This is a test
- 224 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
eBook - ePub
Redefining Brutalism
Book details
Book preview
Table of contents
Citations
About This Book
There is a genuine resurgence of interest in this period of architecture. Brutalism is a highly debated topic in the architectural press and amongst architectural critics and institutions who promote the preservation of these buildings. This book is unique in combining beautiful, highly illustrated design with description of both British and International brutalist buildings and architects, alongside analysis of the present and future of brutalism. Not just be a historical tome, this book discusses brutalism as a living and evolving entity.
Frequently asked questions
At the moment all of our mobile-responsive ePub books are available to download via the app. Most of our PDFs are also available to download and we're working on making the final remaining ones downloadable now. Learn more here.
Both plans give you full access to the library and all of Perlegoâs features. The only differences are the price and subscription period: With the annual plan youâll save around 30% compared to 12 months on the monthly plan.
We are an online textbook subscription service, where you can get access to an entire online library for less than the price of a single book per month. With over 1 million books across 1000+ topics, weâve got you covered! Learn more here.
Look out for the read-aloud symbol on your next book to see if you can listen to it. The read-aloud tool reads text aloud for you, highlighting the text as it is being read. You can pause it, speed it up and slow it down. Learn more here.
Yes, you can access Redefining Brutalism by Simon Henley in PDF and/or ePUB format, as well as other popular books in Architecture & Architecture General. We have over one million books available in our catalogue for you to explore.
Information
One
Brutalism is not a Corpse
Rough, grey concrete. It is the stuff from which our postwar cities were made. Concrete piled up on concrete. In our imaginations, Brutalism is synonymous with this material. Monolithic, heavy and inscrutable, unfamiliar and incomprehensibly unfriendly, it seemed at a certain point in history to invade our cities. Particularly in Europe, there is a sense that this new architecture filled the void left by the destruction of the Second World War. It did. Although not quite as quickly and inevitably as it would appear. These alien structures brought with them a different kind of city. Not one of streets and squares but of freestanding sculptural buildings set in bleak, open spaces. A new order had been overlaid on the city and it didnât make much sense. Then, it might have been exciting. Today, it seems cold. These perceptions precipitated its downfall.
Brutalism was destroyed by two schools of thought. The first envisaged that the continuation of the âModern Projectâ should, as Archigramâs illustrations and Cedric Priceâs aphorisms suggested, be populist, light, efficient and fun. Their ideas â along with those of Jean ProuvĂ©, Richard Buckminster Fuller and Louis Kahn â spawned the High-tech. The other school of thought, Postmodernism â at least, the strand of thinking that employed familiar architectural elements drawn mainly from Classical architecture â rejected abstraction and sought, through semiotics, to communicate figuratively.
So why, in the space of a short paragraph, do I appear to condemn the very subject of this book and, in a second paragraph, skip to the schools of thought that killed it off? Because what I describe is a tragic oversimplification. It is the way we talk about Brutalism when we donât understand it. It is the view of the sceptic, the ill-informed and the uninterested. It is, in fact, a far more complex subject than that. Brutalism doesnât just equal concrete. It isnât only found in windswept plazas. Itâs not limited to Europe and North America. And, most importantly, I believe, itâs not something from the past, from those postwar years. It is very much alive. It is a reason for making buildings. Furthermore, itâs not bland. It is quite beautiful. The poetry
is not hard to see. It is material. The architectâs search for a language swings between plainer forms of expressed construction and a way of building that explores their decorative potential. These two apparently contrary positions form a dialectic within which architects oscillate and their buildings may be read. It should not be surprising, therefore, that Brutalism could be a living tradition.
This book seeks to describe Brutalist architecture in its various guises and, in so doing, to speculate on a multitude of definitions. Was Brutalism inevitable? Was it just a poetic phenomenon? Was it expedient and economic? Was it philosophical and political? Was it, as critic Reyner Banham asked, an âEthic or Aestheticâ? It was all of these things because the circumstances in which these buildings were designed and made varied, and the motivations of those involved differed. In the 1960s, in the UK, governments marshalled house builders to deliver hundreds of thousands of homes per year. This led to factories manufacturing precast concrete elements on an industrial scale. Very different from a South American architect seeking a language, and way of building, that might begin to represent an emerging nation on the world stage. And, neither can we explain why a convent or a theatre should, if indeed they did, have anything in common with one another.
Recent events have brought the phenomenon to our attention: Haworth Tompkinsâ celebrated conservation work on Denys Lasdunâs National Theatre in the UK; the demolition of Bertrand Goldbergâs Prentice Hospital in Chicago in 2014; the staging in 2015 of the âLatin America in Construction: Architecture 1955â1980â exhibition by the Museum of Modern Art in New York, to mark the 60th anniversary of the seminal âLatin American Architecture since 1945â exhibition; then, in 2016, after nearly 30 years of their being at risk of demolition or subordination, the renovation of the Hayward Gallery, Queen Elizabeth Hall and Purcell Room on Londonâs South Bank began;1 in the same year, Dublin-based Grafton Architects won the first RIBA International Prize for their concrete megastructure, UTEC Lima, in Peru; and the Brazilian architect Paulo Mendes da Rocha received the 2017 Royal Gold Medal from the Royal Institute of British Architects.
This should not come as a surprise. For years, Herzog & de Meuron have been making raw buildings. Their early works were invariably simplified forms employing just one material: Stone House (1982â8), Plywood House (1984â5), the fibre-reinforced cement-board Ricola Storage Building (1986â7) and their concrete Antipodes 1 Student Housing for the University of Burgundy, Dijon (1990â2). Then, with their Eberswalde Technical School Library in Germany, they overturned in a single work the idea that Brutalism and decoration were contradictory and incompatible positions. Here was a building, quite simply a box, devoid of any formal detail, faced in concrete panels, with functionally distributed windows, relieved only by the presence of photographic images etched on the face of the panels. Eberswalde picked up where late postwar Brutalism left off, with its often ornate use of concrete moulds and finishing techniques. Many others â including the Swiss architect Peter MĂ€rkli, the Irish practice OâDonnell + Tuomey, the Chilean studio Pezo von Ellrichshausen Arquitectos and the Whisperers2 in the UK â have all recently concerned themselves with Brutalism.
However, two men who have practised continuously since the 1950s offer the strongest link between generations. The first, Paulo Mendes da Rocha, a member of the Paulist School, has worked consistently, often but not exclusively with in-situ concrete, with direct construction and emblematic engineering. From his earliest work this Marxist architect has sought to reinforce the public character of the metropolis. His gymnasium for the Clube AtlĂ©tico Paulistano in SĂŁo Paulo (1957â8) â a huge disc of concrete â doesnât create enclosure in the city, instead shelters a small part of it. His Brazilian Museum of Sculpture MUBE (1986â95), also in SĂŁo Paulo, using the fall of the land places the museum largely underground and makes instead, in collaboration with the landscape architect Robert Burle Marx, a model Brazilian garden of water, trees and indigenous plant species, the only substantial built form being a loggia â a beam of in situ concrete â some 60m long and 12m wide. His work is concrete, steel, and glass, consistently tough, often but not always rough, usually defying gravity, and concerned with the city as a public landscape which is both able to catalyse and give sanctuary to an urban population by means of civic structures.
The second, the Portuguese architect Ălvaro Siza, began practice in 1954. His Cooperativa do Lordelo (1960â3) and Piscina de Leça da Palmeira (1961â6) were both rough bĂ©ton brut, âthe wood formwork bestowing the facades a quasi-mineral surfaceâ.3 But from about 1970, with the arrival of Postmodernism, Siza turned to the white, plastic, ground-bearing architecture for which he is mostly known. For 30 years, his palette was restricted to render, even if beneath was concrete. His unique combination of critical regionalism and early Corbusian Purism was implicitly resistant to the prevailing language of Postmodernism. Times change. Since the Millennium, he has been working in stone; brick; timber; and, most consistently, exposed concrete â and, in the case of the Museum for the Ibere Camargo Foundation in Brazil (1998â2008) and the Municipal Library in Viana do Castelo (1998â2008), a bloody-minded concern for structure and form that one would expect of Lina Bo Bardi. It becomes increasingly apparent in the work of such thoughtful architects that Brutalism is an enduring dimension of praxis.
After the Second World War, concrete was in vogue. To build in concrete was quite simply avant-garde. Yet, it was more than a style; it was, and remains, a sensibility. It is a way of thinking and a way of making. It affects the way things look and the way they feel. It is
vivid â âroughâ and âtoughâ.4 We associate it with the postwar city, with cities that were badly bombed. Much of the reconstruction was in monolithic concrete: vessels elevated on pilotis, or bunker-like with few windows â not inclined to engage with the city as it was, their use not always evident to the passerby. Hard to read. Difficult to comprehend. But Brutalism is eclectic. It is not limited to cities, or concrete. It may be minimal in its detail; it may even seem to have been decorated.
Much that has been written about Brutalism is written from an English perspective. But to do that again would be too predictable. And only to look to the postwar period would be too easy. The essence of Brutalism comes from looking at it in its many historical, geographical, cultural and material guises. Not as a corpse but as a living thing. One that this generation recognises. One that makes sense now, much as it might have done 100 years before Reyner Banham.
Because I build and I think about what might make buildings and spaces â and, indeed, landscapes â in certain ways Brutalist, I think it ought to be possible and, ultimately, more valuable to broaden the debate. We can no longer construct buildings in the manner in which we used to in the mid-20th century. Building technologies are much more complex now, reflecting the way in which we use the fabric of a building to temper its internal climate and energy consumption. So if we canât replicate these buildings because we canât construct them in the same rudimentary manner, then our generation must believe that there is more to Brutalism. Buildings have qualities that make them Brutalist. In this book I will try to convey what Brutalism is, not just what it was. How it looks. How it feels. How it is made. And, what it isnât. This book, through a series of essays, speculates on the subject and offers various definitions, sometimes contradictory. It is not a grand thesis but a succession of plausible explanations.
Brutalism is construction. It is decoration. It can signify spiritualism. It is a medium for political and social expression. It suits certain climates. Sometimes, it just makes plain economic sense. Often, it seems to me to involve craft. At times, it seems to be the most natural response of the architect to the imperative to build at a certain point in the development of a civilisation.
Brutalism was given a voice, a position, by Alison and Peter Smithsonâs polemic and subsequently by their friend, Reyner Banham. The Smithsonsâ manifesto was published in 1952. Reyner Banhamâs essay on the subject dates from 1955 and his book, which to a certain extent recast his idea of the movement, was published in 1966. This work, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?, charts the emergence of the New Brutalism between the early 1950s and the mid-1960s. My search for ...
Table of contents
- Cover
- Title
- Copyright
- CONTENTS
- Dedication
- Prologue
- 1 Brutalism is not a Corpse
- 2 Ethic or Aesthetic?
- 3 Muck & Ore
- 4 Concrete
- 5 Brickalism
- 6 Craft
- 7 Precast
- 8 The Brutalist City
- 9 The Social Question
- 10 An Innocent State
- 11 The Sublime
- 12 The Brutalist Revival
- References
- Image Credits
- Index