens 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Added: Also it is only featured in the opening statement because it is American, where as the text states that this form of architecture developed elsewhere. Surely an image of Unité d'Habitation or another European building would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.119.2 ( talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add this page to the History of Western Architecture series? I would, but I'm not sure how. 86.1.199.36 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right. It had had International Style which prompted my request, but that seems to have been removed now. FrFintonStack 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that the style was subconsciously based on the austere German gun turrets left littered along beaches after the second world war."
This needs to be referenced. I heard it suggested in a documentary called 'Gerry Built' (boom boom!) about German architecture in the Nazi period, but can't remember any details beyond that. Certainly, some German gun position in northern France look remarkably like elements of Denys Lasdun's Royal National Theatre. I'd be grateful if anyone had anyone more info on this, and could referencce the claim appropriately. 86.0.203.120 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article currenly makes reference to "abject irregularities". I could imagine someone thinking this, but that it seems very odd to use such a pejorative term without attribution. Perhaps it was written by someone trying to use a fancy word he or she did not understand? If this is an implicit quotation, could someone please clarify who is being implicitly quoted? - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I assume (though it is nowhere mentioned in the article) that 'Brutalism' was originally (and still is) a derogatory term of abuse directed at this style of architecture. If so, who first coined the phrase? Colin4C 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Though Le Corbusier is mentioned, the role that Le Corbusier - and Pierre Jeanneret in particular in Chandigarh - played is sadly down played. I also do not think that Habitat 76 is 'classic' brutalism. Brosi 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I took several more pictures of Kane Hall. As you can see, most of it is covered in brick. Only the side facing onto Red Square is raw concrete, though the forms are basically brutalist.
I'll try to get some photos some time of the more brutalist buildings on the campus (which includes some dorms, the Schmitz Hall admin building, the Gould Hall architecture building, and Condon Hall, which used to house the law school). - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I finally photographed the truly brutalist buildings on the campus: MacMahon and Haggett Halls, both dormitories. - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure brutalism requires concrete. Certainly the "cheap" brutalism of Corbusier and Goldfinger etc. did, and concrete's neutral color and consistent texture helps bring the attention to the building's form, but I think you can get the same brutalistic design without the same materials. Moreover, IMO some sources will slander any concrete building as "brutalist" just because they don't like concrete. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mardus 12:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, I can't back up that claim. That's why I dropped a question here rather than move/edit the article. I suppose we can leave
Brutalist architecture as it is, but think the stub
Neo brutalism should be merged into it. While we're at it:
Brutalism redirects to
Brutalist architecture, but, as far as I know, brutalism is specific to architecture, so the article might very well be moved back to
Brutalism.
/
Mats Halldin (
talk) 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If I can weigh in here: Here and there, some uncautious writers have made an association between Butterfield and Brutalism, but made AFTER Brutalism had already been established. Certainly Butterfield never thought of his style as Brutalism and this word should not be applied to him and has no credibility in a architectural historical sense. So lets not get sidetracked here and get people confused. Brosi 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This section is a horrible read. Any chance of trimming it down to one or two noteworthy examples in the text, and then perhaps creating a list or something for the dozens of others? As it is, you end up with a situation that looks as if every American architecture student has added something from their campus without citing a reference that confirms the building is truly Brutalist or not. If anything, the benchmark for including ANY buildings in this article SHOULD be a verifiable, 3rd party source like an architectural textbook. After all, I can think of lots of buildings that look like Brutalist architecture to me, but they really? Might they be Modernist, Art Deco, or some other more or less similar style? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur. I moved the Oberlin College Mudd Library note from the international paragraph to this one, since Oberlin is in Ohio. YES, the paragraph needs more organized examples, which will allow for more information, yet also more understanding and less disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.41.10 ( talk) 08:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Also agree. We need clarification, and perhaps a separate list of Brutalist architecture structures.
Which of these examples from Orlando Florida are Brutalist Architecture? Architecture is not exact, but it would be nice if there were some basic guidelines for understanding, for those of us who aren't even architecture students.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2dmGk2_KBbw/RsjrTUVw5aI/AAAAAAAAAMg/9iuLCr2NJgQ/DSC00872.JPG
http://www.designbybarb.com/OPL.JPG
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/2944144123_fafe23d124.jpg —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.189.253.43 (
talk) 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Article seems incomplete without some discussion of this controversy. It may be the most famous critique ever leveled against brutalism, or "awful modern architecture" or whatever. Priceyeah ( talk) 10:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon trying to find a source for Prince Charles' "Luftwaffe" quote, I believe that he was not specifically expressing displeasure with brutalism per se, but with modern architecture in general and the area surrounding St. Paul's. Please note the reference provided in the article and this article from the NY Times published on Dec. 6, 1987:
The Prince told his audience at a black-tie dinner Tuesday night that architects, developers and planners had done more damage to London than Hitler's bombing raids during World War II. You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe - when it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble, Prince Charles said. We did that. The focus of his esthetic assault was the area surrounding the church where he was married, St. Paul's Cathedral.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D81F3FF935A35751C1A961948260
Is the development around St. Paul's Cathedral to which he was referring in the Brutalist style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.27.50 ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Northern Kentucky University has an award winning brutalist styled building I have tried to add this to the article but it was removed. How come?-- 74.138.83.10 ( talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that many of the photographs are of buildings that are not particularly notible and neither representative nor fine examples of the style. I would suggest it needs images of Unite d'Habitation, St. Peter's Seminary, Trellick Tower, Southbank Centre (and/or Royal National Theatre), the Barbican Estate, a Luder building (the Tricorn Centre or Gateshead Multi-story Carpark), Habitat 67, a Basil Spence building and at least one Smithsons building. A lot of these previously featured on the page only to be replaced by buildings of inferior fame and historical stature. As is stands, there isn't a single image of a building by either the Smithsons or Le Corbusier, the originators of the style.
Correspondingly, I'd suggest the removal of the University of Illinois, University of Delft, Ryerson University Library, Barco Law Building, University of Waterloo, Science Lectures Theatre at Canterbury University (which doesn't even look brutalist in my book), York University, and the Leeds International Pool. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Campus is certainly notable enough to remain, but the photo is of poor quality and does not represent the building well. FrFintonStack ( talk) 06:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There isn't an image of Unite d'Habitation on Wikipedia, purportedly because there is no freedom of panorama in French law. However, wouldn't US law apply here? FrFintonStack ( talk) 22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish someone would add a photograph of the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago. Some images are here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1661753 75.34.183.91 ( talk) 00:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly well-intentioned and adds useful material, but it is also very POV, in my opinion, and removed valuable material as well. Overall, the new article is worse than the old one. The editor has a single idea of what he thinks the word "brutalism" means and removes or revises anything that doesn't fit it. The fact is, the word "brutalism" is used in different ways by different people. The editor clearly wishes the word wasn't in currency as the description of a style, rather than an approach to building, but a neutral encyclopedia article needs to describe the various things that are generally meant when people say "brutalism" or "brutalist", rather than just one "true" or "original" brutalism that one particular editor favors. And in fact, the most common meaning today is the stylistic one: buildings with lots of "raw" exposed concrete in a late-modernist style with Le Corbusier's late works in concrete as the starting point. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go through the entire article in detail and try to integrate all of the usable material from the old article with the usable material from the new one. Others' thoughts? I'll admit it's a difficult tangle to sort out. SethTisue ( talk) 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that the edits under discussion completely removed any reference to Le Corbusier. It is totally absurd for a neutral encyclopedia article on "brutalism" to not even mention Le Corbusier! SethTisue ( talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering the entire campus of Rochester Institute of Technology is designed in the brutalist style, can it be included in some way to the college campuses section. Benrr101 ( talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled by "The British architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut, or "raw concrete", a phrase used by Le Corbusier to describe the poured board-marked concrete with which he constructed many of his post-World War II buildings" and then goes on to refer to Banham's seminal book, citing a source link which no longer functions ("This requested article does not exist").
However, Banham's book does discuss the origin of the phrase. He makes it clear (p10) that it was not coined by the Smithsons, but was first widely used ABOUT their work, and that they happily accepted its validity in print in 1953 (Architectural Design 12/1953) - Banham traces the expression's informal use back to 1950. Where does that leave the widely-asserted origin in the "béton brut" of Le Corbusier? Who first asserted that connection? Is it real, or a convenient retrospective assumption, and a post-hoc attempt to distance "Brutalism" from the connotations of "brutality"?
I don't know, and this is not my field. This part of the article needs some more expert input. Davidships ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know either who first made the connection to 'béton brut', but Banham recognises it in 'The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?'. "As has been said, Hunstanton School was finally published in a situation in which the words 'The New Brutalism' were already circulating and had acquired some depth of meaning through things said and done, over and above the widely recognised connection with 'beton brut'. The phrase still 'belonged' to the Smithsons, however, …" (page 41)
Regarding the original question, I understand that it is not entirely clear what Asplund meant when he first used 'Brutalist'. In England however it was first used polemically to mean 'Modern Architecture of the more pure forms' (Banham) as the Smithsons had created with their Hunstanton School. What made the term stick to the Smithsons is the fact that Peter was nick named 'Brutus' by his fellow students. (Banham, p.10) -- Turboføhn™ ( talk) 23:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Would this image be appropriate to the article? — goethean ॐ 23:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's correct to show a photo of the Dublin City Council (Civic Offices) between all those university buildings!? But if it makes sense in this article, the following picture of that building would perhaps be better because it shows the whole building:
-- YvonneM ( talk) 19:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:DARWINCOLL.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
Calling the Phillips Exeter Academy "Brutalist" needs a reliable source. The outside is brick, and the inside with it's circles is rather slender than brutalist. It uses raw concrete, yes, but that's it. IMO it doesn't fit here. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The entire West Bank campus of the University of Minnesota is designed in the brutalist style. I felt this fit the criteria for an edit to this section, but it was removed (possibly for length?) Please help me understand the rationale for this edit, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and want to get better as a contributor - thanks! Prguy72 ( talk) 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Brutalist buildings are very common on college and university campuses. Even ensembles of multiple buildings in the style are common. They're so common that if the section listed all of them, it would go on for a long, long time. That's what we have List of brutalist structures for. So before adding Minnesota to the "campus" section, I'd want some evidence that it is really one of only a *handful* of campuses *worldwide* that truly merit spotlighting in the article. SethTisue ( talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm a fan of rather than an expert in Brutalism, so I'm seeking opinions here on something I have a problem with - the section:
Juxtaposition with Historic Buildings
Brutalist appears at its most brutal when placed in a historic context such as next to a listed building or within a conservation area. Here the contrast in scale and detail epitomises why the style obtained its name. Excellent examples exist in historic university cities such as Edinburgh, Scotland.
The link is being made between "brutalism" and "brutal" - this isn't the origin of the word. Also seems very UK-centric, bit of original research maybe? Jinnythesquinny ( talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
In the lede it says "The English architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut", but in the History section it says "the term 'brutalism' was originally coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth in Uppsala, designed in 1949 by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm. He originally used the Swedish-language term nybrutalism (new brutalism), which was picked up by visiting English architects." Were the Smithsons the visiting architects, or is this a different theory of origin? Regardless, it should be clarified to look less self-contradictory. kissekatt ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
First time contribution so please forgive errors of style.
Regarding the opening summary, it would be clearer to explain in the *first* paragraph that the brutalism is a style of architecture for which many of its exemplar buildings would not, at the time, have been described as brutalist by the architect. If the category is applied after the fact, then the introductory paragraph can lead more naturally into a second paragraph describing the political motivations for stripping big institutional projects down to basic building materials and sturdy forms. A paragraph in the body of the text might describe how the politics and sentiment of the now-called brutalist architects was informed by a dissatisfaction with the whimsical utopian structures of their predecessors in the 30s-40s.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.65.144 ( talk) 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I am responding to a message telling me that my alteration of some of the details on this page have been removed and suggesting that I respond on the 'talk' page. Whilst I understand that the replacing of Theodore Dalrymple with Anthony Daniels is a matter of personal taste (though I do have issues with a factual article attributing something to a character rather than the person playing that character), the removal of 'reactionary' does, I think, reduce one's understanding of Daniels' position on Brutalist architecture. His identity as a social and cultural commentator is defined by a resistance towards all form of socialist expression. I think that understanding this position when discussing his perspective on Brutalist architecture, with its associations with socialist utopianism, can enhance a reader's understanding of this topic.
Although obviously it's your decision.
I apologise if I'm not using this talk page properly, I've not used one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.34.21 ( talk) 00:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
As you can see by the title, I've been wondering if the Mobil gas stations designed by Eliot Noyes are consider brutalist architecture. I'm also considering this entrance to the Lexington Avenue – 63rd Street Subway Station and maybe some others along the 63rd Street Lines. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective, no. It lacks many of the characteristics of brutalism, especially the use of concrete, stone or other similar materials. It have the typical massive look. I'm not sure what kind of school I'd put it in, but not Brutalism.
Possums (
talk) 12:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Alley Theatre, in Houston, TX, is one of the most brutal Burtalist buildings I've ever been to (and yes, I know butalism doesn't come from brutal, but the Alley is definitely brutal looking as well as being Brutalist!). The Alley article links here, and references its Brutalist deisgn in the text already. can we add this to the gallery? 12.11.127.253 ( talk) 21:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I was introduced to
Brutalism for the first time when I was working as an assistant chaplain at St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center in Chicago. The building has been described as a "giant concrete air conditioner". It struck me as pretty funny that a hospital would be built in a brutalist style!
Jschroe
Home Office Building history? Anyone? - KeithTyler 20:56, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if there is a WP convention on sorting lists of buildings, but I'm going by the following arbitrary rules:
- KeithTyler 22:51, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)#
Another for gallery
http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?
Under Gateshead carpark.
~andy
My best online research suggested (though not definitively) that Wes Corgan was the designer of the Rees Carillon. However, the webmaster of the Rees Carillon page, Karel Keldermans, responded that the architect's name was Fred Turley. - [[User:KeithTyler| Keith D. Tyler [ flame]] 17:43, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)
Could disputes like this come down to architectural practice vs. project architect? FrFintonStack 11:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
Now that I revisit this, it seems WP:NOR would invalidate the Turley assertion, since I got it from email. (Grr, grr, and grr. Doesn't pay to do any real legwork around here anymore.) - Keith D. Tyler ¶ ( AMA) 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You might want to mention Private Eye's architecture column "Nooks and Corners", which began life as "Nooks and Corners of the New Barbarism", with "new barbarism" clearly intended as a reference to "new brutalism". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
Is London's Barbican [2] considered brutalist? And if not, how does it differ? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
How about the Arndale in Manchester (the 1972-79 Wilson & Womersley part, not the recent additions)? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
How about Seattle's Freeway Park? [4], [5] (Sorry I keep coming up with these one by one.)
I think it's time to pare down the list of buildings to a list of *notable* buildings. I'm not sure how to determine notability though. I'd probably include for sure:
Probably also any building with its own article dealing with its architecture.
- Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The list has been growing again. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I added St. Peter's which, while it doesn't have its own article, is an incredibly important building. FrFintonStack 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
The list is getting silly now; people seem to be adding every brutalist building they've heard of, including ones with no wikipedia page or with no photos on the page, or without even artictect or date contributions. Could we restrict the list to buildings of international significance? I don't have time at the minute, but will probably prune the list next week unless someone does it before then or if anyone has any objections. FrFintonStack 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Could we try and make sure that there is consitency when giving the locations of various structures. To give locations such as Norfolk, UK and then Cardross, Scotland seems rather silly. All of those that are located in the United Kingdom should be categorised as such or, if it is preferred, to be referred to as such and such, England and such as such Scotland and so on. hedpeguyuk 09:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone ever touched upon the similarity between "Brutalism" & the word "brutal" (or "brute"), either explicitly pointing this out or alluding to it with a pun? This is so obvious that I'd be surprised if I were the first to point this out. (And until I read the article, I assumed that this is where the name came from.) -- llywrch 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Like you say, it's obvious. I'm sure it occurs to virtually everyone, and I don't really think it's worth pointing out. FrFintonStack 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, in fact for a while, I thought the name was derived from the appearance of the buildings, and that it was called so by critics. Eddy1701 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
(no, not seperate data and program memory) There's a great deal of architecture on the campus of Harvard University that is generally considered to be in the Brutalist school: The Holyoke Center, Mather House, the Leverett House towers, William James Hall, Canaday Hall on Harvard Yard, possibly Peabody Terrace... they were all built during the 70's, during the Brutalist heyday. Not sure how/if this information should be incorporated... -- Clay Collier 10:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm no architecture student, but isn't Trent University in Canada a really stong example of brutalist architecture? I'm pretty sure the architect was Ron Thom, and there is a book about Trent's architecture ot there somewhere too
The List of notable brutalist structures in this article lists the Cameron offices as having been demolished in 2002. Having driven past then within the last fortnight I can assure you that they haven't been - at least not yet. I beleive that the buildings are/were being (progressively?) decomissioned, but haven't seen any demolition work yet. I will remove the "demolished" reference in the article, but if anybody has any further detail, they might want to update the listing further. Adz 06:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I question the usefulness of the Arcaid link. Nice site, but in three minutes I located only one image of a brutalist building. Perhaps a deep link to somewhere in this site would be relevant, if someone can supply one. Otherwise, I think it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Recently the attribution for Boston City Hall was changed from I.M. Pei to Kallmann and McKinnell. Granted, the text above the notable buildings section says "architect". Typically I would think to equate "architect" with "designer", but it seems this is not always the case. Regardless, it seems to me that the style of a building is determined based on the design, and therefore whoever designed the building should get the credit for its position as an example of a style. How should this be addressed? - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't see the Geisel library as being in the brustalist style - it strikes me more as international or postmodern Jgassens 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Added: Also it is only featured in the opening statement because it is American, where as the text states that this form of architecture developed elsewhere. Surely an image of Unité d'Habitation or another European building would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.119.2 ( talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add this page to the History of Western Architecture series? I would, but I'm not sure how. 86.1.199.36 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You're probably right. It had had International Style which prompted my request, but that seems to have been removed now. FrFintonStack 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
"It has been suggested that the style was subconsciously based on the austere German gun turrets left littered along beaches after the second world war."
This needs to be referenced. I heard it suggested in a documentary called 'Gerry Built' (boom boom!) about German architecture in the Nazi period, but can't remember any details beyond that. Certainly, some German gun position in northern France look remarkably like elements of Denys Lasdun's Royal National Theatre. I'd be grateful if anyone had anyone more info on this, and could referencce the claim appropriately. 86.0.203.120 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
The article currenly makes reference to "abject irregularities". I could imagine someone thinking this, but that it seems very odd to use such a pejorative term without attribution. Perhaps it was written by someone trying to use a fancy word he or she did not understand? If this is an implicit quotation, could someone please clarify who is being implicitly quoted? - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I assume (though it is nowhere mentioned in the article) that 'Brutalism' was originally (and still is) a derogatory term of abuse directed at this style of architecture. If so, who first coined the phrase? Colin4C 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Though Le Corbusier is mentioned, the role that Le Corbusier - and Pierre Jeanneret in particular in Chandigarh - played is sadly down played. I also do not think that Habitat 76 is 'classic' brutalism. Brosi 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I took several more pictures of Kane Hall. As you can see, most of it is covered in brick. Only the side facing onto Red Square is raw concrete, though the forms are basically brutalist.
I'll try to get some photos some time of the more brutalist buildings on the campus (which includes some dorms, the Schmitz Hall admin building, the Gould Hall architecture building, and Condon Hall, which used to house the law school). - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I finally photographed the truly brutalist buildings on the campus: MacMahon and Haggett Halls, both dormitories. - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure brutalism requires concrete. Certainly the "cheap" brutalism of Corbusier and Goldfinger etc. did, and concrete's neutral color and consistent texture helps bring the attention to the building's form, but I think you can get the same brutalistic design without the same materials. Moreover, IMO some sources will slander any concrete building as "brutalist" just because they don't like concrete. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- Mardus 12:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, no, I can't back up that claim. That's why I dropped a question here rather than move/edit the article. I suppose we can leave
Brutalist architecture as it is, but think the stub
Neo brutalism should be merged into it. While we're at it:
Brutalism redirects to
Brutalist architecture, but, as far as I know, brutalism is specific to architecture, so the article might very well be moved back to
Brutalism.
/
Mats Halldin (
talk) 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If I can weigh in here: Here and there, some uncautious writers have made an association between Butterfield and Brutalism, but made AFTER Brutalism had already been established. Certainly Butterfield never thought of his style as Brutalism and this word should not be applied to him and has no credibility in a architectural historical sense. So lets not get sidetracked here and get people confused. Brosi 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
This section is a horrible read. Any chance of trimming it down to one or two noteworthy examples in the text, and then perhaps creating a list or something for the dozens of others? As it is, you end up with a situation that looks as if every American architecture student has added something from their campus without citing a reference that confirms the building is truly Brutalist or not. If anything, the benchmark for including ANY buildings in this article SHOULD be a verifiable, 3rd party source like an architectural textbook. After all, I can think of lots of buildings that look like Brutalist architecture to me, but they really? Might they be Modernist, Art Deco, or some other more or less similar style? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Concur. I moved the Oberlin College Mudd Library note from the international paragraph to this one, since Oberlin is in Ohio. YES, the paragraph needs more organized examples, which will allow for more information, yet also more understanding and less disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.41.10 ( talk) 08:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Also agree. We need clarification, and perhaps a separate list of Brutalist architecture structures.
Which of these examples from Orlando Florida are Brutalist Architecture? Architecture is not exact, but it would be nice if there were some basic guidelines for understanding, for those of us who aren't even architecture students.
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2dmGk2_KBbw/RsjrTUVw5aI/AAAAAAAAAMg/9iuLCr2NJgQ/DSC00872.JPG
http://www.designbybarb.com/OPL.JPG
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/2944144123_fafe23d124.jpg —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
72.189.253.43 (
talk) 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Article seems incomplete without some discussion of this controversy. It may be the most famous critique ever leveled against brutalism, or "awful modern architecture" or whatever. Priceyeah ( talk) 10:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Upon trying to find a source for Prince Charles' "Luftwaffe" quote, I believe that he was not specifically expressing displeasure with brutalism per se, but with modern architecture in general and the area surrounding St. Paul's. Please note the reference provided in the article and this article from the NY Times published on Dec. 6, 1987:
The Prince told his audience at a black-tie dinner Tuesday night that architects, developers and planners had done more damage to London than Hitler's bombing raids during World War II. You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe - when it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble, Prince Charles said. We did that. The focus of his esthetic assault was the area surrounding the church where he was married, St. Paul's Cathedral.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D81F3FF935A35751C1A961948260
Is the development around St. Paul's Cathedral to which he was referring in the Brutalist style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.27.50 ( talk) 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Northern Kentucky University has an award winning brutalist styled building I have tried to add this to the article but it was removed. How come?-- 74.138.83.10 ( talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that many of the photographs are of buildings that are not particularly notible and neither representative nor fine examples of the style. I would suggest it needs images of Unite d'Habitation, St. Peter's Seminary, Trellick Tower, Southbank Centre (and/or Royal National Theatre), the Barbican Estate, a Luder building (the Tricorn Centre or Gateshead Multi-story Carpark), Habitat 67, a Basil Spence building and at least one Smithsons building. A lot of these previously featured on the page only to be replaced by buildings of inferior fame and historical stature. As is stands, there isn't a single image of a building by either the Smithsons or Le Corbusier, the originators of the style.
Correspondingly, I'd suggest the removal of the University of Illinois, University of Delft, Ryerson University Library, Barco Law Building, University of Waterloo, Science Lectures Theatre at Canterbury University (which doesn't even look brutalist in my book), York University, and the Leeds International Pool. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Campus is certainly notable enough to remain, but the photo is of poor quality and does not represent the building well. FrFintonStack ( talk) 06:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
There isn't an image of Unite d'Habitation on Wikipedia, purportedly because there is no freedom of panorama in French law. However, wouldn't US law apply here? FrFintonStack ( talk) 22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish someone would add a photograph of the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago. Some images are here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1661753 75.34.183.91 ( talk) 00:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
It is clearly well-intentioned and adds useful material, but it is also very POV, in my opinion, and removed valuable material as well. Overall, the new article is worse than the old one. The editor has a single idea of what he thinks the word "brutalism" means and removes or revises anything that doesn't fit it. The fact is, the word "brutalism" is used in different ways by different people. The editor clearly wishes the word wasn't in currency as the description of a style, rather than an approach to building, but a neutral encyclopedia article needs to describe the various things that are generally meant when people say "brutalism" or "brutalist", rather than just one "true" or "original" brutalism that one particular editor favors. And in fact, the most common meaning today is the stylistic one: buildings with lots of "raw" exposed concrete in a late-modernist style with Le Corbusier's late works in concrete as the starting point. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go through the entire article in detail and try to integrate all of the usable material from the old article with the usable material from the new one. Others' thoughts? I'll admit it's a difficult tangle to sort out. SethTisue ( talk) 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed that the edits under discussion completely removed any reference to Le Corbusier. It is totally absurd for a neutral encyclopedia article on "brutalism" to not even mention Le Corbusier! SethTisue ( talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Considering the entire campus of Rochester Institute of Technology is designed in the brutalist style, can it be included in some way to the college campuses section. Benrr101 ( talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I am puzzled by "The British architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut, or "raw concrete", a phrase used by Le Corbusier to describe the poured board-marked concrete with which he constructed many of his post-World War II buildings" and then goes on to refer to Banham's seminal book, citing a source link which no longer functions ("This requested article does not exist").
However, Banham's book does discuss the origin of the phrase. He makes it clear (p10) that it was not coined by the Smithsons, but was first widely used ABOUT their work, and that they happily accepted its validity in print in 1953 (Architectural Design 12/1953) - Banham traces the expression's informal use back to 1950. Where does that leave the widely-asserted origin in the "béton brut" of Le Corbusier? Who first asserted that connection? Is it real, or a convenient retrospective assumption, and a post-hoc attempt to distance "Brutalism" from the connotations of "brutality"?
I don't know, and this is not my field. This part of the article needs some more expert input. Davidships ( talk) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know either who first made the connection to 'béton brut', but Banham recognises it in 'The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?'. "As has been said, Hunstanton School was finally published in a situation in which the words 'The New Brutalism' were already circulating and had acquired some depth of meaning through things said and done, over and above the widely recognised connection with 'beton brut'. The phrase still 'belonged' to the Smithsons, however, …" (page 41)
Regarding the original question, I understand that it is not entirely clear what Asplund meant when he first used 'Brutalist'. In England however it was first used polemically to mean 'Modern Architecture of the more pure forms' (Banham) as the Smithsons had created with their Hunstanton School. What made the term stick to the Smithsons is the fact that Peter was nick named 'Brutus' by his fellow students. (Banham, p.10) -- Turboføhn™ ( talk) 23:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Would this image be appropriate to the article? — goethean ॐ 23:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's correct to show a photo of the Dublin City Council (Civic Offices) between all those university buildings!? But if it makes sense in this article, the following picture of that building would perhaps be better because it shows the whole building:
-- YvonneM ( talk) 19:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:DARWINCOLL.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC) |
Calling the Phillips Exeter Academy "Brutalist" needs a reliable source. The outside is brick, and the inside with it's circles is rather slender than brutalist. It uses raw concrete, yes, but that's it. IMO it doesn't fit here. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The entire West Bank campus of the University of Minnesota is designed in the brutalist style. I felt this fit the criteria for an edit to this section, but it was removed (possibly for length?) Please help me understand the rationale for this edit, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and want to get better as a contributor - thanks! Prguy72 ( talk) 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Brutalist buildings are very common on college and university campuses. Even ensembles of multiple buildings in the style are common. They're so common that if the section listed all of them, it would go on for a long, long time. That's what we have List of brutalist structures for. So before adding Minnesota to the "campus" section, I'd want some evidence that it is really one of only a *handful* of campuses *worldwide* that truly merit spotlighting in the article. SethTisue ( talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm a fan of rather than an expert in Brutalism, so I'm seeking opinions here on something I have a problem with - the section:
Juxtaposition with Historic Buildings
Brutalist appears at its most brutal when placed in a historic context such as next to a listed building or within a conservation area. Here the contrast in scale and detail epitomises why the style obtained its name. Excellent examples exist in historic university cities such as Edinburgh, Scotland.
The link is being made between "brutalism" and "brutal" - this isn't the origin of the word. Also seems very UK-centric, bit of original research maybe? Jinnythesquinny ( talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
In the lede it says "The English architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut", but in the History section it says "the term 'brutalism' was originally coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth in Uppsala, designed in 1949 by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm. He originally used the Swedish-language term nybrutalism (new brutalism), which was picked up by visiting English architects." Were the Smithsons the visiting architects, or is this a different theory of origin? Regardless, it should be clarified to look less self-contradictory. kissekatt ( talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
First time contribution so please forgive errors of style.
Regarding the opening summary, it would be clearer to explain in the *first* paragraph that the brutalism is a style of architecture for which many of its exemplar buildings would not, at the time, have been described as brutalist by the architect. If the category is applied after the fact, then the introductory paragraph can lead more naturally into a second paragraph describing the political motivations for stripping big institutional projects down to basic building materials and sturdy forms. A paragraph in the body of the text might describe how the politics and sentiment of the now-called brutalist architects was informed by a dissatisfaction with the whimsical utopian structures of their predecessors in the 30s-40s.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.65.144 ( talk) 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I am responding to a message telling me that my alteration of some of the details on this page have been removed and suggesting that I respond on the 'talk' page. Whilst I understand that the replacing of Theodore Dalrymple with Anthony Daniels is a matter of personal taste (though I do have issues with a factual article attributing something to a character rather than the person playing that character), the removal of 'reactionary' does, I think, reduce one's understanding of Daniels' position on Brutalist architecture. His identity as a social and cultural commentator is defined by a resistance towards all form of socialist expression. I think that understanding this position when discussing his perspective on Brutalist architecture, with its associations with socialist utopianism, can enhance a reader's understanding of this topic.
Although obviously it's your decision.
I apologise if I'm not using this talk page properly, I've not used one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.34.21 ( talk) 00:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
As you can see by the title, I've been wondering if the Mobil gas stations designed by Eliot Noyes are consider brutalist architecture. I'm also considering this entrance to the Lexington Avenue – 63rd Street Subway Station and maybe some others along the 63rd Street Lines. --------- User:DanTD ( talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
From my perspective, no. It lacks many of the characteristics of brutalism, especially the use of concrete, stone or other similar materials. It have the typical massive look. I'm not sure what kind of school I'd put it in, but not Brutalism.
Possums (
talk) 12:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
The Alley Theatre, in Houston, TX, is one of the most brutal Burtalist buildings I've ever been to (and yes, I know butalism doesn't come from brutal, but the Alley is definitely brutal looking as well as being Brutalist!). The Alley article links here, and references its Brutalist deisgn in the text already. can we add this to the gallery? 12.11.127.253 ( talk) 21:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)