Brutalism is awesome...

Brutalism is awesome. People don't think its awesome are predominantly Nazis who mistake Olive Garden for European architectural tradition.
Post your favorite example of brutalism.
Post brutalist buildings from your city.
discuss how /ourbuildings/ are being torn down.

Attached: download (4)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_concrete
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GB_KgcqUSXA
marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm
marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

i honestly don't care how buildings/houses look as long as they do their thing right, not a hater of artistic expresion, just wouldn't really push for it.

Brutalism isn't even "communist architecture". Both the movement and overwhelming majority brutalist buildings were made in the capitalist west. They are not /ourbuildings/ in any possible sense.

Exactly. Don't let nazis tear them down because of muh culture. They serve their function perfectly fine. We don't judge people solely on how the look on the outside. No we value them for their personality and skills. Brutalist buildings serve function and they emphasize the fact they are serving a function. They were built to last and we should let them last.


It probs began with the frenchman le corbusier so yeah it definitely was rooting the west quite firmly. But make no mistake, even the brutalist buildings in the west are /ourbuildings/. They were built predominately by municipalities with the goal being equalizing and utilitarian. They were built to reflect the idea that governments had a duty to serve the people and be responsibly. By building buildings that were utilitarian and functional they did just that. Another stable of brutalist archiecture is the social housing aspect. Social housing, which undoubtedly fulfills a societal role that is closer to socialism than it is capitalism. Habitat 67 for instance is social housing built in Canada. One of its goals was to provide each family with a terrace and garden. It does so in a creative and efficient way with its module system.

Attached: Habitat 67 - 4.jpeg (1199x648 147.49 KB, 187.1K)

The picture in the OP, top left, is the Druzhba Holiday Center Hall (1984) in Yalta, Ukraine.

Brutalism is unironically good and we should bring it back.

Bring.

It.

Back.

And Hawaii has a lot of interesting examples which look great with the greenery. A lot of this was because a rush of development in the 1960s when brutalism was popular. The Hawaiian Senate chamber is also very retrofuturist as is the state capitol building.

Attached: hawaii-state-capitol-exterior-56a3b8113df78cf7727edd91.jpg (900x675 136.51 KB, 411.21K)

Brutalist architecture should by utilitarian, aesthetically pleasing, and express an immense feeling of power, discipline, and structure. Nailing all three of these nets you a building which is both usable yet strikingly beautiful and imposing.

Attached: New-Hampshire-Phillips-Exeter-Academy-Library.jpg (1993x3000 458.07 KB, 522.81K)

Attached: 7-CCA.jpg (500x667 313.96 KB, 180.06K)

Can we at least give them more color?

Beijing has you covered. I also think brutalist buildings with a little bit of color like the third image here can do wonders, especially if its a bold, single color.

Attached: 2478699345_92eb69f79d.jpg (692x460 120.75 KB, 138.64K)

Sorry, meant for

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1160x516, 1009.42K)

that's a confused mess compared to brutalism

Not this thread again.
How many times do I have to explain to you guys how brutalism is literally the worst architectural style?

What would you prefer then, ugly and gay suburban architecture?

retard

Brute beton is not maintainable, it cannot be panted over, it crumbles and cannot be repaired without looking like shit, it stains and is porous, it grows moldy and mossy, it invites graffity which cannot be cleaned off, it retains piss and releases the smell until eternity.
It is impersonal and imposing, its angle are anti-human, not meant to serve its users but to project impersonality.
I could go on and on. Its objectively shit, even the prettiest brutalist structure will turn into a stained, cracked, ghetto-looking hunk of junk within 10 years.
We need architecture that serves humans, not architecture that serves as status or imposition.

bruitalism is ugly and depressing

Yeah, concrete is ugly, they should cover it in cladding.

Attached: _96506482_grenfell_new_g_976.jpg (976x549, 149.69K)

Stop being so intellectually dishonest you faggot. There are more options than "ugly brutalism" and "capitalist neglectance in an attempt to cover up ugly brutalist architecture".
How about not building ugly brutalism in the first place, then you dont have to cover it in tinder blocks.

Attached: sarcastic laugh.jpg (568x443, 31.51K)

Why not let the workers decided what they want? Rather than forcing this false nostalgic notion that brutalism is the only pleasing aesthetically functioning form of architecture for everyone.

Attached: Arkley-Best-1024x813-1.jpg (1024x813, 172.24K)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_concrete

Attached: 1545912021091.gif (350x335, 1.17M)

Ah yes, what could be better than a housing block designed by a local committee of people who don't know anything about architecture, construction, or urban design.

Attached: homer-car-design.jpg (1280x640, 77.48K)

Those look like server stacks

Boo hoo, people dont like what you like. Also that brutalism styled simpsons car doesn't do much to support your case.

Attached: downloadfile-14~4.png (474x551, 67.02K)

People like things which aren't sustainable, aren't functional, and aren't safe. Homer's stupid fucking car is a perfect example of what your democratic design would be - too expensive to build, too unsafe to use. I thought even anarkiddies respected the need for expertise, but maybe you just think any uneducated factory worker can build a housing cooperative?

The only thing I want to do when I see brutalist architecture is to hang myself.
Like when people leave their house It's better when they enjoy what they are seeing.

Jerking off to Brutalism is the worst kind of Soviet nostalgia. Constructivism > any of the shit that came after. Artistic expression is unironically a good way to judge a given society's character.

Attached: Zuev.jpg (507x600, 81.78K)

OP sounds like a sexually-confused liberal who thinks abstract expressionism is better than soviet realism.

Brut beton is not a type of concrete, it is an expression of it. All the problems your talking about were already solved within the last half-century through different materials, techniques, and just general sealing. The Digital Beijing building is literally concrete and it was built in 2005.

Art deco is cool and I don't even give a flying fuck if it's bourgeois

what I like about Brutalism is that it cleanly separates nature and architecture. it encourages architects to integrate more foliage into their buildings which makes it a lot more pleasurable. it doesn't try to be clean but is rather transparent in the "brutality" of man-made constructions.
compare this to minimalism where it's all about covering up nature with cleanliness and niceness. it's the most inhumane yuppie shit ever.
in this sense I think Brutalism is Zizekian while Minimalism is more pro-ideology.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1000x750 868.11 KB, 1.32M)

Classical soviet architecture.

Attached: 800px-Samara_opera.jpg (800x533 79.14 KB, 115.4K)

DPRK

Attached: Pyongyang-vintage-socialist-architecture-10.jpg (1500x1200 579.59 KB, 525.04K)

Just put a pot plant in your windowsill m8

Attached: decode-tips-windowsill-decode-window-decorate.jpg (700x934, 111.38K)

Pls, go.

This is what the workers really want

Attached: 500343512_2ef572f8bc.jpg (450x352 92.73 KB, 51.63K)

Underrated post.

Another problem with minimalism is that how do you decorate the inside of that shit? I don't want to set anything down because it would be an intrusion. A lot of minimalist hotel rooms are like this nowadays.

When that was built Yalta was part of Soviet Ukraine you lightweight

Hell yes

You sound like a technocrat, don't think that anarkiddie meant that just anyone gets to decide; moreso that making prescriptive claims about architectural design in a future socialist society is something that people like you wouldn't be allowed anywhere near. Calm your autism or jog on.

I'd unironically live in that Minecraft shit in post #3

absolute fucking retard

Attached: 1545683692805.gif (220x198, 377.07K)

not what I said

Good post. Pic relateds are pure fucking ideology.

Attached: 123.jpeg (810x725 11.7 KB, 351.13K)

The soviet neo-classical revival is pure cancer.

metro hot tho

Attached: hqdefault.jpg (480x360, 13.97K)

...

Brutalism is okay. Not sure if it's the true be-all-end-all though.

Looks like shit.

Also shit, except the metro.

How far up their asses are the heads of stalinist architecture haters?

The Tower of Babel was good and just, and God revealed himself as an evil enemy of humanity for destroying it.

What if God was really into brutalism and destroyed the Tower of Babel for its neo-classicist pretensions?

This. Brutalism is capitalism incarnate.


Nice try, Adolph.

i like east german architecture
but i'd like to see something new tbh
pyongyang looks neat but not something i'd like to see in general
also they lack greenery imo

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornament_and_Crime

Who agrees?

Reactionaries

That last image is peak /comfy/. It's timeless.

Wouldn't go near the things they make life seem so soulless

Attached: 1431896912785.png (800x600, 468.99K)

Brutalism sucks ass. It’s insanely expensive, it massively wastes materials, and relies on concrete releases an ungodly amount of carbon dioxide during production into the atmosphere and the constant erosion leads to concrete dust going into the atmosphere.

Also brutalist buildings are (usually) ugly as shit.

this is so degenerate

t. Zig Forumsack

Brutalism was born out of the Cold War. There’s a reason why so many government buildings are brutalist - the people at the helm wanted their office buildings to look like impenetrable fortresses, they wanted their employees to walk in every day feeling like they were going to war. No sunlight, rough and unforgiving materials, nonsensical utilizations of space, etc. like look at this 2nd picture here, it's without a doubt one of the most depressing buildings I've ever seen. It's grey, made out of hard concrete, and it's precense is overpowering. It's cold and unforgiving, communists don't need to have that associated with it. Who the fuck would want to work there.

nah boston city hall is cool my dude

It looks like a poorly made minecraft base that I would have made with my friends when I was younger. The section that's literally popping out of the wall confirms my point.

Well, yes. Tower of Babel was humanity's first communist project

Attached: 7dd624f717710d878aafbcddac3d9b33.jpg (450x345, 64.56K)

Wrong. It was man's first attempt at defying historical materialism and was struck down by God himself (via idpol) for it.

Attached: face angry lesbian.jpg (600x564, 32.69K)

i'm just sick of fucking shitty facsimiles of shitty facsimiles of shitty facsimiles of shitty facsimiles of shitty facsimiles of old european buildings

why are people so apprehensive toward modern architecture?

Big if true

It's the bourgeois self-indulgency that alienates the working class

bad architecture is revisionism

revisionist

revisionist

this is what Moscow would have looked like if the Cornman didn't ruin everything
m.youtube.com/watch?v=GB_KgcqUSXA

Attached: 54421_original.jpg (600x431, 56.98K)

It takes a special kind of idiot not to see the poverty of Stalin’s era architecture: eclectical and nonsense combinations of art deco, neo-classicism and constructivism. It is a disdain for everything the modernist project (including Marxism btw) stood for.

As for Brutalism, I myself like it, but any new architecture which would continue the Modern ideas should do it in a way which conforms to the current material conditions. We should not make the same mistakes the capitalists did in regard to modernism and fetishize its appearence to the detriment of what it stands for (pretty much how a Bauhaus style came into being even though many architects were clearly opposed to it). What this means concretely is revolutionizing architecture, building mass collective housing, unshackling women from domestic work, erecting public schools, cinemas, cultural centres, “destroying” nature etc. It is much more than mere utilitarianism and glass buildings.

Learn from the moderns, do not just blindly copy their image.

Attached: 3DE53283-8C8A-4CF8-AAE8-BC9A78FB9D95.jpeg (2328x3596 156.72 KB, 3.89M)

If anything, Communists SHOULD be cold, unforgiving, militant, serious and organized. The fact that a small concrete building is scaring your ass just exposes you for the reactionary you are, because Communism is infinitely more scary than what some beton brut is towards your sacred “humanity” (which is nothing else than the current burgeois ideology, we seek to smash that)

The only position on which we should oppose Brutalism is on the grounds of *sublating* the movement with something more advanced. We’re not in the 70’s, we’re probably not going to “bring it back” or erect pure concrete buildings, but what will come will build on top of it and be much more “artificial”, “inhumane” or whatever descriptors you want to use.

Attached: FD64E5BD-ADE3-4B50-B7C8-98A0BD6BBB59.jpeg (500x335 98.66 KB, 159.55K)

How about the fact that Socialist Classicism replaced the decadent avant-garde after actual socialist economy was implemented by Stalin and all private enterprise was finally abolished? Stalinist architecture is quite literally the architecture of the free working class.
It is not nonsensical but dialectical

Shut up, liberal

Fuck you anons, I like Brutalism because I think it looks cool, but I also like clean eco stuff like . You should appreciate architecture for architecture's sake.

Attached: stirner 1466771024116.png (694x364, 31.02K)

You cannot be serious, Stalinist architecture is literally the best examples of building “in the name” of the people instead of building for the people themsleves. Its justifications are purely ideological. You cannot in pure conscience describe a gargantuan piece of shit art deco Moscow Sister as the pinnacle of the Communist movement, mind you “the architecture of the *free* working class and no private enterprise”, excuse me while I’m laughing myself to death. Private property was clearly not abolished in the USSR and Stalinism came as a reaction to “the excesses” of the avant-garde and the sensibilities of the peasants.

I know how hard it is to see someone offend your superhero Stalin, but maybe read some things from the man himself and learn to see history dialectically, not only in terms of “our guys” and “the bad guys”. For Stalinists, everything bad that happens is a plot by the Troskyists, revisionists or liberals.

No, actually, you should analyze architecture while taking in consideration the myriad of factors which determine its form and function, how for example Modernism came to be possible only in the 20th century with the advent of new building techniques, of reinforced concrete etc. Liking “architecture for architecture’s sake” is not in the least different with the burgeois notion of “l’art pour l’art”, which Benjamin demolished in his essay The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. It is also a prerequisite of fascism since, instead of politicizing art, it aestheticizes politics.

You can read it here:
marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/ge/benjamin.htm

The Moscow Sisters weren't art-deco
What do you mean? People don't need
beautiful universities, appartment buildings? Does everything have to be "functional"?

made by left-wing architects to fuck over the people living in Western nations

Just take a side-by-side look at, say, Moscow State University and Empire State Building.

“Beautiful” is an ideological term and it changes along with the historical conditions. With that being said, ornamentation, extravagant decor, high ceilings, usage of wood panels etc are anti- (and pre-) modern, so building in that manner is in itself reactionary because it makes an appeal to past epochs by using their materials and their logic. It’s not “true Communism”, it is just a form of Burgeois Romanticism where the workers replace the burgeois subject.

The facts is, people do need housing and universities and these buildings offered *some* alievation for it, but at the same time they abandoned the modern thinking which would have got the task done in a whole different manner, at a whole other scale.

Look, I am not even blaming Stalin because I understand that he was a product of the historical conditions which dominated the USSR after the German Revolution failed to take place. But that does not exempt his reign from criticism and analysis. Why even call yourself a Marxist if you cannot analyse concretely those conditions now, when we have all this information to ourselves?

Building “in the name” of the people is obfuscating the antagonism between the state and the masses, and as such hiding the class struggle immanent in a non-Communist state (taking as definition one where private property has been abolished etc). It is the logic of populism, of abstracting yourself from the position of power to “pretend” you are one with the masses.

Actual Communism instead acknowledges the gap immanent in society, the class struggle, and its infinite sublation into higher forms through the Communist movement.

...

idiot

Attached: Arcology.webm (512x288, 10.71M)

This reads like a snob's wine review more than anything.

holy shit

Attached: 1395867041001.gif (500x308, 187.31K)

This. Brutalism measures the beholder as either a spooked humanist, naturalist, or any other crackpot that seeks compromise and the "harmony" he's used to everywhere – or a communist.

"True communism" sounds like idealism to me
The thing is that a stalinist appartment building is both more functional and more appealing to ordinary people then two gray blocks smashed together.
Many people find stalinist architecture inspiring.
I don't see why communists shouldn't abandon modern thinking here.

Attached: 1453155097556-1.jpg (500x482, 84.35K)

How so?

Abolishing private property is equivalent with abolishing wage-labour and abolishing money, which were clearly not.

Attached: antsnest.jpg (870x1024, 876.01K)

How?

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/

Brutalism can only work asthetically if it is built in a fairly rural area where it has trees and foilage to soften it's apperance.
But that's just like my opinion dude.

Attached: Brutal.jpg (1000x666, 111.98K)

no

What about bionic architecture?

that's really nice

any architecture that doesn't fit into a lush green and flowery environment should be condemned imo
trees have a great cooling effect, can carry fruits, give room to birds, soften some of the city noise
park areas are just concentration camps for nature, but housing and greenery need to become a unit and compliment each other
other than that it doesn't matter all that much what you build
that's not even open to debate, anyone who ever got to live in a commie block with lots of green around and gets to compare knows this is just simply truth.

No amount of green architectural design replaces natural areas in terms of ecological niches offered to urban wildlife, simply due to the sole fact that humans live in such spaces and compromises have to be made on that grounds. Sure, residential areas can be greatly improved in these aspects but claiming that adding trees and runoff ditches to a lot replaces city parks is ignorant to good urban design. I take the assumption you live in a bad American suburb and your idea of a park is a grassy hill with a swing set attached. My idea of a city park involves wetlands, managed forestry tracts, riverine estuaries, lakes, wild-type grasslands and assorted. It's true that most major cities are bad at implementing the above in their spaces, but this does not mean throwing the book at them in favor of an intended focus on green architecture because green architecture cannot provide all of the above without compromising living space for humans. There is room for both in a well-designed city.

kill yourselves

Attached: 541541.jpg (664x1000, 190.59K)

Attached: 1458188460118.jpg (480x647, 36.57K)

if u love gaudy shit liek that, ur not a leftist

how the hell is that depressing? Look at all the green.
nigga fucking paint it.

That pic looks interesting enough. Am I reactionary for liking Art Nouveau?

The working class loves gaudy shit. Functionalism is covert bourgeois decadence.

you've clearly never worked at a corporation

What about it?