Most of those buildings look like depressing concrete prisons, they look worse the older they get.
Bring on the wrecking ball.
Why are people so attached to buildings that are objectively fucking ugly.
Because a lot of those buildings are too costly to repair or bring up to standard or just generally beyond repair and frankly dangerous. If you want the country littered with uninhabitable historical relics then fine, but much better the land gets used for something useful.
This country is filling up with people at an alarming rate, we can’t afford to be hanging onto history if it’s taking up space and isn’t generating income for the economy.
The article and a small percentage of the Grauniad reader comments are quite depressing (but I’m glad there’s more pushback to it than I had originally guessed). I completely understand that beauty is subjective; for example, some people might look at the dissected corpse of an animal marinated in formaldehyde and unnaturally and forcibly shaped into a gruesome mockery of a bipedal humanoid and find that beautiful, but I think we need to be stronger in our beliefs that there is such a thing as generalised universal beauty, and the sort of people that find brutalist architecture beautiful probably have something quite seriously wrong with them (but their beliefs are still heckin’ valid!). Most people really do find older, soulful architecture beautiful and pleasing to the eye, and its presence calms the nerves whilst uplifting the general tone and area.
All of the examples brought up are emotionally, aesthetically and spiritually harmful to the majority of the population. They are metaphorical scars on the everyday psyche, and can do real damage to people’s mental health. Grim, oppressive, joy-sucking monstrosities that do nothing but remind normal people of just how psychotic a small minority of us can be.
I mean, if one of your greatest defences of the style is a fucking car park, perhaps it’s you that’s the problem? Edit: also a fucking car park used in one of the most soul-crushing and grim representations of working class Britain in film NOT directed by Mike Leigh? Really? That’s your dazzling defence of brutalism?
They are monstrosities. Glad to see concrete boxes get the axe.
Modernism is vile. It’s just being cheap, but dressed up as an architectural style.
It was a shame when they knocked down our beautiful old Victorian Gothic buildings, it will not be when we demolish the concrete monstrosities which took their place.
Its not desirable nor practical to save everything. There’s a reasonable selection of modernist listed buildings out there.
Basically we’re repeating the mistakes of the 50/60/70s when old Victorian buildings were demolished because “I don’t like this architectural style therefore these buildings must be removed”.
Many people who look at old buildings forget or don’t know that there is a good chance they’ve been cleaned/renovated in the past 50 years. Whereas concrete buildings haven’t so are bound to be looking a bit shabby.
There is a concrete monstrosity where I live that managed to get listed status. I can only assume by people who dont have to look at it on a daily basis.
Because most modernist and brutalist buildings look like dogshit. If it’s still got a practical purpose fine but these things shouldn’t be preserved beyond that.
Cos they are depressing as fuck to look at. Fucking hell the last thing you wanna be seeing everywhere when your life is shit is fucking boring plain concrete.
It’s a shame. People would be much less against Brutalist buildings if they hadn’t existed for 60 years of governments and councils refusing to maintain or wash them. So many windows on this era of buildings appear to be weeping, such is the buildup of staining just below the windowsill.
They look like dystopian nightmares, the horrible colour of the concrete is an eye sore. They’re always covered in dirt and not maintained, the shops and services that were supposed to support them have been bought up by chains.
Why do we insist on everything being grey, dirty concrete? On the continent they tend to slap some paint on and it always looks infinitely better.
Very sad we are losing these iconic buildings. They were designed to last centuries. It is not sustainable to keep knocking down and building new whenever fashions change just to placate the masses.
“Freedom House” was fucking grim and disused, maybe in the 50s it felt like the heart of Basildon but growing up there in the 2000s it was just a depressing reminder of how much of a shithole the town was. I think they’re building a cinema in its place.
A lot of “modernism” was thrown up with the smallest whim to aspect. It was emergency infrastructure for a booming population.
The sooner we do away with every piece of Brutalist architecture on this island, the better. There are so many towns and cities that could be lovely, except for these horrible, grey, miserable-looking concrete abominations.
Brutalism was a great break with the imperial past and now serves as a reminder of the post war sweeping away of tenements, new social housing and the class mobility that occured after WW2. Probably the last distinctive British architectural style, with glass and steel now being symbols of globalism and the receding civic state that is abandoning citizens to the private sector.
People complaining about poorly maintained tower blocks perhaps forget they represented a great improvement in the standard of housing for the working class compared to what came before.
Because they look ugly, depress everyone and facilitate crime.
“modernist heritage….”
The sort of bullshit that could only ever be uttered by someone who never had to live in the shit holes.
There were too many nice buildings being made in the past, which get protected status, so some time ago it was decided to go with the hideous modern architecture, so no new building would ever be considered for heritage status, making it easier to demolish in the future.
Some of them are nice buildings, but they are absolutely huge, without the upkeep to make them nice, and to modernise a lot of them costs 10s of millions, it would be nice to keep them, but they will end up like the Houses of Parliament that needs £6 billion+ to get them back up to spec. It’s not practical
Architects who designed them probably live miles away in victorian mansions or quaint country villages
The divide is pretty clear: people who study architecture at university “what a breathtakingly brave use of concrete, steel and glass”
Everyone who didn’t study architecture at university: “what a fucking eyesore. I wish we could have buildings made with the same craftsmanship that can be seen on everything built before Modernism”.
You can’t make money by *not* building buildings.
Well, actually you can. But it’s easier to knock em down and make new ones.
It’s almost always easier to tear down than to build up. That said:
I have great respect for the modern techniques of architecture, but they should generally be placed at the service of functionality, and seldom that of the architect’s whim to show off.
To the extent that aesthetics *are* a concern, which is perhaps hotly debated, I think it plain that modernist/brutalist displays have *strictly* limited suitability. They have some settings which suit them, and a small section of society which enjoys them (as distinct from not minding them), and that is that.
As much as ‘traditional’ architecture may seem passé to the architect, or redolent of an ‘old-fashioned’ outlook which ruffles the feathers of certain overly earnest ‘forward-thinking’ types, there is no doubt that the average punter enjoys seeing and dwelling in such buildings – considerably more than the roundly-derided ‘new builds with walls you can poke your finger through’ and ‘concrete carbuncles rotting before your eyes’ – and so, to the extent that such techniques can deliver on the brief for a building, why on Earth not employ them? It’s no good ‘designing buildings to last centuries’ if you can’t learn from the buildings we have that did.
Of course, the architect will not be able to be ‘brashly innovative’ and add the sort of competitive eclecticism to their ‘portfolio’ that their peers can grin at jealously, let alone come up with a new ‘school’ – but let them start on their own damn house if it means so much to them.
Modernism does not mean brutalism. Most people don’t have a problem with modern buildings but do find brutalist buildings ugly and depressing.
It’s worth keeping a small number of the most notable Brutalist buildings, but mostly just so people remember why we were so keen to demolish the rest.
Communists love ugliness. It’s a way of breaking the human spirit – to be surrounded by utterly depressing, hideous concrete monstrosities.
Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world who loves brutalist architecture. When well designed and maintained, it really is one of the most striking and beautiful styles we have. I grew up in a place full of brutalist architecture and all of the buildings and structures had their own unique character. I was devastated when the council bulldozed them all only to throw up the same copy-paste post-modernist shite that has made every British city a carbon copy of the next.
31 comments
Most of those buildings look like depressing concrete prisons, they look worse the older they get.
Bring on the wrecking ball.
Why are people so attached to buildings that are objectively fucking ugly.
Because a lot of those buildings are too costly to repair or bring up to standard or just generally beyond repair and frankly dangerous. If you want the country littered with uninhabitable historical relics then fine, but much better the land gets used for something useful.
This country is filling up with people at an alarming rate, we can’t afford to be hanging onto history if it’s taking up space and isn’t generating income for the economy.
The article and a small percentage of the Grauniad reader comments are quite depressing (but I’m glad there’s more pushback to it than I had originally guessed). I completely understand that beauty is subjective; for example, some people might look at the dissected corpse of an animal marinated in formaldehyde and unnaturally and forcibly shaped into a gruesome mockery of a bipedal humanoid and find that beautiful, but I think we need to be stronger in our beliefs that there is such a thing as generalised universal beauty, and the sort of people that find brutalist architecture beautiful probably have something quite seriously wrong with them (but their beliefs are still heckin’ valid!). Most people really do find older, soulful architecture beautiful and pleasing to the eye, and its presence calms the nerves whilst uplifting the general tone and area.
All of the examples brought up are emotionally, aesthetically and spiritually harmful to the majority of the population. They are metaphorical scars on the everyday psyche, and can do real damage to people’s mental health. Grim, oppressive, joy-sucking monstrosities that do nothing but remind normal people of just how psychotic a small minority of us can be.
I mean, if one of your greatest defences of the style is a fucking car park, perhaps it’s you that’s the problem? Edit: also a fucking car park used in one of the most soul-crushing and grim representations of working class Britain in film NOT directed by Mike Leigh? Really? That’s your dazzling defence of brutalism?
They are monstrosities. Glad to see concrete boxes get the axe.
Modernism is vile. It’s just being cheap, but dressed up as an architectural style.
It was a shame when they knocked down our beautiful old Victorian Gothic buildings, it will not be when we demolish the concrete monstrosities which took their place.
Its not desirable nor practical to save everything. There’s a reasonable selection of modernist listed buildings out there.
Basically we’re repeating the mistakes of the 50/60/70s when old Victorian buildings were demolished because “I don’t like this architectural style therefore these buildings must be removed”.
Many people who look at old buildings forget or don’t know that there is a good chance they’ve been cleaned/renovated in the past 50 years. Whereas concrete buildings haven’t so are bound to be looking a bit shabby.
There is a concrete monstrosity where I live that managed to get listed status. I can only assume by people who dont have to look at it on a daily basis.
Because most modernist and brutalist buildings look like dogshit. If it’s still got a practical purpose fine but these things shouldn’t be preserved beyond that.
Cos they are depressing as fuck to look at. Fucking hell the last thing you wanna be seeing everywhere when your life is shit is fucking boring plain concrete.
It’s a shame. People would be much less against Brutalist buildings if they hadn’t existed for 60 years of governments and councils refusing to maintain or wash them. So many windows on this era of buildings appear to be weeping, such is the buildup of staining just below the windowsill.
We did destroy The Tricorn, Portsmouth aka Pompey’s toilet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tricorn_Centre
They look like dystopian nightmares, the horrible colour of the concrete is an eye sore. They’re always covered in dirt and not maintained, the shops and services that were supposed to support them have been bought up by chains.
Why do we insist on everything being grey, dirty concrete? On the continent they tend to slap some paint on and it always looks infinitely better.
Very sad we are losing these iconic buildings. They were designed to last centuries. It is not sustainable to keep knocking down and building new whenever fashions change just to placate the masses.
“Freedom House” was fucking grim and disused, maybe in the 50s it felt like the heart of Basildon but growing up there in the 2000s it was just a depressing reminder of how much of a shithole the town was. I think they’re building a cinema in its place.
A lot of “modernism” was thrown up with the smallest whim to aspect. It was emergency infrastructure for a booming population.
The sooner we do away with every piece of Brutalist architecture on this island, the better. There are so many towns and cities that could be lovely, except for these horrible, grey, miserable-looking concrete abominations.
Brutalism was a great break with the imperial past and now serves as a reminder of the post war sweeping away of tenements, new social housing and the class mobility that occured after WW2. Probably the last distinctive British architectural style, with glass and steel now being symbols of globalism and the receding civic state that is abandoning citizens to the private sector.
People complaining about poorly maintained tower blocks perhaps forget they represented a great improvement in the standard of housing for the working class compared to what came before.
Because they look ugly, depress everyone and facilitate crime.
“modernist heritage….”
The sort of bullshit that could only ever be uttered by someone who never had to live in the shit holes.
There were too many nice buildings being made in the past, which get protected status, so some time ago it was decided to go with the hideous modern architecture, so no new building would ever be considered for heritage status, making it easier to demolish in the future.
Some of them are nice buildings, but they are absolutely huge, without the upkeep to make them nice, and to modernise a lot of them costs 10s of millions, it would be nice to keep them, but they will end up like the Houses of Parliament that needs £6 billion+ to get them back up to spec. It’s not practical
Architects who designed them probably live miles away in victorian mansions or quaint country villages
The divide is pretty clear: people who study architecture at university “what a breathtakingly brave use of concrete, steel and glass”
Everyone who didn’t study architecture at university: “what a fucking eyesore. I wish we could have buildings made with the same craftsmanship that can be seen on everything built before Modernism”.
You can’t make money by *not* building buildings.
Well, actually you can. But it’s easier to knock em down and make new ones.
It’s almost always easier to tear down than to build up. That said:
I have great respect for the modern techniques of architecture, but they should generally be placed at the service of functionality, and seldom that of the architect’s whim to show off.
To the extent that aesthetics *are* a concern, which is perhaps hotly debated, I think it plain that modernist/brutalist displays have *strictly* limited suitability. They have some settings which suit them, and a small section of society which enjoys them (as distinct from not minding them), and that is that.
As much as ‘traditional’ architecture may seem passé to the architect, or redolent of an ‘old-fashioned’ outlook which ruffles the feathers of certain overly earnest ‘forward-thinking’ types, there is no doubt that the average punter enjoys seeing and dwelling in such buildings – considerably more than the roundly-derided ‘new builds with walls you can poke your finger through’ and ‘concrete carbuncles rotting before your eyes’ – and so, to the extent that such techniques can deliver on the brief for a building, why on Earth not employ them? It’s no good ‘designing buildings to last centuries’ if you can’t learn from the buildings we have that did.
Of course, the architect will not be able to be ‘brashly innovative’ and add the sort of competitive eclecticism to their ‘portfolio’ that their peers can grin at jealously, let alone come up with a new ‘school’ – but let them start on their own damn house if it means so much to them.
Modernism does not mean brutalism. Most people don’t have a problem with modern buildings but do find brutalist buildings ugly and depressing.
It’s worth keeping a small number of the most notable Brutalist buildings, but mostly just so people remember why we were so keen to demolish the rest.
Communists love ugliness. It’s a way of breaking the human spirit – to be surrounded by utterly depressing, hideous concrete monstrosities.
Sometimes I feel like the only person in the world who loves brutalist architecture. When well designed and maintained, it really is one of the most striking and beautiful styles we have. I grew up in a place full of brutalist architecture and all of the buildings and structures had their own unique character. I was devastated when the council bulldozed them all only to throw up the same copy-paste post-modernist shite that has made every British city a carbon copy of the next.