Hacker News Reader

Comment by rtpg | Hacker News Reader

What's the pitch for brutalism? At least for buildings I've seen, they have all seemed to fail on a usability and aesthetic side.

Is there something appealing to building a dystopian building?

View on HN

I'm in Boston, pretty much the epicenter. I can't think of many redeeming qualities.

My sense of the genre is that it was an attempt to copy Eastern Bloc architecture by architects who were warmly disposed to the Eastern Bloc, and had either disabused themselves or wanted to disabuse us of bourgeois notions of aesthetics and good taste.

IMO, although it has definitely improved over the last 40-50 years, architecture peaked aesthetically circa the turn of the 20th century (Art Nouveau[0], Gaudí).

[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=art+nouveau+architecture&tbm...

Also Bostonian here. I think the other problem with Brutalism in urban contexts is that is very non-contextual and very imposing structurally. It really announces itself much to the detriment of everything around it.

On the other hand I find Brutalism architecture that sits in contrast to wide open fields or a hillside to work very well.

15th century baroque is a good contender

https://www.google.it/search?q=bramante+architecture&rlz=1CD...

And have you seen the late baroque of juvarra?

https://www.google.it/search?q=juvarra+architettura&rlz=1CDG...

Now they dis loads of churches that has to follow a pattern for obvious reason, but their works on provate villas are truly amazing especially seen live.

Baroque is beautiful but high-maintenance. And I find it can be "noisy" - it's good for something that's supposed to be a focal point in its own right, but in e.g. a concert hall it can end up distracting from the "content".

> I can't think of many redeeming qualities.

I find it clean, non-distracting, 'sterile'- I end up focusing more on the people around me than the buildings towering over me.

Our upside-down city hall and the plaza wasteland around it are described as brutalist, and yet I would not call City Hall "non-distracting" or the plaza "clean".

I think a lot of people ITT may be confusing Brutalism and modernist architecture in general. "Clean," "unobtrusive" and so on are not adjectives I'd use to describe it (Brutalist architecture).

99 PI did a good piece on brutalism.

http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/hard-to-love-a-brute/

I still don't get it in terms of websites even though I get the concrete philosophy. What's linked in OP is a hodgepodge of random crap that doesn't feature concrete architecture's strengths in any consistent way.

OP link is not a coherent statement of anything.

Exactly and with more brevity.

"The rebar can rust, and the rust can cause the concrete to fracture."

The rebar will only rust if the concrete PH is neutralized. (Cement is pretty strong base.) This neutralization happens when the concrete slowly reacts with oxygen. Typically reinforced concrete has safe lifespan of about 70 years, while unreinforced concrete only reaches its max strength around 90 years. Typically lifespan and hardening are both slowed down if the concrete is sealed from water. (By paint or preferably with some external cladding and some passive ventilation between cladding and concrete.)

Reinforced concrete is shit if you consider only strenght/weight. It's kinda OK if you take into account price. But if you need good fire safety, it's bloody brilliant stuff. So for big buildings, staircases, elevator shafts and underground spaces it's good choice.

Something I recently learned of is basalt fiber rebar. It won't rust, but I guess on a long enough time frame it will devitrify.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basalt_fiber

Thanks for the info, I learned something. The trick usually in reinforcing is that you need to find two materials that have relatively equal heat expansion coefficient, while the fiber needs to be lot stiffer than the matrix. Luckily concrete is quite "springy" compared to most metals and ceramics. In composite structures the ultimate strength of the fiber is often not the limiting factor. The limit is how large share of the load is carried by the reinforcement, which is proportionate to the ratio of Young's moduli of the matrix and the fiber (+ fiber length, average direction and volumetric proportion).

Steel has almost same expansion coefficient as concrete. Basalt is significantly lower. So it would probably best suit reinforcing in stable climates or used as relatively short fibers. You would not want hundreds of meters long basalt fiber rope to be pretensioned inside concrete bridge, as the rope might crumble the surrounding concrete at hot weather.

It reflects the outsized influence Le Corbusier had in the architecture circle. Many people imitated him and built piles of concrete mostly for government and college projects.

I'll have to agree it's not a good fit. Seemly the only advantage brutalism has is ease of construction. Given that a site, just like a building, usability and aesthetics will pay off in the long run.

There was some discussion on this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10317062

I liked some of those buildings, but I'm not sure why. Probably just the loneliness feeling.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com