askchapo

When you combine it with plants it's cool as shit. The Barbican district of London:

For me, it's a case-by-case thing. This KFC? Dope as hell. Cybertruck? Looks like shit.

Visually it can be nice if it isn't the only thing around anywhere. Juxtaposition of brutalist architecture and nature is imo very very appealing.

But I have a hunch it is a wasteful type of architecture. Don't need a building that "sturdy" unless you are trying to shrug off an army or a hurricane, not at the fried chicken shack

Brutalism can look absolutely amazing when paired with plants, and stands pretty decently on its own. Brutalism also does great when next to other architecture so it has a chance to stand out.

Concrete is a material where small mistakes can cause lasting damage. Heavy use of concrete in hot climates requires a ton of air conditioning. In cold climates, small mistakes lead to a lot of cracks which makes heating hard. Old Soviet brutalist architecture had a lot of teeny tiny mistakes in the concrete which makes them difficult to live in and expensive to heat and cool.

Brutalism is peak when it's done with actual care for aesthetics. Concrete can be poured into all sorts of interesting shapes and designs, and with added colour or plants you can get some really interesting building designs

But a lot of brutalism is just Block (tm) which obviously doesn't really work out

If the colonel had an official headquarters where he conducts operations from, that would be it.

I have lived a big part of my life in Soviet style concrete apartment buildings (khrushchevka) that are brutal architecture inspired afaik. Essentially various kinds of concrete blocks. When they are in the middle of a lot of greenery, trees and parks and the area is a bit older, they are pretty much what a suburb is understood as where I live. If they are kept well and maintained I think they are very cool.

I hate it. I understand it's occasional necessity (the US needs some commie blocks last century) but I strongly dislike it as an aesthetic. Cities should be beautiful to look at and be in, and brutalism is neither of those things.

It's cool and good, especially with a lot of natural greenery added. Shouldn't be the only style though, and the op pic is dog shit, capitalism ruins everything.

I hate it. I know that’s an unpopular opinion here but whatever. Also I’ve seen all the “brutalism done right” examples people trot out when I express this opinion and they still suck.

This is brutal

This is not brutal

It can be very good and it can also be pretty bad.

This building looks like how I imagine Fort Knox will after it’s privatized. Col Sanders presents the “Kentucky Fried Chicken Buillon” depository

Horrible when evil commies do it, wonderful and innovative and novel when capitalists copy it wholesale.

As far as evil buildings go it looks pretty evil

I like the aesthetics, but it's boring if it's the only thing. Also, that shit will get way too hot way too fast in summer, put a lot of trees everywhere and we can talk about having brutalist buildings. My gold standard for urbanism is the public universities in Brazil, there are a lot of trees, buildings are mostly well planned, they are entirely walkable, it's like a degree or two colder inside the campus, it's crazy.

There's the eastern bloc brutalism, but how about the kind of concrete constructions found in Brazil e.g. Niemeyer?

This is like 1989's version of the future and it rules. Everything should look like Back to the Future 2.

very fitting in the grand scheme of captialism

I love it. Not all Brutalist buildings are winners, but that’s the case for every architecture style; and when it’s done well it’s some of the most beautiful stuff in the world to me.

Not for me

its good

Tabarnak! I hate that photo

Wish we could get some brutalist design on this god damn website. Square off those corners, admin.

KFC (Kreatively Formed Concrete)