Brutalist/modern architecture

[amadeus]

Some people hate it.

I don’t!

 

[Kyriakos]

I thought we needed smaller transistors.

 

[amadeus]

I thought we needed smaller transistors.

In Soviet architecture, electricity conducts you.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I love it, when it isn't all there is, and it's maintained.

 

[Broken_Erika]

The Poster-Boy for Brutalist Architecture.
Edit:Here's a random link that doesn't include this gem.
https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20160606-ten-beautiful-brutalist-buildings

 

[Kyriakos]

^I like it, it is reasonably ominous, like an emerging iron bulb.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

If I want to see ugly architecture, I only have to look at the part of my Pinterest feed where some ridiculous algorithm thinks I like abandoned, filthy, crumbling mansions and palaces just because I glanced at one once to see how the staircase was constructed (I have some castle-building to do for my ongoing King's Heir novel).

 

[red_elk]

Some people hate it.

I don’t!

View attachment 639544

Most of these were built in 1960-1970s, not sure it can be considered modern.
Two higher buildings in top left corner are from 1980-s, it's KOPE series, quite decent even by modern standards.

 

[amadeus]

Most of these were built in 1960-1970s, not sure it can be considered modern.
Two higher buildings in top left corner are from 1980-s, it's KOPE series, quite decent even by modern standards.

They’re modern architecture, not modern in the sense that they are now new.

There are some danchi that were built here in the late sixties that I like:

 

[Joij21]

Are we talking about brutalist exclusively? You included modern however modern could also mean modernist, international, deco, googie, etc.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

Is there a statement to discuss?

 

[amadeus]

Are we talking about brutalist exclusively? You included modern however modern could also mean modernist, international, deco, googie, etc.

Within a scope I’d say.

Is there a statement to discuss?

Make your own statement? I’m not a restrictive curator of discussion since it’s not like there’s a limit to the amount of topics that can be discussed.

 

[E.man]

Brutality might be ok if you want an edifice of intimidation but not for housing.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

There are many problems with concrete buildings of that era.

If it were less about the artistic license of the architect, and more a deliverance of established building practice, the buildings would be more practical.

 

[cardgame]

Brutality might be ok if you want an edifice of intimidation but not for housing.

Counterpoint: make sure there's greenery/space for it, and it's top notch.

 

[Aiken_Drumn]

I love green buildings like that. Maintenance must be a nightmare though.

 

[Traitorfish]

Some people hate it.

I don’t!

View attachment 639544

The thing is, those buildings don't look like this because the architects were committed to Modernism as a design ethos, they look like this because that is what cheap, mass-produced industrial housing looks like. There are probably some points on which the architects could have deferred to traditional or vernacular architecture (flat roofs in temperate climates are never a good idea), but I doubt the overall impression of the project would very much change, or the experience of living in it.

 

[amadeus]

Even if cost effectiveness is the primary motivator, I still like its design for what it is.

 

[E.man]

Counterpoint: make sure there's greenery/space for it, and it's top notch.
View attachment 639580

So make it less brutal?

 

[red_elk]

I guess this is also about minimalistic, "pure concrete" design.
More modern versions of same buildings have better decoration and look fancier, but they still use same projects slightly upgraded since Soviet era.