B R U T A L I S M

Can we have an Paul DickBlast approved brutalism thread?

I'll start:

Attached: 1.png (469x139, 21.7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-unrepeatable-architectural-moment-of-yugoslavias-concrete-utopia
dezeen.com/2018/08/10/futuro-house-prefab-housing-phineas-harper-opinion/
web.archive.org/web/20040723215615/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/tecsite/ConcreteCity/Concrete.html
google.com/maps/place/Malcolm Moos Health Sciences Tower/@44.9730505,-93.2340025,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x52b32d3d5fe388d7:0x29692ddbbadc09b5!8m2!3d44.9730467!4d-93.2318138
weburbanist.com/2015/01/13/town-in-1-tower-14-floor-highrise-houses-whole-alaskan-hamlet/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

NPC

...

I still don't know what the fuck brutalism is.

it's cool ass architecture

Ignore this poster.
It's not just architecture. It's a lifestyle.

It's an aberration, even porkies make better stuff

Well its nice to know he has good taste.

Why do ☭TANKIE☭s love ugly shit ? Its like they exist only to pervert nature.

Brutalism is supremely elitist.

fuck off fascist.

Brutalism isn't just a position taken in the field of architecture, it is more than anything an ethical position taken inside architecture. The brutalist building expresses two things:
1) the inhabitant's/citizen's relationship to the social whole;
2) the very same's relationship to nature.

While several reactionary architectural tendencies have been spawned under the Cold War era's Western bloc, one thing unites them all, structurally speaking: their relationship is first and foremost to capital, and optionally, in hindsight, they define this relation as a relation to "nature" or to the "natural environment".

"Nature" in architecture takes the same position in architecture as it takes in social ontology: a post factum posited something, to which one tries to "get back to", "relate to". When a reactionary talks about >muh_natural_hierachies, and so on, his conception of nature mirrors that of "organic architecture": this posited "good old times" to which we relate and retroactively (ideologically) create.

Brutalism has a completely different starting point. It posits humanity as a kind of aberration of nature itself; not just nature, mind you, but space, and sociability itself. Its inaugurating statement is thus: "we conquer, we rule!"

Apart from its relation to "nature" (the ideologeme par excellence) it bears a message about the Social as such: an egalitarian recapturing of – what so far all architectural tendencies has conceived of as – "harmony".

There is no harmony. There is no optimal social substance. What architecture can do, at best, is to serve our interactions, to express them, to facilitate and serve them. Its ethics stems from these statements.

If you are not ready to embrace brutalism you are on the side of reaction without understanding all of this.

Attached: 2.jpg (1000x667 236.99 KB, 196.68K)

Anything but, brainlet.

Daily reminder that under the influence of the hegemonic capitalist aesthetic you percieve as 'ugly' everything that is true and valid.

Brutalist buildings covered in greenery actually look very nice.

Garden Brutalism is the future to look forward to.

Attached: alexandra road estate.jpg (1269x548, 150.36K)

A man of culture.

Presenting the 'alternative':
1: organic architecture;
2: romantic architecture;
3: capitalist-realist architecture.

Enjoy your reactionary/romantic/realist fantasies and how they manifest themselves in structuring our social reality.

Attached: 3.jpg (1024x768 4.81 MB, 143.36K)

WE RELEGATE THE SPACE "NATURE" MAY WISH TO RECLAIM!

Attached: BuSfn2_IAAE2wxq.jpg (1024x650 381.59 KB, 189.06K)

Attached: ujtemplom-100.jpg (740x497 54 KB, 68.95K)

Attached: national-theatre-from-the-northeast-photo-by-philip-vile.jpg (460x276 291.31 KB, 30.2K)

is this quake?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (785x400, 792.66K)

meant for

False dilemma. Belle epoque, art nouveau, neogoic, neoclassical and stalinist gothic were all perfectly cromulent.

That's more naked stone rather than naked concrete.

Brutalism is basic shit for pretentious young fucking white males. It's the only architectural style you can identify, and knowing it makes you feel smart.

...

Attached: Y59XXLn.gif (261x238, 1.99M)

...

...

literally the opposite:

That's the point, it's all just bourg architects out-woke-ing each other, yet never is the prole ever asked: do you want this?

Lol xD

I am enamored with this post.

0/10

We need our homes to all be brutalist structures in order to withstand the oncoming of Category 9 Binary Hypercanes.

Attached: 0wXXEZkvnzhNR7ATIGqUZQ/icons-of-brutalist-architecture_FB.jpg (512x288 864.87 KB, 10.71M)

Attached: noEroS8.png (571x512, 61.73K)

none of that would work, especially not residentially.

he needs to view humans and families as separate volatile explosives ready to go off if they are within too close distance of their neighbours / lack privacy from their neighbours / too close to their workplace where their manager bitches at them all day

I have no idea what pretentious bullshit you're trying to say, but I love brutalism anyways

Attached: Dg5Xf3zW4AIpCS7.jpg orig.jpg (1280x1057, 261.15K)

>>>Zig Forums

Something east euros get buttblasted over.

I want to marry this post.

Brutalist architecture but with influence from neoclassical column layout when?

I'm not the biggest brutalism fan but your taste is absolute garbage. Are nouveau is even tackier than organic somehow and the other two are just slightly better. Consider ending yourself.

brutalism architecture 1

Attached: communication-center-skopje-macedonia.jpg (640x427 283.64 KB, 79.21K)

brutalism architecture 2

Attached: 6743.jpg (1280x720 151.96 KB, 110.13K)

brutalism architecture 3

Attached: da9ljxsomvf11.jpg (1024x683 618.35 KB, 205.28K)

Socialist realism > brutalism

brutalism architecture 4

Attached: AAZmvtq.jpg (1280x857 185.16 KB, 149.63K)

brutalism architecture 5

Attached: jbehv591obu11.jpg (1313x1828 104.95 KB, 407.69K)

brutalism architecture 6

Attached: QNKASDEZREXmdzK9__l7E3yyL3reLpctDTFL82XHugY.jpg (1920x1316 1.07 MB, 251.88K)

Can somebody please explain to me in a non condescending manner, why yall are jerking off an architectural style? I mean, I'm not opposed to brutalism, but I'd find living in a city dominated by that style depressing.

newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-unrepeatable-architectural-moment-of-yugoslavias-concrete-utopia

holy fug, those are nice

tbh I still don't get it. So it's got "material honesty" in not trying to conceal what it's made of, and can understand appreciating the architecture as monument to the socialist culture from which it arose, but there's lots of people in this thread talking about it like it's "the end of architecture".

Attached: image.jpg (639x360, 94.56K)

Nothing wrong with either. Just as production needs to be subjected to need, architecture will need to be subjected to the appetites of workers. Whether that's glass towers, raw concrete, or theme-park-esque romanticism.
But the problem with cities today isn't architecture, it's urban design. Which primarily reflects the interests of the ruling class: A focus on cars and glass spires for the bourgeoisie, while workers are preferably kept out of sight.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with decadence. Read Bataille.

Yeah I find aesthetic Fetishism pretty counterproductive. The goal, if you're interested in the function of aesthetics in politics (which if you're a good reader of Lenin, Lukacs, and the Frankfurts, you really should be) the goal should be toward articulating a new leftist aesthetic, instead of mere replication.

Is it wrong if I love Art Deco?

...

you really should base your opinions on architecture more on experience with actual real life buildings than on pictures of them.
I like brutalism because most of the brutalist buildings ive been inside were really pleasant to walk around in because of how they were designed, and they looked monumental and cool in person. but, pictures can only hint at either of those things.

For me, it is this library I used to go to as a kid. Also I like how strong they feel/look, it is like when you are in a building of that style you are in an indesructable fortress. Beats some flimsy stucco caked, wooden, American house, that provides no significant privacy.

Brutalism is a remnant of state capitalism.
In my mind a socialist house would be an austere house made out of simple materials.
You know a house made for use value instead of commodity production.
I think soc dem countries represents more of the true vision of what socialism was supposed to be like.

Attached: shutterstock_85238716.jpg (3323x2215, 4.74M)

...

The goal of socialism in advanced capitalist economies should be to slow down production not ramp it.

Attached: oh-my-yes.jpg (200x181, 29.27K)

Brutalism is a spook

Stop using that word if you don't know what it means.

Bet you also get buttmad at the Stalinist "turn to conservatism" in art.

all garbage tbh

dezeen.com/2018/08/10/futuro-house-prefab-housing-phineas-harper-opinion/

web.archive.org/web/20040723215615/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/tecsite/ConcreteCity/Concrete.html

Attached: 1538640870.gif (392x400, 1.34M)

I actually hoped that howard whould be in this thread.

To me there's something incredibly comforting about it. I feel safe and comfy inside one of those steel and concrete fortresses.

ITT: formalists

kill yourself please individual houses are a waste of space and very non-communist.

Brutalism is the very expression of doing the sci-fi utopia in real life. A plan for relaxation place designed for communal use, like a swimming pool with all the proper interior design of a people's palace of relaxation.


Think about it this way. Heat flow outside of the building is given by the heat conductance of insulation and the total surface area.

Small houses have large ratio of surface area to number of inhabitants. Big buildings have small ratio. Underground buildings have the best ratio when it comes to cold climates and walls exposed to the below zero temperatures.

There is a reason why serfs in feudal russia were living in underground houses called Zemlyanka. When it is -20 degrees celsius outside, it is better to have your side walls exposed to +5 degrees of stable temperature underground.

When it comes to optimization for heating and air-conditioning, large buildings are more efficient from this point of view. Also the labour intensity could be less per an inhabitant. But that needs more thorough investigation.


The goal is to make the most efficient social production. Capitalism has a lot of waste due to inherent commanding of the capital and the production for exchange. Production for use guarantees the best efficiency of material production.

With the ongoing deindustrialization, what you say is already happening in capitalism. But this can be seen as removing the annoying obstacle of the C in the transformation chain M -> C - >M', where the wall street bankers would like to see M -> M' in function.

Attached: 0718a26f9767f64ef6959841e2ab60189ebd18cc6fff31eada984f71164a50cf.jpg (1200x675 2.16 MB, 211.4K)

huh the last pic is from my university. it's a large hospital

it used to be the most dominating structure in the area by far but a huge glass tower is being built behind it currently

google.com/maps/place/Malcolm Moos Health Sciences Tower/@44.9730505,-93.2340025,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x52b32d3d5fe388d7:0x29692ddbbadc09b5!8m2!3d44.9730467!4d-93.2318138

Concrete is simple as fuck.

The Roman fucking Empire used concrete. If there's anything wrong with it, it's the permanence. Socialist housing would ideally be adaptable, modular even. Not in the sense of pods for each person, but in the ability to add features organically to buildings as easily as possible. Concrete has pretty huge advantages that override that though, including durability and heat retention. You can even 3D-print a concrete building with the right mix (very thick).

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1426x802, 2.77M)

This. Concrete > wood every time. The only issue is that it apparently releases shittons of CO2 though.

G R E E N B R U T A L I S M

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1920x960 556.08 KB, 2.68M)

You fix that by COVERING IT IN PLANTS

Is this what we mean when we talk about dialectics

Yes please.
Got more?

I can't help but think of all the fucking bugs in the offices though

wtf I love brutalism now

Brutalism is the opposite of efficient, it came out of the same movement that scarred our cities with motorways. In being an expression of a "sci-fi utopia" it is just that: irreality. It takes no account of heating costs, long term maintenance, walkable neighborhoods, and so on. It's telling that the pictures with "green brutalism" are literally just shit covered in foliage, in stead of cities engineered to be sustainable.

Attached: b43f9827e856f54301c6514a958b5aaa844c3712ba8d3328fc9707e41b2c139c.png (432x1234, 641.41K)

lovely

these buildings are all fucking ugly

Attached: DbdN3kwWAAAoNE3.jpg orig.jpg (480x480, 43.16K)

Brutalism is bad solely because concrete requires maintenance to not look like "festering post apocalyptic hellhole"

Mileage may vary on gray cubes, I don't like them but mostly it's because in college you could tell from a mile away the brutalist buildings because there were either rust drippies from rebar that got exposed from weathering or blackened grime from the faces that nobody can be bothered to powerwash

imagine pretending to like the aesthetics of something because of an ideology you attach to it like some sort of reactionary rube

I feel like a tiny bit of shear force would cause that to topple pretty quickly

I don't know a whole lot about concrete but I'm an electrician and I know concrete pours usually involve giant gas powered vibrators (seriously it's an industrial dildo and it looks like a proton pack) to mix up the concrete after it's poured.

This stuff really resonates with me. With the rise of capitalism, we have created ever more elaborate personal compartments. Everyone gets their little space separated from everyone else. We've lost track of the way streets and villages were themselves interconnected spaces people lived in.
When they got more wealthy, the Western working classes tried to emulate the image of the bourgeoisie. They didn't realize that that lifestyle was largely about signalling social status. Wealthy people don't have large self-contained houses because it's practical. It's an easy way to impress guests and feel important about yourself, but not a practical way to live your life.
Ideally, I'd like to people to live in small single-room apartments containing basic private necessities, surrounded by lots of common spaces providing luxuries and social activities. These common spaces should form small communities, and these communities should in turn be interconnected into a larger cityscape.
Doing this will be more efficient and social. Both are important considerations. Taking care of children, elderly and disabled people will be much easier. You simply have the community do it. If specialized care is needed you make sure someone qualified lives there. No one misses out on living a normal life.

This is because they rarely have actual contact with each other. You know your neighbor as this alien creature that lives next to you, and sometimes protrudes into your living space. When you have to deal with them personally, you will learn to appreciate them.
How about we just don't that?

It's actually a bit different from regular concrete. Effectively you'd want the layers to mix a bit and bond with each other. That pic is just a prototype demonstrating the concept.

I want to make comfy brutalist castles.

weburbanist.com/2015/01/13/town-in-1-tower-14-floor-highrise-houses-whole-alaskan-hamlet/

Attached: concrete 768786003.JPG (535x400, 68.3K)

no, u

dumpan some soviet brutalism/futurism

Attached: 2774f32d3773fda80185e54402e0686e--futuristic-architecture-building-architecture.jpg (694x700 130.62 KB, 94.94K)

Attached: 98690166f6afd7e159b0566f725991fc.jpg (609x858 1.15 MB, 143.35K)

Attached: 15435278345_b65cfb5009_b.jpg (4292x3079 114.49 KB, 1.24M)