Public Spaces, Brutalism, Architecture, and Hostile Design

[Maddox]

...Brutalism escapes that by not even pretending plastic veneers and fake wood are pretty. Instead they club you over the head with contrast. "You like beauty? Well you better get your people to remember God otherwise your whole world will look like this!".

*I also enjoy the club over the head aesthetic of brutalism for this reminder.
View attachment 14350

I can't tell what the ceiling blocks are made from, but I'll assume they're concrete. If you replaced the concrete in this picture with wood, I think it would look a lot better. It has a very geometric, 70s design, but I can deal with something like this if the materials were different.

View attachment 14354

I too get a Logan's Run vibe from this one. Very dystopian.

 

[Laner]

I can't tell what the ceiling blocks are made from, but I'll assume they're concrete. If you replaced the concrete in this picture with wood, I think it would look a lot better. It has a very geometric, 70s design, but I can deal with something like this if the materials were different.



I too get a Logan's Run vibe from this one. Very dystopian.

I feel the need to stress again that Brutalism, particularly from Italy, is a response - or more like a distress signal - shot out of the minds of young men trying to warn the world of the impact communism (globalism) would play out if we abandoned God.

Modern architecture is 80% brutalism but with toxic veneers and glass.

 

[Maddox]

...Modern architecture is 80% brutalism but with toxic veneers and glass.

I'd argue that 80% is Internationalism (how perfect is that term since you see this everywhere).

The steel and glass architecture of today is often associated with the International Style, which emerged in the 1920s and became ubiquitous in the Western world by the 1970s. This style is characterized by clean lines, minimal ornamentation, and the use of mass-produced and lightweight materials, including steel and glass.

 

[Laner]

I'd argue that 80% is Internationalism (how perfect is that term since you see this everywhere).

The steel and glass architecture of today is often associated with the International Style, which emerged in the 1920s and became ubiquitous in the Western world by the 1970s. This style is characterized by clean lines, minimal ornamentation, and the use of mass-produced and lightweight materials, including steel and glass.

Exactly, the same people the Germans tossed out of Germany in the 30s and came to America where they squashed the Art Deco movement with their glass and steel International style. And we haven't looked back.

This International design is meant to make every International Hub into a replica of each other. You could fly from Sydney to Seattle to Toronto to Frankfurt to Dubai and not even really know you were in a different city. The people even are all the same shade of corporate.

 

[Maddox]

I found a new YouTuber who has an entire channel dedicated to the war on beauty.

 

[Maddox]

Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester 1964 compared to what it looks like now. Notice how all the flowerbeds have been removed, replaced by concrete.

 

[Joost]

I found a new YouTuber who has an entire channel dedicated to the war on beauty.

I wouldn't call it ugly by design. It is about efficiency. A box is the most efficient use of space.

A box can have balconies and glass for more illumination and a view:


I prefer over a French-style house:

 

[ed plrbs unm]

 

[starlight]

Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester 1964 compared to what it looks like now. Notice how all the flowerbeds have been removed, replaced by concrete.


View attachment 21630

View attachment 21631

Honestly, a lot of brutalist architecture just comes down to cost. It is much less expensive. That's why the flower gardens are removed because they need real gardeners instead of just "mowers."

What is really being said by this kind of architecture is, "We can't afford it." Otherwise, our buildings would be as ornate as ever. Or... that they expect them to be demolished at some point because they weren't built to last? My guess is probably a bit of both of those scenario's.

 

[Maddox]

Honestly, a lot of brutalist architecture just comes down to cost. It is much less expensive. That's why the flower gardens are removed because they need real gardeners instead of just "mowers."

What is really being said by this kind of architecture is, "We can't afford it." Otherwise, our buildings would be as ornate as ever. Or... that they expect them to be demolished at some point because they weren't built to last? My guess is probably a bit of both of those scenario's.

Yes, I'm sure cost was a benefit when they decided to remove the flower gardens, but I don't believe that is the driving cause. They could've planted trees in their place, but they didn't do that either. Brutalist designs like this are meant to be dehumanizing and depressing to the people who have to live there. It's a direct attack on the minds of the public.

 

[Laner]

Piccadilly Gardens in Manchester 1964 compared to what it looks like now. Notice how all the flowerbeds have been removed, replaced by concrete.


View attachment 21630

View attachment 21631

What that image doesn't show is the endless lounging of International drug dealers, pimps and layabouts who have taken this place over. Its essentially a 'no go' zone.

It might even be an old image itself. I don't even think the park has any green left.

 

[NSOE]

The Balfron Tower, a social housing project in London, designed by a Goldfinger, was used in a 90's music video, the building's ambience kinda vibes with the song's "melody".

Brutal London: Balfron Tower : Build Your Own Brutalist London - by Zupagrafika

Cut out and build your own Balfron Tower by Ernö Goldfinger. Brutal London by Zupagrafika allows you to reconstruct some of the most controversial edifices erected in London between the 1960s and 1970s.

www.zupagrafika.com

Yes, I'm sure cost was a benefit when they decided to remove the flower gardens, but I don't believe that is the driving cause. They could've planted trees in their place, but they didn't do that either.

Trees too, cost more than grass in upkeep. A social-democratic, bureaucratic welfare state has little money to spend on architectural intricacies.
In Buenos Aires or Prague, the beautiful Belle Epoque buildings were built by private money, yet government buildings, even old asylums- in the US in particular- from that time are pleasing to the eye. Industrial workers' dwellings were always dreary.


Speaking of. The 'Le Corbusier' feel in Manchester:

 

[starlight]

Yes, I'm sure cost was a benefit when they decided to remove the flower gardens, but I don't believe that is the driving cause. They could've planted trees in their place, but they didn't do that either. Brutalist designs like this are meant to be dehumanizing and depressing to the people who have to live there. It's a direct attack on the minds of the public.

A long time ago, I read an article (can't remember what it was titled) regarding shade trees for parks and that cities started removing trees to prevent loitering and homeless sleeping in the shade. The idea is to make the parks just uncomfortable enough that only the people going for the proper purpose will use them.

 

[RedLagoon]

View attachment 21640

You could argue that McDonald's itself is one of the pillars of the destruction of western society.

 

[ed plrbs unm]

You could argue that McDonald's itself is one of the pillars of the destruction of western society.

Perhaps. I don't see it as instrumental in the destruction, I just see it as getting swept along with the tide of destruction. 1975 McDonald's was a fun place to take the family where the kids could play and the food wasn't chemically-adulterated seed oil slop. That all changed around the same time as it changed for everything else.

 

[Let God Arise]

 

[Batman]

I was about to make a thread on this because I remember this in the old RvF. A lot of people on the right poo-poo the left-leaning tendency to talk about walkable cities, but I think they're 100% correct about it. Walkable cities are how cities have ALWAYS been designed. People don't realize what American cities used to look like before WW2. Just go search for pictures of our cities in the early 20th or late 19th century and you'll be amazed at how much more vibrant, well-designed, and human they look.

The soulless, boring, and flat out hostile design of our streets and architecture is impossible to unsee once you know. The suburbs are the most miserable place in existence. They are full of single family homes with ZERO commercial buildings mixed in. It's not uncommon for people to have to get in their car and drive somewhere to be able to WALK outside. This is just one example. I could write a whole disseration on this. It drives me crazy. Another thing that's more immediately apparently is how building architecture has become increasingly oppressive and soulless. Newer shops, especially restaurants, have this hyper modernized look to them that looks like a hospital or mental ward, sterile, cold, and lifeless.

Here's a couple videos on the subject. The second one is from a channel that is admiteddly leftist, but he almost never brings up sociopolitical issues, only the issues that plague modern urban design. The first video is one you've probably seen but I think it's one of the best presentations ever made on this issue and it is probably enough to "red pill" most people on the subject if they have an open mind and keen observation to detail.