Talk:Brutalist architecture/Archive 1

Brutalist hospital
I was introduced to Brutalism for the first time when I was working as an assistant chaplain at St. Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center in Chicago. The building has been described as a "giant concrete air conditioner". It struck me as pretty funny that a hospital would be built in a brutalist style! Jschroe
 * There's another brutalist hospital in Kuala Lumpur, according to, though the picture of it at that site looks more Internationalist to me. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 04:07, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

--- Home Office Building history? Anyone? - KeithTyler 20:56, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Basil Spence etc. 1976. I added it to the caption. Wetman 22:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I moved it into the list for consistency. - KeithTyler 22:26, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)


 * The consistency should run the other way, with at least a date in the captions. Very informative to have the dates as the eye runs down the images. Wetman 00:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Is it necessary to duplicate the information? Since the list will be more exhaustive than the row of images, and any building in an image should also be in the list, the list seems the place to include that information, so that it can be included there for all structures (not just those in the images). I guess the only case where I could see duplicating either the year built or the architect in the image captions would be if we wanted to sort the images by either year or architect, but I don't necessarily see a need for that either. If we didn't have the list, or if the list was demerged into its own article, then I could see the sense in putting that info in the captions much more. - KeithTyler 22:40, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Such questions are best answered by looking at the page and thinking of the reader. Wetman 05:06, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you KeithTyler! much more orienting with dates, since the entry is about a style, which evolves in time. Wetman 19:59, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * I decided to compromise. I think the condensed form of architect and year fulfills the desire for giving more meaning to the images without entirely duplicating information elsewhere in the article. So, you're welcome. Thanks for pushing me to consider it. :) - KeithTyler 21:58, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Sort
I don't know if there is a WP convention on sorting lists of buildings, but I'm going by the following arbitrary rules: - KeithTyler 22:51, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)#
 * 1) If the building is named after a person, use the initial of the person's last name.
 * 2) If the building is an unnamed building, or if the entry indicates a group of buildings, from a larger campus, use the name of the campus owner (e.g. a school).
 * 3) Include "university" etc. as part of the name.
 * 4) If a group of buildings all have similar names with the exception of indications of where they are located, sort them in order of year built (especially if they were designed by the same person).

Another for gallery

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?

Under Gateshead carpark.

~andy

Rees Carillon
My best online research suggested (though not definitively) that Wes Corgan was the designer of the Rees Carillon. However, the webmaster of the Rees Carillon page, Karel Keldermans, responded that the architect's name was Fred Turley. - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler  [ flame ]  ]] 17:43, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Could disputes like this come down to architectural practice vs. project architect? FrFintonStack 11:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I revisit this, it seems WP:NOR would invalidate the Turley assertion, since I got it from email. (Grr, grr, and grr. Doesn't pay to do any real legwork around here anymore.) - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 17:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Only under a fanatical interpretation of WP:NOR. Post the email here. You're an established user with no history of trouble, it's not a horribly controversial matter, I can't think why your assertion of its authenticity would be questioned. - Jmabel | Talk 04:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Private Eye
You might want to mention Private Eye ' s architecture column "Nooks and Corners", which began life as "Nooks and Corners of the New Barbarism", with "new barbarism" clearly intended as a reference to "new brutalism". -- Jmabel | Talk 01:09, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Do you have more detail? I personally have no access to this publication. Anyone that does, please fill us in. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Barbican
Is London's Barbican considered brutalist? And if not, how does it differ? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:18, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * It certainly appears to be, and it fits right in with the golden era of the style in Britain during the depressed 60s. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm planning an expedition to take some photos of the Barbican soon, as the ones we have don't really show all its brutalist glory ;).Keithlard 17:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Good luck, but due to the site's design I found it very hard to find any pictures that showcased the estate's Brutalism. From what I could see, you'd need to be inside the square to really appreciate it, and then you have to pick one particular angle from the inside to take a picture of, but no one angle will fully expose the variety of Brutalistic elements used in various portions of the lot. Perhaps a panoramic or partial panoramic from the inside might do it justice. Or maybe something taken from a roof of one corner. But I don't think one picture can capture the design, based on the pictures I've seen. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have some I took today (as I was passing), will upload to Commons later and see if theres anything you like. Justinc 20:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Most brutalist looking is Image:Barbican Estate Tower 2005.jpg. There are a few otehrs that are ok-ish. Justinc 01:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Arndale
How about the Arndale in Manchester (the 1972-79 Wilson & Womersley part, not the recent additions)? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:20, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not IMO. Much too much glass, focus on smooth and shiny, hardly any concrete or visible structure -- the glass facades and what not do what they can to obscure the nature of the building rather than exploit and embarass it. Modernist I think but much too technological and recent IMO, not sure the exact style, but it's been popping up since the mid 90s at least (e.g. ). - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you are talking about the original Wilson & Womersley part? The recent additions are certainly not brutalist, but I can't imagine how the Wilson & Womersley part could be described as having "too much glass", it has almost none. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
 * My opinion was based on what pictures i could find of the building via Google image search. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:30, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Images on the web will probably uniformly show off the gleaming new, rather postmodern Marks & Spencer, not the older building, which is now seen as a bit of an embarrassment. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there's the High-Tech glassy extension in the foreground in the photos, but also the original concrete (w/ v. small windows) tower often seen in the background. Certainly looks Brutalist to me, even if the shape is a tad uniform and structural elements under-expressed compared to many classic Brutalist structures.  Not sure if it's important enough to warrent inclusion though. FrFintonStack 11:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Freeway Park
How about Seattle's Freeway Park? , (Sorry I keep coming up with these one by one.)
 * Wow, quite beautiful, it certainly looks Brutalistic. I'm sad that I live so close to it and have yet to visit it! Will look into its history. Certainly it's recent news coverage as you noted seems to give it an additional "brutal" characteristic. - Keith D. Tyler &para; [ AMA ] 21:02, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * I finally uploaded my photos of the park: Commons:Category:Freeway Park, Seattle. - Jmabel | Talk 08:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

List of buildings
I think it's time to pare down the list of buildings to a list of *notable* buildings. I'm not sure how to determine notability though. I'd probably include for sure:


 * Unite d'Habitation
 * Hunstanton School
 * Robin Hood Gardens
 * Tricorn Centre
 * Boston City Hall
 * Royal National Theater
 * Barbican

Probably also any building with its own article dealing with its architecture.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; 19:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes agreed; I'd add Trellick Tower because it's definitely an iconic London building, and Balfron Tower because the architect famously lived there. Maybe we could institute a Brutalist Architecture category for the ones that don't make the cut; it's nice to be able to compare and contrast a whole range of brutalist buildings. Keithlard 19:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Created Category:Brutalist structures for the latter purpose. I'm going to copy out the list to User:KeithTyler/Brutalist structures for now and pare the article's list down to what we've agreed on so far. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 23:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've tagged most of the buildings from your list that have their own articles with the new cat. Keithlard 17:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The list has been growing again. - Jmabel | Talk 20:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I added St. Peter's which, while it doesn't have its own article, is an incredibly important building. FrFintonStack 01:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The list is getting silly now; people seem to be adding every brutalist building they've heard of, including ones with no wikipedia page or with no photos on the page, or without even artictect or date contributions. Could we restrict the list to buildings of international significance? I don't have time at the minute, but will probably prune the list next week unless someone does it before then or if anyone has any objections. FrFintonStack 01:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Please do. - Jmabel | Talk 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

UK consistency
Could we try and make sure that there is consitency when giving the locations of various structures. To give locations such as Norfolk, UK and then Cardross, Scotland seems rather silly. All of those that are located in the United Kingdom should be categorised as such or, if it is preferred, to be referred to as such and such, England and such as such Scotland and so on. hedpeguyuk 09:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A pun?
Has anyone ever touched upon the similarity between "Brutalism" & the word "brutal" (or "brute"), either explicitly pointing this out or alluding to it with a pun? This is so obvious that I'd be surprised if I were the first to point this out. (And until I read the article, I assumed that this is where the name came from.) -- llywrch 18:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Like you say, it's obvious. I'm sure it occurs to virtually everyone, and I don't really think it's worth pointing out. FrFintonStack 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in fact for a while, I thought the name was derived from the appearance of the buildings, and that it was called so by critics. Eddy1701 04:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Harvard architecture
(no, not seperate data and program memory) There's a great deal of architecture on the campus of Harvard University that is generally considered to be in the Brutalist school: The Holyoke Center, Mather House, the Leverett House towers, William James Hall, Canaday Hall on Harvard Yard, possibly Peabody Terrace... they were all built during the 70's, during the Brutalist heyday. Not sure how/if this information should be incorporated... --Clay Collier 10:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you point to any good photos showing this off? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Trent University (Canada) architecture
I'm no architecture student, but isn't Trent University in Canada a really stong example of brutalist architecture? I'm pretty sure the architect was Ron Thom, and there is a book about Trent's architecture ot there somewhere too


 * Brutalism: "massive in character (even when not large), fortress-like" - Trent is neither of these, even though it uses exposed concrete. I also question Habitat 67's inclusion. 24.108.58.49 (talk) 18:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Cameron Offices not demolished (at least, not yet)
The List of notable brutalist structures in this article lists the Cameron offices as having been demolished in 2002. Having driven past then within the last fortnight I can assure you that they haven't been - at least not yet. I beleive that the buildings are/were being (progressively?) decomissioned, but haven't seen any demolition work yet. I will remove the "demolished" reference in the article, but if anybody has any further detail, they might want to update the listing further. Adz 06:14, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you call them abandoned? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, after seeing some of these photos I would. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe that the pavillions are/were being decomissioned in stages. I know that at least one of them was occupied as late as last year/early this year and beleive that the ComSuper agency still occupies part of the building. Let me drive out there on the weekend and investigate. I'll get back to you. Adz 20:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Arcaid
I question the usefulness of the Arcaid link. Nice site, but in three minutes I located only one image of a brutalist building. Perhaps a deep link to somewhere in this site would be relevant, if someone can supply one. Otherwise, I think it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Attribution
Recently the attribution for Boston City Hall was changed from I.M. Pei to Kallmann and McKinnell. Granted, the text above the notable buildings section says "architect". Typically I would think to equate "architect" with "designer", but it seems this is not always the case. Regardless, it seems to me that the style of a building is determined based on the design, and therefore whoever designed the building should get the credit for its position as an example of a style. How should this be addressed? - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Geisel library
I don't see the Geisel library as being in the brustalist style - it strikes me more as international or postmodern Jgassens 14:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Added: Also it is only featured in the opening statement because it is American, where as the text states that this form of architecture developed elsewhere. Surely an image of Unité d'Habitation or another European building would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.119.2 (talk) 17:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

History of Western Architecture
Could someone add this page to the History of Western Architecture series? I would, but I'm not sure how. 86.1.199.36 21:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like that list doesn't include any article this specific, and I think it should stay that way. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right. It had had International Style which prompted my request, but that seems to have been removed now. FrFintonStack 19:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Gun Turrets
"It has been suggested that the style was subconsciously based on the austere German gun turrets left littered along beaches after the second world war."

This needs to be referenced. I heard it suggested in a documentary called 'Gerry Built' (boom boom!) about German architecture in the Nazi period, but can't remember any details beyond that. Certainly, some German gun position in northern France look remarkably like elements of Denys Lasdun's Royal National Theatre. I'd be grateful if anyone had anyone more info on this, and could referencce the claim appropriately. 86.0.203.120 12:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Abject irregularities"
The article currenly makes reference to "abject irregularities". I could imagine someone thinking this, but that it seems very odd to use such a pejorative term without attribution. Perhaps it was written by someone trying to use a fancy word he or she did not understand? If this is an implicit quotation, could someone please clarify who is being implicitly quoted? - Jmabel | Talk 02:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 3 days, no answer, I'm editing. - Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

An Obvious Point..
I assume (though it is nowhere mentioned in the article) that 'Brutalism' was originally (and still is) a derogatory term of abuse directed at this style of architecture. If so, who first coined the phrase? Colin4C 16:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm actually not sure that the term was originally pejorative. It was embraced early enough in the style that it may have been more like a declaration of war. I'd want to see a citation before we asserted that. - Jmabel | Talk 17:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yay for spurring some further research :) Seems that it in fact was ultimately pejorative. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 18:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I'm a little confused: in the article you've attributed the term to Reyner Banham, which certainly sounds likely, but you didn't give a citation, and you say here that it was "ultimately pejorative", but you don't say that in the article, nor do you indicate in any clear way that Banham was being pejorative. I did some quick browsing around the web and didn't find anything clear on that, but given his pro-technological orientation and functionalism, I'd have expected him to rather like this style. This suggests he meant it as a positive. - Jmabel | Talk 22:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Word it how you want. This link, which I added at the same time, characterises the neologism as an attempt "to express the general horror with which this concrete architecture was greeted". Sounds like it was intended as a pejorative term to me, despite that he himself actually seems to have liked the style. That's a good link, though, thanks. :) - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 23:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I'll remove the thing about "pejorative", and try to clarify: the "horror" was widespread, but he didn't share it. - Jmabel | Talk 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Missing history
Though Le Corbusier is mentioned, the role that Le Corbusier - and Pierre Jeanneret in particular in Chandigarh - played is sadly down played. I also do not think that Habitat 76 is 'classic' brutalism.Brosi 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm hard pressed to find a hard-and-fast rule as to what is Brutalism. To some extent, it seems to be a "you know it when you see it" style. Hunstanton for example. All sources insist it is brutalist, but if it is, it is in a philosophical way rather than an architectural style way, IMO.
 * A lot of what people label as brutalist looks a lot more like internationalist done in concrete, or modernist with a bit of concrete or non-traditional shapes. Some label anything done in concrete as "brutalist".
 * And then there are those buildings that don't get called brutalist very often, but sure do look like it to me (e.g. 50 Queen Anne's Gate).
 * Anyway, I would love to have you add info on the history of the roles Le C. and Jeanneret played. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 18:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume "Habitat 76" means "Habitat 67"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I think I can add something on L.C. And yes the issue with Brutalism is that it is often in the eye of the beholder. One has to take, however, other things into consideration, as in the case of Safdi who during that period had a type of organic-geometric interest going. The other thing to mention is what could be called College Brutalism. Almost every university in the US it seems to me has at least on Brutalist building from the late 60s. There is a FANTASTIC one in Washington University in Seattle. I don't know what its name is though. Concrete of course.Brosi 14:54, 23 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no university in Seattle called Washington University. Do you by any chance mean the University of Washington? I can't think what building you would mean there, though. Condon Hall, the former law school, is brutalist, but I can't imagine anyone considering it fantastic. Seig Hall, from that period, is pretty hideous, in that it integrated incongruous ornamental elements; most of the other buildings on campus from when brutalism was big (including several buildings around Red Square) certainly show its influence, but have brick façades. There are a few brutalist dorms. There could be something I'm not thinking of… Far and away, though, Seattle's notable brutalist achievement is Freeway Park. - Jmabel | Talk 20:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes you are right. I was typing too fast. University of Washington, it is. I visited only briefly, so you may have a better take on this if you know the campus, but I saw it in the photo of the Charles Odegaard Library that is on the wikipedia University of Washington site. It is to the right of the library, though. I don;t know what building it is or who designed it, but as about as brutal as it gets. Looks like an underpass for a bridge. ANyway.Brosi 00:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I recall seeing some very brutalist-looking buildings while crawling through exit traffic after a UW graduation. I presume they were dorms. One in particular had grid-like ornamentation in concrete at the top (leaving empty squares to the sky). I don't know if I can describe it any better. Anyway, not knowing what hall it is makes it difficult for me to add it to the list. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 01:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are some rather brutalist dorms overlooking Montlake Boulevard. I'll try to get some pictures some time. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, Kane Hall. Yes, that picture is on the abovementioned Red Square, and you are right: that one building, unlike the other buildings from that era around the square, is not entirely covered in brick. But I believe parts of it are: see http://static.flickr.com/53/156990877_d2e9e5f871_m.jpg: notice the part at the right. I'll probably be on the campus some time the next week or so, I'll try to get some pictures from various angles. But you are certainly right that the main entranceway is Brutalist. - Jmabel | Talk 21:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Kane Hall. Yes Thanks to remembering the name.Brosi 01:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I took several more pictures of Kane Hall. As you can see, most of it is covered in brick. Only the side facing onto Red Square is raw concrete, though the forms are basically brutalist.

I'll try to get some photos some time of the more brutalist buildings on the campus (which includes some dorms, the Schmitz Hall admin building, the Gould Hall architecture building, and Condon Hall, which used to house the law school). - Jmabel | Talk 06:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * How can we find out who designed Kane Hall. Do you have any connections to the University archives or maybe I can call the archivist - or something like that.Brosi 13:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I found it. Kane Hall designed by Walker and McGough (1969)Brosi 13:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I finally photographed the truly brutalist buildings on the campus: MacMahon and Haggett Halls, both dormitories. - Jmabel | Talk 01:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure brutalism requires concrete. Certainly the "cheap" brutalism of Corbusier and Goldfinger etc. did, and concrete's neutral color and consistent texture helps bring the attention to the building's form, but I think you can get the same brutalistic design without the same materials. Moreover, IMO some sources will slander any concrete building as "brutalist" just because they don't like concrete. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 21:10, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

2007-01-28

 * Set some place names to second row for better legibility;
 * Some of those names wikilinked and disambiguated,
 * In some of them, made wikilinks longer, so that UC Irvine can be seen as "University of California, Irvine" and not some acronym and a name;
 * Added USA after these examples
 * I left well-known city names without country names, as Seattle, Canberra, London, et al. should be easily recognizable as cities of their respective countries


 * Set "Theodor Geisel Library" to point to "Geisel Library".
 * Yes, I didn't know that Theodor Geisel = Dr. Seuss, but contextually a user would want to click on the library link rather than pause to choose which link is right or not. As a compromise, I added a footnote reference to Geisel as a compromise.

-Mardus 12:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Brutalism and Neo Brutalism

 * A question: With my Swedish architectural education, I've been taught "Brutalism" was a 19th century style associated with William Butterfield and his All Saints, Margaret Street (1849-1859) and, often referred to as "Bacon Architecture". If I'm right, the Modernist style which emerged in the 1950s, described in this article, should therefore be referred to as Neo brutalism.  Shouldn't the article be moved to Neo Brutalist architecture?
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 09:03, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The two articles you mention refer to his style as Gothic Revival. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 20:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, according to my sources, 19th century Brutalist architecture is part of Gothic Revival but distinct from it in using materials "honestly" and Butterfield is supposed to be one of the guys typical for this style. Maybe it is just how labels are used in Swedish, what do I know? (Googling on "Bacon Architecture" wasn't very rewarding.) Anyway, there is no articles on neither Neo-brutalism or Neobrutalism and Neo brutalism should, imo, be merged into Brutalist architecture or this latter article should be moved.  I'm not sure how these concepts are being used in English, so its hard for me to tell.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't say I've ever heard that. Do you have any references? Jgassens 22:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My point was that your sources don't back up your claim. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless there's some clear lineage between the two styles, I don't think a merge is a good idea. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Re the proposed merge-to from Neo brutalism, while I can't speak to the architectural nuances, as a matter of content I think that Neo brutalism should be merged as a branch of the topic Brutalism, pending substantial expansion of the branch. ENeville 01:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, I can't back up that claim. That's why I dropped a question here rather than move/edit the article. I suppose we can leave Brutalist architecture as it is, but think the stub Neo brutalism should be merged into it. While we're at it: Brutalism redirects to Brutalist architecture, but, as far as I know, brutalism is specific to architecture, so the article might very well be moved back to Brutalism.

/ Mats Halldin (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As it currently exists the Neo brutalism article has no meaningful content to add to this article. - Keith D. Tyler &para; 22:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I redirected Neo brutalism to Brutalist architecture and removed the merge proposal (without an attempt to migrate any information). But I still think the title of this article should be discussed.  Because there is such label as "Neo-brutalism", "Brutalism" should, in my opinion, be described in the article or elsewhere.
 * / Mats Halldin (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If I can weigh in here: Here and there, some uncautious writers have made an association between Butterfield and Brutalism, but made AFTER Brutalism had already been established. Certainly Butterfield never thought of his style as Brutalism and this word should not be applied to him and has no credibility in a architectural historical sense. So lets not get sidetracked here and get people confused. Brosi 20:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Campus Brutalism section
This section is a horrible read. Any chance of trimming it down to one or two noteworthy examples in the text, and then perhaps creating a list or something for the dozens of others? As it is, you end up with a situation that looks as if every American architecture student has added something from their campus without citing a reference that confirms the building is truly Brutalist or not. If anything, the benchmark for including ANY buildings in this article SHOULD be a verifiable, 3rd party source like an architectural textbook. After all, I can think of lots of buildings that look like Brutalist architecture to me, but they really? Might they be Modernist, Art Deco, or some other more or less similar style? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Concur. I moved the Oberlin College Mudd Library note from the international paragraph to this one, since Oberlin is in Ohio. YES, the paragraph needs more organized examples, which will allow for more information, yet also more understanding and less disorder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.41.10 (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Also agree. We need clarification, and perhaps a separate list of Brutalist architecture structures. Which of these examples from Orlando Florida are Brutalist Architecture? Architecture is not exact, but it would be nice if there were some basic guidelines for understanding, for those of us who aren't even architecture students. http://lh6.ggpht.com/_2dmGk2_KBbw/RsjrTUVw5aI/AAAAAAAAAMg/9iuLCr2NJgQ/DSC00872.JPG http://www.designbybarb.com/OPL.JPG http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3220/2944144123_fafe23d124.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.253.43 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Prince Charles and the South Bank Center
Article seems incomplete without some discussion of this controversy. It may be the most famous critique ever leveled against brutalism, or "awful modern architecture" or whatever. Priceyeah (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Upon trying to find a source for Prince Charles' "Luftwaffe" quote, I believe that he was not specifically expressing displeasure with brutalism per se, but with modern architecture in general and the area surrounding St. Paul's. Please note the reference provided in the article and this article from the NY Times published on Dec. 6, 1987:

The Prince told his audience at a black-tie dinner Tuesday night that architects, developers and planners had done more damage to London than Hitler's bombing raids during World War II. You have to give this much to the Luftwaffe - when it knocked down our buildings, it didn't replace them with anything more offensive than rubble, Prince Charles said. We did that. The focus of his esthetic assault was the area surrounding the church where he was married, St. Paul's Cathedral.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0DE1D81F3FF935A35751C1A961948260

Is the development around St. Paul's Cathedral to which he was referring in the Brutalist style? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.27.50 (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

NKU
Northern Kentucky University has an award winning brutalist styled building I have tried to add this to the article but it was removed. How come?--74.138.83.10 (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The article isn't a list of every brutalist building on the planet. (There used to be a very long list of brutalist buildings on American campuses in the article, but it was removed because it was taking up way too much of the article; WP:IINFO.) If you have sources showing the NKU building is such an important example of brutalism that it ought to be included even in a reasonably brief survey, then that would justify putting it back in. SethTisue (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Photographs
It seems to me that many of the photographs are of buildings that are not particularly notible and neither representative nor fine examples of the style. I would suggest it needs images of Unite d'Habitation, St. Peter's Seminary, Trellick Tower, Southbank Centre (and/or Royal National Theatre), the Barbican Estate, a Luder building (the Tricorn Centre or Gateshead Multi-story Carpark), Habitat 67, a Basil Spence building and at least one Smithsons building. A lot of these previously featured on the page only to be replaced by buildings of inferior fame and historical stature. As is stands, there isn't a single image of a building by either the Smithsons or Le Corbusier, the originators of the style.

Correspondingly, I'd suggest the removal of the University of Illinois, University of Delft, Ryerson University Library, Barco Law Building, University of Waterloo, Science Lectures Theatre at Canterbury University (which doesn't even look brutalist in my book), York University, and the Leeds International Pool. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Campus is certainly notable enough to remain, but the photo is of poor quality and does not represent the building well. FrFintonStack (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on all points. I went ahead and removed the Canterbury and York buildings, but obviously a lot of further work needs to be done. SethTisue (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked out the proposed new pictures and I think that some don't make the grade. For example there are no pictures for the Unite d'Habitation that I found other than architectural details of units. So I don't know how the proposed pic to be included looks like. Some of the others don't look that brutalist. The Ryerson U library looks like a concrete brick. It doesn't get any more brutalist than that in my opinion. Can we make a gallery here so that we can see what we are talking about and pick each one on its merits? Dr.K. (talk) 16:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See, I'd tend toward the idea that purist foursquare concrete modernist buildings would tend toward a post-International Style rather than Brutalism, which would require more expression of structure, floorplan and services on the exterior, leading to much greater irregularity in appearance. Of those I suggested At any rate, it's not so much that the buildings in questions aren't brutalist (although Canterbury University definitely isn't) but that many of the ones shown aren't the most notable examples of the style. Anyway, here's the gallery:

There isn't an image of Unite d'Habitation on Wikipedia, purportedly because there is no freedom of panorama in French law. However, wouldn't US law apply here?FrFintonStack (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a similar case with freedom of panorama in Greece and unfortunately that's a sticking point in the Commons. They deleted the picture anyway, regardless of U.S. Law since Commons is supposed to be international therefore, according to the logic, must be legal everywhere. As far as your definition of brutalism I can see your point. In this case the buildings you propose in the gallery certainly fit the criteria. Thanks for taking the trouble to create the gallery. It was really helpful. Dr.K. (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wish someone would add a photograph of the Regenstein Library at the University of Chicago. Some images are here: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1661753 75.34.183.91 (talk) 00:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent sweeping revision of whole article
It is clearly well-intentioned and adds useful material, but it is also very POV, in my opinion, and removed valuable material as well. Overall, the new article is worse than the old one. The editor has a single idea of what he thinks the word "brutalism" means and removes or revises anything that doesn't fit it. The fact is, the word "brutalism" is used in different ways by different people. The editor clearly wishes the word wasn't in currency as the description of a style, rather than an approach to building, but a neutral encyclopedia article needs to describe the various things that are generally meant when people say "brutalism" or "brutalist", rather than just one "true" or "original" brutalism that one particular editor favors. And in fact, the most common meaning today is the stylistic one: buildings with lots of "raw" exposed concrete in a late-modernist style with Le Corbusier's late works in concrete as the starting point. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to go through the entire article in detail and try to integrate all of the usable material from the old article with the usable material from the new one. Others' thoughts? I'll admit it's a difficult tangle to sort out. SethTisue (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that the edits under discussion completely removed any reference to Le Corbusier. It is totally absurd for a neutral encyclopedia article on "brutalism" to not even mention Le Corbusier! SethTisue (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't agree with many of these edits either. For instance: The first sentence: "Brutalism is a much-misused and much misunderstood term." Apart from using WP:WEASEL words, it is also WP:OR and uncited. It simply has to go. So do many other of the new edits. Dr.K. logos 21:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

RIT
Considering the entire campus of Rochester Institute of Technology is designed in the brutalist style, can it be included in some way to the college campuses section. Benrr101 (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The origin of the term "Brutalism"
I am puzzled by "The British architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut, or "raw concrete", a phrase used by Le Corbusier to describe the poured board-marked concrete with which he constructed many of his post-World War II buildings" and then goes on to refer to Banham's seminal book, citing a source link which no longer functions ("This requested article does not exist").

However, Banham's book does discuss the origin of the phrase. He makes it clear (p10) that it was not coined by the Smithsons, but was first widely used ABOUT their work, and that they happily accepted its validity in print in 1953 (Architectural Design 12/1953) - Banham traces the expression's informal use back to 1950. Where does that leave the widely-asserted origin in the "béton brut" of Le Corbusier? Who first asserted that connection? Is it real, or a convenient retrospective assumption, and a post-hoc attempt to distance "Brutalism" from the connotations of "brutality"?

I don't know, and this is not my field. This part of the article needs some more expert input. Davidships (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know either who first made the connection to 'béton brut', but Banham recognises it in 'The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?'. "As has been said, Hunstanton School was finally published in a situation in which 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 'beton brut'. The phrase still 'belonged' to the Smithsons, however, …" (page 41)

Regarding the original question, I understand that it is not entirely clear what Asplund meant when he first used 'Brutalist'. In England however it was first used polemically to mean 'Modern Architecture of the more pure forms' (Banham) as the Smithsons had created with their Hunstanton School. What made the term stick to the Smithsons is the fact that Peter was nick named 'Brutus' by his fellow students. (Banham, p.10) --Turboføhn™ (talk) 23:17, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Fermilab
Would this image be appropriate to the article? &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Dublin City Council (Civic Offices)
I'm not sure if it's correct to show a photo of the Dublin City Council (Civic Offices) between all those university buildings!? But if it makes sense in this article, the following picture of that building would perhaps be better because it shows the whole building:

--YvonneM (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Phillips Exeter Academy
Calling the Phillips Exeter Academy "Brutalist" needs a reliable source. The outside is brick, and the inside with it's circles is rather slender than brutalist. It uses raw concrete, yes, but that's it. IMO it doesn't fit here. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

University of Minnesota West Bank Campus
The entire West Bank campus of the University of Minnesota is designed in the brutalist style. I felt this fit the criteria for an edit to this section, but it was removed (possibly for length?) Please help me understand the rationale for this edit, as I am relatively new to Wikipedia and want to get better as a contributor - thanks!Prguy72 (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. No it was removed because you only supplied a picture as a reference. The text was supplied by you. This is called original research. You cannot observe a picture and write your observations for text. You must find the text of a published reliable source. I hope that helps. Good luck. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks - sorry, that was my bad - I had meant to reference the page where I got the photo. I will re-do the edit. Prguy72 (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Hopefully the text will be from a reliable source. All the best. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it was not ok. Where in the source does it mention the words "dominated" and "brutalist"? See, the idea is you cannot make up things that are not in the source. Your source must include the words "brutalist" and a term at least similar in meaning to "dominate". Otherwise your edit fails verification WP:V. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  19:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Brutalist buildings are very common on college and university campuses. Even ensembles of multiple buildings in the style are common. They're so common that if the section listed all of them, it would go on for a long, long time. That's what we have List of brutalist structures for. So before adding Minnesota to the "campus" section, I'd want some evidence that it is really one of only a *handful* of campuses *worldwide* that truly merit spotlighting in the article. SethTisue (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

"Brutalism" =/= "brutal"...
I'm a fan of rather than an expert in Brutalism, so I'm seeking opinions here on something I have a problem with - the section:

Juxtaposition with Historic Buildings

''Brutalist appears at its most brutal when placed in a historic context such as next to a listed building or within a conservation area. Here the contrast in scale and detail epitomises why the style obtained its name. Excellent examples exist in historic university cities such as Edinburgh, Scotland.''

The link is being made between "brutalism" and "brutal" - this isn't the origin of the word. Also seems very UK-centric, bit of original research maybe? Jinnythesquinny (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Who coined the term?
In the lede it says "The English architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut", but in the History section it says "the term 'brutalism' was originally coined by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe Villa Göth in Uppsala, designed in 1949 by his contemporaries Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm. He originally used the Swedish-language term nybrutalism (new brutalism), which was picked up by visiting English architects." Were the Smithsons the visiting architects, or is this a different theory of origin? Regardless, it should be clarified to look less self-contradictory. kissekatt (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Good noticing this. Per this, Smitshons learned the term from Asplund through the architects that visited him. The beton brut theory seems overall incompatible with Asplund's coinage, since the Villa Göth building has actually a brick surface, not unfinished concrete (beton brut). I merged the etymologies otherwise, but left out the beton brut part, since the Asplund theory is from a more recent source and the source for the beton brut theory has gone missing from the Internet. If someone can access the source, please feel free to add it as an alternative theory. --hydrox (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Reyner Banham claims in "The New Brutalism" (page 10) that the term was brought to England when Micheal Ventris, Oliver Cox and Graeme Shankland visited Asplund. It is unclear what Asplund meant by "Neo-Brutalist" and even in England it was at first used without the "béton brut" context, but rather in order to refer to the kind of Modern Architecture in the style of Mies van der Rohe. The Hunstanton School, which is heavily influenced by Mies, is considered to be the first Brutalist building. Turboføhn™ (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

feedback by 72.221.65.144
First time contribution so please forgive errors of style.

Regarding the opening summary, it would be clearer to explain in the *first* paragraph that the brutalism is a style of architecture for which many of its exemplar buildings would not, at the time, have been described as brutalist by the architect. If the category is applied after the fact, then the introductory paragraph can lead more naturally into a second paragraph describing the political motivations for stripping big institutional projects down to basic building materials and sturdy forms. A paragraph in the body of the text might describe how the politics and sentiment of the now-called brutalist architects was informed by a dissatisfaction with the whimsical utopian structures of their predecessors in the 30s-40s.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.221.65.144 (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Anthony Daniels
I am responding to a message telling me that my alteration of some of the details on this page have been removed and suggesting that I respond on the 'talk' page. Whilst I understand that the replacing of Theodore Dalrymple with Anthony Daniels is a matter of personal taste (though I do have issues with a factual article attributing something to a character rather than the person playing that character), the removal of 'reactionary' does, I think, reduce one's understanding of Daniels' position on Brutalist architecture. His identity as a social and cultural commentator is defined by a resistance towards all form of socialist expression. I think that understanding this position when discussing his perspective on Brutalist architecture, with its associations with socialist utopianism, can enhance a reader's understanding of this topic.

Although obviously it's your decision.

I apologise if I'm not using this talk page properly, I've not used one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.34.21 (talk) 00:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The Anthony Daniels you pointed at is an actor. There's nothing on his page relating to Brutalism that I could find.  If you meant a different man, you need to specify. - Denimadept (talk) 09:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've looked deeper, and I think you'll be happy with my change to the link. If not, you probably want to rename the Theodore Dalrymple page, which should be discussed on their Talk page.  - Denimadept (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Eliot Noyes Mobil Gas Stations and others?
As you can see by the title, I've been wondering if the Mobil gas stations designed by Eliot Noyes are consider brutalist architecture. I'm also considering this entrance to the Lexington Avenue – 63rd Street Subway Station and maybe some others along the 63rd Street Lines. -User:DanTD (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

From my perspective, no. It lacks many of the characteristics of brutalism, especially the use of concrete, stone or other similar materials. It have the typical massive look. I'm not sure what kind of school I'd put it in, but not Brutalism. Possums (talk) 12:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominate the Alley Theatre?
The Alley Theatre, in Houston, TX, is one of the most brutal Burtalist buildings I've ever been to (and yes, I know butalism doesn't come from brutal, but the Alley is definitely brutal looking as well as being Brutalist!). The Alley article links here, and references its Brutalist deisgn in the text already. can we add this to the gallery?12.11.127.253 (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)