Descending from the modernist movement, brutalism is said to be a reaction against the nostalgia of architecture in the 1940s.[10] Derived from the Swedish phrase nybrutalism, the term "new brutalism" was first used by British architects Alison and Peter Smithson for their pioneering approach to design.[8][11][12] The style was further popularised in a 1955 essay by architectural critic Reyner Banham, who also associated the movement with the French phrases béton brut ("raw concrete") and art brut ("raw art").[13][14] The style, as developed by architects such as the Smithsons, Hungarian-born Ernő Goldfinger, and the British firm Chamberlin, Powell & Bon, was partly foreshadowed by the modernist work of other architects such as French-Swiss Le Corbusier, Estonian-American Louis Kahn, German-American Mies van der Rohe, and Finnish Alvar Aalto.[7][15]
In the United Kingdom, brutalism was featured in the design of utilitarian, low-cost social housing influenced by socialist principles and soon spread to other regions around the world, while being echoed by similar styles like in Eastern Europe.[16][6][7][17] Brutalist designs became most commonly used in the design of institutional buildings, such as provincial legislatures, public works projects, universities, libraries, courts, and city halls. The popularity of the movement began to decline in the late 1970s, with some associating the style with urban decay and totalitarianism.[7] Brutalism's popularity in socialist and communist nations owed to traditional styles being associated with the bourgeoisie, whereas concrete emphasized equality.[18]
Brutalism has been polarising historically; specific buildings, as well as the movement as a whole, have drawn a range of criticism (often being described as "cold" or "soulless") but have also elicited support from architects and a small number of local communities (with many brutalist buildings having become official, if not popular, cultural icons, sometimes obtaining a protected status).[6]
History
The term nybrutalism (new brutalism)[19] was coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth, a modern brick home in Uppsala, designed in January 1950[11] by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm.[12] Showcasing the 'as found' design approach that would later be at the core of brutalism, the house displays visible I-beams over windows, exposed brick inside and out, and poured concrete in several rooms where the tongue-and-groove pattern of the boards used to build the forms can be seen.[20][13] The term was picked up in the summer of 1950 by a group of visiting English architects, including Michael Ventris, Oliver Cox, and Graeme Shankland, where it apparently "spread like wildfire, and [was] subsequently adopted by a certain faction of young British architects".[19][21][12]
The first published usage of the phrase "new brutalism" occurred in 1953, when Alison Smithson used it to describe a plan for their unbuilt Soho house which appeared in the November issue of Architectural Design.[13][9] She further stated: "It is our intention in this building to have the structure exposed entirely, without interior finishes wherever practicable."[12][13] The Smithsons' Hunstanton School completed in 1954 in Norfolk, and the Sugden House completed in 1955 in Watford, represent the earliest examples of new brutalism in the United Kingdom.[4] Hunstanton school, likely inspired by Mies van der Rohe's 1946 Alumni Memorial Hall at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago, United States, is notable as the first completed building in the world to carry the title of "new brutalist" by its architects.[22][23] At the time, it was described as "the most truly modern building in England".[24]
The term gained increasingly wider recognition when British architectural historian Reyner Banham used it to identify both an ethic and aesthetic style, in his 1955 essay The New Brutalism. In the essay, Banham described Hunstanton and the Soho house as the "reference by which The New Brutalism in architecture may be defined."[13] Reyner Banham also associated the term "new brutalism" with art brut and béton brut, meaning "raw concrete" in French, for the first time.[19][25][26] The best-known béton brut architecture is the proto-brutalist work of the Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier, in particular his 1952 Unité d'habitation in Marseille, France; the 1951–1961 Chandigarh Capitol Complex in India; and the 1955 church of Notre Dame du Haut in Ronchamp, France.
Banham further expanded his thoughts in the 1966 book, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?, to characterise a somewhat recently established cluster of architectural approaches, particularly in Europe.[27] In the book, Banham says that Le Corbusier's concrete work was a source of inspiration and helped popularise the movement, suggesting "if there is one single verbal formula that has made the concept of Brutalism admissible in most of the world's Western languages, it is that Le Corbusier himself described that concrete work as 'béton-brut'".[28] He further states that "the words 'The New Brutalism' were already circulating, and had acquired some depth of meaning through things said and done, over and above the widely recognised connection with béton brut. The phrase still 'belonged' to the Smithsons, however, and it was their activities above all others that were giving distinctive qualities to the concept of Brutalism."[29]
Motif
New brutalism is not only an architectural style; it is also a philosophical approach to architectural design, a striving to create simple, honest, and functional buildings that accommodate their purpose, inhabitants, and location.[30][31] Stylistically, brutalism is a strict, modernistic design language that has been said to be a reaction to the architecture of the 1940s, much of which was characterised by a retrospective nostalgia.[32]
Peter Smithson believed that the core of brutalism was a reverence for materials, expressed honestly, stating "Brutalism is not concerned with the material as such but rather the quality of material",[33] and "the seeing of materials for what they were: the woodness of the wood; the sandiness of sand."[34] Architect John Voelcker explained that the "new brutalism" in architecture "cannot be understood through stylistic analysis, although some day a comprehensible style might emerge",[35] supporting the Smithsons' description of the movement as "an ethic, not an aesthetic".[36] Reyner Banham felt the phrase "the new brutalism" existed as both an attitude toward design as well as a descriptive label for the architecture itself and that it "eludes precise description, while remaining a living force". He attempted to codify the movement in systematic language, insisting that a brutalist structure must satisfy the following terms, "1, Formal legibility of plan; 2, clear exhibition of structure, and 3, valuation of materials for their inherent qualities 'as found'."[13] Also important was the aesthetic "image", or "coherence of the building as a visual entity".[13]
Brutalist buildings are usually constructed with reoccurring modular elements representing specific functional zones, distinctly articulated and grouped together into a unified whole. There is often an emphasis on graphic expressions in the external elevations and in the whole-site architectural plan in regard to the main functions and people-flows of the buildings.[37] Buildings may use materials such as concrete, brick, glass, steel, timber, rough-hewn stone, and gabions among others.[8] However, due to its low cost, raw concrete is often used and left to reveal the basic nature of its construction with rough surfaces featuring wood "shuttering" produced when the forms were cast in situ.[8] Examples are frequently massive in character (even when not large) and challenge traditional notions of what a building should look like with focus given to interior spaces as much as exterior.[13][8]
A common theme in brutalist designs is the exposure of the building's inner-workings—ranging from their structure and services to their human use—in the exterior of the building. In the Boston City Hall, designed in 1962, the strikingly different and projected portions of the building indicate the special nature of the rooms behind those walls, such as the mayor's office or the city council chambers. From another perspective, the design of the Hunstanton School included placing the facility's water tank, normally a hidden service feature, in a prominent, visible tower. Rather than being hidden in the walls, Hunstanton's water and electric utilities were delivered via readily visible pipes and conduits.[13]
Brutalism as an architectural philosophy was often associated with a socialistutopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially by Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style. Indeed, their work sought to emphasize functionality and to connect architecture with what they viewed as the realities of modern life.[30] Among their early contributions were "streets in the sky" in which traffic and pedestrian circulation were rigorously separated, another theme popular in the 1960s.[37] This style had a strong position in the architecture of European communist countries from the mid-1960s to the late 1980s (Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, USSR, Yugoslavia).[38] In Czechoslovakia, Brutalism was presented as an attempt to create a "national" but also "modern socialist" architectural style. Such prefabricated socialist era buildings are called panelaky.
In the United States, Paul Rudolph and Ralph Rapson were both noted brutalists.[40]Evans Woollen III, a pacesetter among architects in the Midwest, is credited for introducing the Brutalist and Modernist architecture styles to Indianapolis, Indiana.[41]Walter Netsch is known for his brutalist academic buildings. Marcel Breuer was known for his "soft" approach to the style, often using curves rather than corners. In Atlanta, Georgia, the architectural style was introduced to Buckhead's affluent Peachtree Road with the Ted Levy-designed Plaza Towers and Park Place on Peachtree condominiums. Many of the stations of the Washington Metro, particularly older stations, were constructed in the brutalist style. Architectural historian William Jordy says that although Louis Kahn was "[o]pposed to what he regarded as the muscular posturing of most Brutalism", some of his work "was surely informed by some of the same ideas that came to momentary focus in the brutalist position."[42]
In Serbia, Božidar Janković was a representative of the so-called "Belgrade School of residence", identifiable by its functionalist relations on the basis of the flat[48][49] and elaborated in detail the architecture. Known example, Western City Gate also known as the Genex Tower is a 36-storeyskyscraper in Belgrade, Serbia, which was designed in 1977 by Mihajlo Mitrović.[50] It is formed by two towers connected with a two-storey bridge and revolving restaurant at the top. It is 117 m (384 ft) tall[51] (with restaurant 135–140 m (443–459 ft)) and is the second-tallest high-rise in Belgrade after Ušće Tower. The building was designed in the brutalist style with some elements of structuralism and constructivism. It is considered a prime representative of the brutalist architecture in Serbia and one of the best of its style built in the 1960s and the 1970s in the world. The treatment of the form and details is slightly associating the building with postmodernism and is today one of the rare surviving representatives of this style's early period in Serbia. The artistic expression of the gate marked an entire era in Serbian architecture.[51]
In Vietnam, brutalist architecture is particularly popular among old public buildings and has been associated with the bao cấp era (lit: subsidizing), the period during which the country followed Soviet-type economic planning. Many Soviet architects, most notably Garol Isakovich, were sent to Vietnam during that time to help train new architects and played an influential role in shaping the country's architectural styles for decades.[52] Isakovich himself also designed some of the most notable brutalist buildings in Vietnam, including the Vietnam-Soviet Friendship Palace of Culture and Labour (1985).[53] In his later years, Isakovich, who was awarded the Hero of Labor by the Vietnamese government in 1976, is said to have deviated from the brutalist style and adopted Vietnamese traditional styles in his design, which has been referred to by some Vietnamese architects as Chủ nghĩa hiện đại địa phương (lit: local modernism) and hậu hiện đại (postmodernism).[52] In the former South Vietnam, notable buildings that are said to carry brutalist elements include the Independence Palace (1966)[54] designed by Ngô Viết Thụ, the first Asian architect to become an Honorary Fellow of the American Institute of Architects.[55][56] However, whether South Vietnamese architecture prior to 1975 was brutalism or not remains a matter of dispute, with some architects argued it was actually modernism.[57] In recent years, public sentiments in Vietnam towards brutalist architecture has shifted negatively, but the style is said to have made a comeback recently.[58]
On university campuses
An early example of brutalist architecture in British universities was the extension to the department of architecture at the University of Cambridge in 1959 under the influence of Leslie Martin, the head of the department, and designed by Colin St John Wilson and Alex Hardy, with participation by students at the university.[59] This inspired further brutalist buildings in Cambridge, including the Grade II listed University Centre and the Grade II listed Churchill College. The Grade II* listed History Faculty Building, the second building in architect James Stirling's Red Trilogy (along with the University of Leicester Engineering Building[60] and the Florey Building at Queen's College, Oxford,[61] both also Grade II*), is described in its listing as "a distinctive example of a new approach to education buildings, from a period when the universities were at the forefront of architectural patronage".[62][63][64][65]
The building of new universities in the UK in the 1960s led to opportunities for brutalist architects. The first to be built was the University of Sussex, designed by Basil Spence, with the Grade I listed Falmer House as its centerpiece. The building has been described as a "meeting of Arts and Crafts with modernism", with features such as hand-made bricks that contrast with the pre-fabricated construction of other 1960s campuses, and colonnades of bare, board-marked concrete arches on brick piers inspired by the Colosseum.[66] It is also considered one of the "key Brutalist buildings" by the Royal Institute of British Architects.[67][68]
A notable pairing of brutalist campus buildings is found at Durham University, with Ove Arup's Grade I-listed Kingsgate Bridge (1963), one of only six post-1961 buildings to have been listed as Grade I by 2017,[74][75] and the Grade II-listed Dunelm House (Richard Raines of the Architects' Co-Partnership; 1964–66), described in its listing as "the foremost students' union building of the post-war era in England" but only saved from demolition in 2021 following a five-year campaign by the Twentieth Century Society.[76][77][78][79]
One of the most famous brutalist buildings in the United States is Geisel Library at the University of California, San Diego.[87][88] Designed by William Pereira and built 1969–70, it is said to "occup[y] a fascinating nexus between brutalism and futurism" but was originally intended as a modernist building in steel and glass before cost considerations meant the structural elements were redesigned in concrete and moved to the outside of the building.[89]Evans Woollen III's brutalist Clowes Memorial Hall, a performing arts facility that opened in 1963 on the campus of Butler University in Indianapolis, was praised for its bold and dramatic design.[90] The University of Minnesota's West Bank campus features the Rarig Center, a performing arts venue by Ralph Rapson from 1971 that has been called "the best example in the Twin Cities of the style called Brutalism".[91]Faner Hall at Southern Illinois University Carbondale has long been controversial for its use of brutalism and has been considered an eyesore on campus,[92] deemed to have a "facade only a mother could love" by the university itself.[93]
A 2014 article in The Economist noted its unpopularity with the public, observing that a campaign to demolish a building will usually be directed against a brutalist one.[103] According to Simon Jenkins, "Few styles in history can have been met with so many pleas from its users to see it destroyed."[104] In 2005, the British TV programme Demolition ran a public vote to select twelve buildings that ought to be demolished, and eight of those selected were brutalist buildings.[104]
One argument is that this criticism exists in part because concrete façades do not age well in damp, cloudy maritime climates such as those of northwestern Europe and New England. In these climates, the concrete becomes streaked with water stains and sometimes with moss and lichen, and rust stains from the steel reinforcing bars.[105]
Critics of the style find it unappealing due to its "cold" appearance, projecting an atmosphere of totalitarianism, as well as the association of the buildings with urban decay due to materials weathering poorly in certain climates and the surfaces being prone to vandalism by graffiti. Despite this, the style is appreciated by others, and preservation efforts are taking place in the United Kingdom.[26][106]
Modern brutalism
Although the Brutalist movement was largely over by the late 1970s and early 1980s, having largely given way to Structural Expressionism and Deconstructivism, it has experienced a resurgence of interest since 2015 with the publication of a variety of guides and books, including Brutal London (Zupagrafika, 2015), Brutalist London Map (2015), This Brutal World (2016), SOS Brutalism: A Global Survey (2017), and the lavish Atlas of Brutalist Architecture (Phaidon, 2018).
Many of the defining aspects of the style have been softened in newer buildings, with concrete façades often being sandblasted to create a stone-like surface, covered in stucco, or composed of patterned, precast elements. These elements are also found in renovations of older Brutalist buildings, such as the redevelopment of Sheffield's Park Hill.
^McClelland, Michael, and Graeme Stewart, "Concrete Toronto: A Guide to Concrete Architecture from the Fifties to the Seventies, Coach House Books, 2007, p. 12.
^"Architects: Brutalism". Circa Design. Archived from the original on 11 September 2016. Retrieved 28 August 2016.
^Trounstine, Philip J. (9 May 1976). "Evans Woollen". [Indianapolis] Star Magazine. Indianapolis, Indiana: 18. See also: "Prominent local architect Woollen Dies at 88". Indianapolis Business Journal. Indianapolis. 19 May 2016. Retrieved 18 December 2017.
^Farrelly, Elizabeth (9 October 2010). "Watch this space – Brutalism meets beauty in the National Gallery's new wing". The Sydney Morning Herald, Spectrum supplement. pp. 16–17.
^Megan Fernandez (June 2010). "The Pillar: Evans Woollen". Indianapolis Monthly. Indianapolis, Indiana: 68. Retrieved 18 December 2017. See also: Philip J. Trounstine (9 May 1976). "Evans Woollen: Struggles of a 'Good Architect'". [Indianapolis] Star Magazine. Indianapolis, Indiana: 23.
Monzo, Luigi: Plädoyer für herbe Schönheiten. Gastbeitrag im Rahmen der Austellung "SOS Brutalismus – Rettet die Betonmonster". Pforzheimer Zeitung, 27. February 2018, p. 6. (in German)
Anna Rita Emili, Pure and simple, the architecture of New Brutalism, Ed.Kappa Rome 2008
Anna Rita Emili, Architettura estrema, il Neobrutalismo alla prova della contemporaneità, Quodlibet, Macerata 2011
Anna Rita Emili, Il Brutalismo paulista, L'architettura brasiliana tra teoria e progetto, Manifesto Libri, Roma ISBN 978872859759, pp. 335
Silvia Groaz, New Brutalism. The Invention of a Style, EPFL Press, Lausanne, 2023, ISBN 978-2-88915-510-1