Environmental brutalism

Brutalism in architecture mainly emerged during the middle of the 20th century, between the 1950s and 1970s. It is represented by massive, rugged, and often monolithic structures, mostly built from raw concrete and other materials from industry. The term “Brutalism” originates from the French word “brut,” meaning raw, and it was popularized in the 1950s.Le Corbusier can be rightfully considered one of the fathers of Brutalism. He was one of the first architects to work with raw concrete (béton brut) and developed design principles that included functionality and minimalism. His Unité d’Habitation in Marseille, France, completed in 1952, is frequently cited as a seminal Brutalist work.Government Service Center, Boston, Massachusetts © Gunnar KlackAlso, Alison and Peter Smithson developed the concept of “New Brutalism,” which wanted to devise an honest and direct architectural language that considered post-war society’s needs. Completed in 1954, their design for Hunstanton School in Norfolk is considered one of the early samples of Brutalist architecture.How do you identify Brutalism?Renovation of a Brutalist House in Brazil © Edgard CesarThe main architectural characteristic of Brutalism is the use of raw and simple materials. One of the major pointers toward Brutalism is the use of exposed concrete or béton brut. Buildings in this style have massive and monolithic appearances characterized by geometric shapes and repetitive modular elements.Brutalism’s focus on directness about materials and structure, combined with its monumental scale, makes it a powerful and recognizable architectural approach.Key Points to Identify Brutalism:Extensive use of raw, unadorned concrete as a primary building material.Bold, repetitive modular elements and geometric forms.Monolithic, fortress-like structures with an imposing presence.Emphasis on utility and social functionality, often for public and institutional buildings.Stark contrasts solid and void spaces, using natural light to enhance the design.Why was Brutalism hated?Les Choux de Créteil Buildings / Gérard GrandvalThere are many reasons why Brutalism was hated and loathed, thus provoking a strong reaction against the style, especially from the 1970s. Its massive, blocky forms and repetitive geometric patterns often seemed inhumanly uninviting and oppressive to the general public. The raw concrete surfaces characteristic of Brutalism were prone to weathering and staining, often giving buildings a rundown appearance.Brutalist architecture was often used for government buildings, social housing, and educational institutions. Many of them have been built at times of rapidly developing urbanization and social change.Pirelli BuildingMany Brutalist projects, especially large-scale housing estates, were criticized for poor urban planning. In some cases, a monolithic and

Loved and loathed, revered and reviled: Brutalism remains one of the most controversial and misunderstood architectural styles of the 20th century.Sir Denys Lasdun’s Grade II* National Theatre. © Historic England. Contributed by Mark Hammond. See the List entry.To its fans, Brutalism represents the bold, ambitious and utopian energy of the post-war era, in which architects set about transforming towns and cities to better serve the people. To critics, Brutalism was a monstrous, dystopian landscape-destroyer.What is Brutalism?The Tricorn Centre in Portsmouth, designed by Owen Luder and Rodney Gordon, was described by Prince Charles as ‘a mildewed lump of elephant droppings’ and compared to Stonehenge and Lincoln Cathedral by Jonathan Meades. It was demolished in 2004. © Historic England Archive. BB96/10639.Not necessarily brutalA common misconception is that the word Brutalism derives from the word brutal: in reality it probably came from the French expression ‘béton brut’: French for ‘raw concrete’ and coined by the architect Le Corbusier during the construction of Unité d’Habitation in 1952.The term ‘nybrutalism’ was used by the Swedish architect Hans Asplund to describe the Villa Göth in 1950, and was later picked up by visiting British architects.The Barbican Centre, City of London. © Historic England Archive. DP100575.In his seminal 1955 essay, the architectural critic Reyner Banham described the emerging trend in British architecture as ‘The New Brutalism’. Banham characterised this movement by its ‘its bloody-mindedness’ and described Alison and Peter Smithsons’ Grade II* listed school at Hunstanton as one of England’s first examples.Smithdon School, Hunstanton. © Historic England Archive. DP180592.Not all concreteThe Smithsons priority was ‘reverence for materials’, be they timber, brick, concrete or glass: a Brutalist building should be constructed from natural materials honestly expressed.The Hunstanton School might not meet your expectations for a Brutalist building, but as Banham explained it is without decoration and ‘made of

The “reverence for the natural world” – the Japanese architectural influence on New Brutalism and its realisation.View of Crosby’s extension of The Lacket showing the living room (left) and bedrooms (right)In Autumn 2020 Juliana Kei, Lecturer in Architecture at the University of Liverpool, was able to visit two overlooked house extensions that reflect the tenets of New Brutalism – one in Bayswater by Alison and Peter Smithson and the other The Lacket by Theo Crosby. What captured Juliana’s attention was that underpinning the two designs were their idea of New Brutalism.In Reyner Banham’s 1966 book New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic, Juliana explains, he made reference to a one-page article published in the January 1955 issue of the Architectural Design, as the “manifesto” of New Brutalism. The article in question was written by Alison and Peter Smithson, and Theo Crosby, who was at the time the technical editor of the AD and a close friend of the Smithsons. In current studies of post-war British architecture, Crosby has been recognised as an effective behind-the-scene promoter for the Smithsons’ and the Independent Group’s (IG) works. In addition to using the AD as a conduit to disseminate the ideas of the IG milieu, Crosby is also credited as the organiser of the 1956 This is Tomorrow exhibition held at the Whitechapel Gallery in London. This article retrieves the 1955 New Brutalism “manifesto.” Juliana continues, I will also use two house extensions designed by Crosby and the Smithsons, for the same client, to examine their propositions in the manifesto.In the AD manifesto, Crosby and the Smithsons dedicated the introduction, and five out of the seven paragraphs on the importance of Japanese architectural influence on the Modern Movement and New Brutalism.They declared,‘Our belief that the New Brutalism is the only possible development for this moment from the Modern Movement…because fundamentally both movements have used their yardstick Japanese architecture – its underlying idea, principles, and spirit.’They went on to explain that, through Japanese architecture, New Brutalism found a “reverence for materials” and a close affinity with “peasant dwelling forms”, which resulted in an “architecture as the direct result of a way of life.” They even suggested that the Smithsons’ Hunstanton School “owes as much to the existence of Japanese Architecture as to Mies.”Hunstanton Secondary School, Alison and Peter Smithson RIBA CollectionsThe manifesto is puzzling. Neither the Smithsons or Crosby had been to Japan at the time of