History Summarized: Beauty and Brutalism 

For any Brutalism Enjoyers in the audience: I don't want you to feel invalidated or attacked, and I'd genuinely love to see examples that you like and hear what you enjoy about the style. Just because I'm an Opinionated Bitch doesn't mean you're not allowed to like what you like. My sass is pointed squarely at the architects whose works I've critiqued, never the people who use or appreciate those spaces. -B

I once heard someone say that the main problem with brutalism is its very modern art approach: it aims to challenge, to provoke, to evoke strong feelings beyond "it looks nice", which make it a very interesting style to study and architects, when they’ve already studied other traditional styles, are fascinated by it. Except for a building you’re going to live in and walk under, "it looks nice" is exactly the feeling you should evoke, especially if the "you" isn’t an architect, like most people,

the thing is the early developers of brutalism emphasized that the raw concrete facades were not only meant to be some ode to honesty of materials because you weren't covering up what they're made of, they were meant to be a blank canvas for human intervention (ie murals, decoration, potted plants, etc). later developers were like "blank canvas, gotcha. grey forever"

Brutalism really works as a canvas for greenery. Take any brutalist structure, clad it in vines, draping flowers, and integrating nature into it. Treat it as a flower pot, essentially. The contrast between the bare, uniform concrete and green chaos is a wonderful combination. I took some courses at a community college with this aesthetic and it gave the feeling of a natural canyon, with caves and alcoves, lush with greenery, and full of life. Behind all that greenery were the stark right angles and blocky concrete forms, that allowed the natural elements to take center stage while maintaining functionality.

As someone who's lived in post-Soviet apartment blocks their whole life - they actually DON'T suck as long as they are maintained, and they are accompanied by the quality of urban planning that would make a suburban American weep. My building is 11 floors tall, has 121 small apartments and I'm extremely comfortable here. The rent is cheap, I have great views from my 8th floor windows, the building is well-insulated, heated and ventilated. It's surrounded by trees, some of which are over 50 years old at this point and there's a small park right next to the building. I have public transport and basically ALL basic services and shops available within 10 min walking distance. And I do mean ALL, that includes groceries, a hairdresser, a vet, a public library, an ice cream place, a shoe store (they do repairs too!), a car mechanic, flower shop, several kindergartens and schools (all the way to high school level), a church, a post office... And there's a train station, two mid-sized supermarkets, several restaurants, a massive mall, an IKEA and two hardware/home improvement stores within 15 min walk. Is it beautiful architecture? Hell no. Is it a FANTASTIC place to live? Absolutely. And if you go beyond the basic, utilitarian housing or dirty industrial buildings and ignore the pretentious essays, there's some truly magnificent concrete architecture out there. If you look at high quality, high concept designs, you get amazing craftsmanship, thoughtful use of materials, integration of green spaces... For just one example in Poland, google Spodek concert hall in Katowice. It looks like a giant flying saucer and the surroundings were redesigned and renovated fairly recently. I absolutely love it. And it occasionally plays the Encounters of the Third Kind music in the middle of the night.

I think the problem with a lot of Brutalist works is that they were meant to take away all the filigree and ostentation so that all the other things, like light, water, trees, and people, could be seen clearly, rather than fuzzed out and lost in the sea of intricate details. The problem is, almost every time it's actually implemented, they don't *do* any of that. The architect *doesn't* put in the effort to catch the light and reveal the earth. They *don't* put the human element on display, except as tiny isolated specks against a featureless grey void or faceless throngs that are already shorn of detail. They don't include urban forest and lavish gardens and extensive growing things. Exceptions to this pattern are just that: exceptions. And when the pretentious boosters rant and rave about how much better their work is than all other architecture, they *definitely* don't do any of that. They take pictures under harsh, undifferentiated, often unnatural light, when there are no people present, or just one or two for that "look how vast it is" thing. The proselytizers don't *let* that greenery and those natural lines contrast against the sharp unnatural lines of efficient concrete. Brutalism can work. It's not my preference, but it _can_ work. It just so rarely _does_ because its advocates don't let the thing be a canvas and a contrast. They try to make it the only thing the eye is allowed to see, and in so doing they ruin the entire benefit of the style. Then, often, they doubly ruin even the philosophy of the style, by _adding back ornamentation_ so that the visual space actually contains something again. Random pylons and crosshatch shaped buildings are not utilitarian! Arrow-slit windows are only utilitarian if you mean to withstand a bloody siege! If the whole point is that utility alone can have its own beauty, don't ruin that by _inserting things with zero utility!_

"Brutalism means like four different things-" *opens hand completely* Me: *suddenly remembers Blue has four fingers*

I thought I liked Brutalism....turns out I like seeing nature reclaim brutalist architecture.

I grew up in a Soviet era building and it wasn't soul sucking at all. When concrete buildings have normal window placement and a coat of paint they don't feel like oppressive monuments, they just feel like home.

My favorite example of Brutalism is the DC Metro! The stations of the DC Metro are a sight to behold. The flashing lights, the hexagonal floor tiles, the waffles...chef's kiss design. Many Metro stations were designed by Chicago architect Harry Weese, and they not only have aspects of Brutalist design, but also reflect the influence of Washington's neoclassical architecture in their overarching coffered ceiling vaults! Weese worked with lighting designer Bill Lam from Cambridge, MA on the indirect lighting used throughout the system. Weese and his employees visited European cities like Lisbon, Moscow, Milan, Paris, Rome, and Stockholm, hoping to take the best elements of each and combine them into the perfect system for DC. In Lisbon, they noted the design of the ticket booth and the attendant’s uniform, as well as the minimal interruption of the subway stairs on a typical street. In Moscow, they took note of the palatial glories of the underground stations, from cut-glass lanterns to marble paneling. In Milan, they took note of its Modernist design. Weese created a proposal with dozens of views for station interiors with a simple semiellipse, with a flat bottom and curved top. For cut-and-cover stations, the vault was proposed to have straight, vertical walls supporting a curved ceiling. In Weese’s first presentations to the US Commission of Fine Arts during the spring and summer of 1967, he attempted to assimilate his European travels into something Washingtonian, stations are shallow when possible, entered through cuts in the sidewalk, as in Lisbon, with minimal interruptions between street and platform. But the CFA wanted it to feel monumental, no exposed rock walls like Stockholm, and something like the inside of a thermos bottle. So he changed his thought. He felt the necessities of each station would produce the variety, that "You don't try to make them different for different's sake. We think it's very appropriate for Washington. After all". To Weese, the sweeping, swooping, floating lines of Metro's plazas, stations and mezzanines are the system's best feature. Once they were chosen, he said, the long, long escalators and the indirect, somewhat dim lighting in stations fell into step as a result.

I've found one place where brutalism kinda seems to work: Underground. I visited the Washington DC subway system and found that the solidity of the concrete seemed like a nice counter to the fear of being a hundred feet below the surface. I can definitely imagine the pretentiousness invading the simple architecture of the arch hall, but I distract myself by imagining how LOTR dwarves would have used raw concrete to make one feel safe in a grand space below the surface.

"I. Love. Architecture" I'm shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU!

I grew up in brutalist block neighborhoods and let me tell you, its not at all like the sad grey tiktok edits you see all the time. My apartment complex is well built, has a big parking lot, open green spaces between buildings with basketball courts and a playground, a supermarket, school and hospital within walking distance. You know which apartments don't have any of those comforts? The new ones, built by private investors, from cheap plaster and thin concrete.

My defence of brutalism comes from the public library in my hometown. I loved it as a kid, and the massive concrete blocks it was made from gave me the sense that it was bigger and more complex than I could possibly understand. And for a place of learning and community, I think I found that really comforting. This was a powerful place, full of not just knowledge, but people who would help you find it. Like a sort of grumbly grandfather that might seem intimidating and cold at first glance, but held joy and experience in the nooks and cranies if you could find them. The other thing I associate with brutalism is university campuses and hospitals, for much the same reasons. Maybe it's not brutalism I enjoy, but places of learning and community, but regardless the two are married in my head.

The biggest irony I can think of when it comes to things related to Brutalism is the use of it in the Metro. The two Cold War rivals, the US and USSR, both have an iconic subway system for their capital. Moscow’s stations are known for being some of the most beautiful stations in the world (following citizens deserve beauty philosophy), while DC used a Brutalist (a design philosophy that’s fits more with the Soviet ideals that the American one to the point where Brutalism is more associated with communism) design for its stations.

This is such an alien mindset that Blue has that it confuses the hell out of me. Not the distaste for pretentious architects, that I understand. But he shows an absolutely gorgeous building and then goes "Look at this disgusting pile of confusing garbage!" and I'm just sitting here going "...so is this another thing I like because I'm Autistic or is it just a different taste thing?" Especially that super colorful one the french dude made, it's so nice. "Why is it so confusing?" That's confusing? It's as busy to look at as all the gothic and art deco stuff out there, with all the random shit all over the place. If anything it's simpler and calmer to look at. One of my favorites is the Kyoto International Conference Center. And to be fair to Blue, I listen to weird dark ambient music and would enjoy walking through hallways that look straight out of the manga BLAME! and would happily live underground or like, inside a supervillain's lair. I'm kind of weird. The fact that it's weird is what makes it interesting. A lot of architecture just bores me, and funnily enough, most of the examples of architecture Blue brought up as his favorites, look boring or even ugly to me. Gothic stuff looks like it's covered in greebles, I don't get it.

As an Art History student who is really into the old stuff, I always dreaded having to get classes about Brutalism, it was my punching bag. HOWEVER, during the lectures on post 19th century architecture and having to endure the nonsense theories of Corbusier, aka Corby, I was actually pleasantly surprised when we got to Brutalism because even though I didn't like their buildings, the philosophy behind their design at least made sense! Yes, humans need fresh air, yes give kids some grass to touch please! Ever since I have actually jumped to the defence of Brutalism from time to time. Thus, I must apologize to Brutalism, you may not have been nice to look at, but at least you had heart!

I've never seen Brutalism as edgy personally, I've always seen it as tragically optimistic. One of my favourite (and one of the most tragic) examples of Brutalism is the Park Hill Flats in Sheffield. It was invisioned a social housing complex to replace the slums that was in the area, while still maintaining the streets andthe sense of community, as the residents of the slums would be moving in there. So was invisioned "streets in the sky" where the walkways were wide and welcoming, a milk cart could drive down it, there was plenty of space for kids to play or to have a conversation, all while being efficient housing for the people living there. Becuase of that the complex is massive, one of the biggest in Europe, I believe. Yet despite that all its layed out in a way that allows natural light in, with a greenspace in the center. And thats why I like brutalism, because thats what it is to me. Not oppression and uniformity but the ability to create anything. A belief that the second half of the 20th century would mean that we could achieve comfort, community, grandeur and efficiency, without compromise. Ironically the death of said optimism in the late 70s and the rise of Thatcherism that followed would lead to its decline into an infamous symbol of how Sheffield itself suffered under the changes of Thatcherism. It would be Grade 2 listed in 98, but it took a while after that too be refurbished. Its new image lacks that utopian ideal, with its first block shrinking the size of the streets and being private housing. Later developments would keep the street size but only a small portion remains social housing. Recently the residents lost the fight to maintain that green space, and its to be replaced with parking, depressingly (arguably a necessity with the more middle class residents and the decline of public transport in the city) So though I disagree with your perspective on Brutalism, I suppose no matter which way you look at it now only seems to represent the death of the utopian mindset, whether that be through decline, gentrification or authoritarianism. What could of been a monument to a new age of equality instead represent the failings of the movements that inspired it.

Brutalists: "Practicality, utility, and efficiency are the most important elements of architectural design. With that philosophy in mind, we will design government buildings that look like concrete spaceships and apartment buildings that look like Jenga towers on the verge of collapsing."

I can't believe you did the Geisel Library like that. It. Is. Beautiful. Not even a direct mention but just a brief glimpse during a rant about pretension. The GL is the real deal, it's what brutalism should be.

Nice to see some praise for the WTC Oculus! I know that project is controversial because of the extended delays and high costs it took to build it, but for me, I think it's a beautifully unique and perfect design for its location! Whenever I walk into Grand Central, it's a breathtaking experience, and I get that same feeling walking into the Oculus. And that was the inspiration for Calatrava, he wanted to emulate Grand Central Terminal. He wanted to give a building to the community for a place like Ground Zero, a monument to the community, something that celebrates the day-to-day with the people, not to think this part of NYC is a somber place, but a place that keeps moving forward. He intended it to resemble a dove leaving a child's hands. You can see it in the tall, crossed steel columns that make up the exterior. Inspired by the Pantheon's oculus, Calatrava took it a step further! The Oculus receives the light from above as well as the sides. It permeates the building that receives as much daylight as the street outside. At night, it reverses into giving out the light when it is lit up like a lantern. The light also bears a symbolic value, each year, on September 11th at 10:28 AM (the time when the second tower collapsed), the sunlight beams the central axis of the main hall. DC Union Station was designed by Daniel Burnham, who also worked on the iconic Flatiron Building in NYC as well as DC's National Mall, plans for Manila and Baguio during the American colonial period of the Philippines as well as the 1909 Plan of Chicago. While the latter plan wasn't fully implemented, parts of it were, including Chicago Union Station, North Michigan Avenue, Wacker Drive and Chicago's spectacular lakefront parks, and regional forest preserves. Chicago Union Station was first being constructed under Burnham, but as Burnham died in 1912, his successor firm Graham, Anderson, Probst & White took over and finished it in 1925. They worked on many Chicago icons like the Wrigley Building, Merchandise Mart, Field Museum, Shedd Aquarium, and the Civic Opera House! This is the same firm that also worked on Philly's 30th Street Station, Philly's Suburban station, and Cleveland's Terminal Tower! A detail I respect and appreciate about 30th Street Station is the Angel of the Resurrection sculpture, portraying Michael the Archangel lifting up the soul of a dead soldier from the flames of war. It commemorates the 1,307 Pennsylvania Railroad employees who died in World War II and was sculpted by Walker Hancock in 1952. As my grandpa on my father's side (Irish/Russian) served on the Western Front as part of New Jersey's contribution to WWII (he passed in 2009 and passed his coin collection from his WWII travels to me), seeing such a tribute touched me deeply.

Such a delightful video essay. I wrote a short paper on brutalism in university. I think an important element of brutalism that's easy for english speakers to miss is that in French, the word "Brut" doesn't have the same connotation as it does in english. "Brut" is closer to the word "Raw" in French.

Frankly, a solid concrete brick filled with plants and children and the barking of dogs is one of the most beautiful things I've ever seen. All the big brutalist art pieces miss the mark, by making their designs so confusing and opaque that they're no longer utilitarian. Which is the entire point of brutalism. You're supposed to revel in the sheer practicality not spew out a slurry of hostile geometric shapes, all the while making the building horribly impractical because the architect made their design halfway up their own ass.

The entertainment value of having watched Blue's last several videos where he proved his spicy takes wrong and then listening to the intro of this one fully expecting another "proved-myself-wrong" thesis, only to get "no, I'm fully right and here's why" is incredible.

I like some Brutalist architecture. I went to UMass Dartmouth and the buildings there look “Solid.” Best way I can describe it is that it looks like a bunker in the best way possible. It looks like it could survive the end of the world. A grey block of concrete designed to stand forever no matter the weather. As a university it makes a powerful statement that way. “We safeguard the knowledge of mankind, and so long as we stand, the knowledge and ideas held within the walls will stand.” Also the concrete benches inside the buildings have the perfect amount of cushion to it and are very comfortable. Maybe possibly have fallen asleep on them.

I really enjoy the discussion of architecture as philosophy and what it represents, because I too often forget that architecture is *art-itecture* and has its own meanings inherent, which my brain only subconsciously picks it up (like the association of brutalist style with dystopias). The example of having train stations in the U.S., fundamentally public spaces, be grand as a way of saying 'citizens deserve beauty' and as a way of welcoming people into this grand space and by extension the city, is super interesting. Or, the Hallgrímskirkja (another excellent video) and how it uses light and shapes inspired from basalt columns and the mountains in its design. TLDR: Blue please keep up the architecture and architecture-philosophy videos, I am learning about architecture as art style and love it

I feel so strange because so many of these buildings are absolutely beautiful and fascinating to me. Even the basic and plain utilitarian ones have such a nice minimalist aesthetic. It makes me sad that so many don't appreciate it...

"Tall pointy, brain happy" Domes: Am I a joke to you?

One of the rare times I have a major disagreement with what this channel presents. I genuinely really liked the provided examples used to exemplify negative points here. Brutalism makes way for far easier usage of unusual geometric form In architecture

The setup and payoff of "beauty being a thing for the rich" inspiring brutalism to "beauty being a thing for the public" contradicting brutalism was masterful

Speaking as a life-long Bostonian (fun meeting y'all at Pax btw!), I fully agree with your choice to use Boston City Hall as the video's primary example of Brutalism at its worst. The running joke in my family is that it resembles the product of someone playing jenga with jersey barriers. And when your dad's father was an architect, and your mother works in the cavernous depths of the building several days out of the week, that means something!

Imo, the best example of brutalism is the barbican in london. Council housing that is absolutely brimming with public spaces, arts, and nature. It even has a old ass church and also a freakin' roman wall! Its incredible, its probably my favourite architecture of all time. Being within its "walls" made walking around it made me feel safe from the outside, from london itself, and within a community. One filled with art and people and water and plants, held safe within the concrete area and secure from the influx of cars and new builds. Not bad from an area that was devustated by german bombing during the blitz, a fortress rising from the ashes to keep its community safe. Not by force of arms, but through culture and affordable housing. Its ugliness is only present from the outside, but once youre within you find beauty in the people and what it means to be human. Its quite beautiful, in its own way. Also, living inside a modern castle is badass as hell and i wont apologise for that.

Brutalism is astoundingly beautiful when combined with natural elements. Places like The Barbican or the University of Brasília are gorgeous, and raw concrete works super well with greenery and water

as someone who has an irrational hatred for when buildings have facades that look structural but aren't really structural, i really appreciate brutalism for how hard it goes in the exact opposite direction. to show my love for brutalism, i have ranked every single brutalist building blue put on screen in this video from worst to best: #23: that stuff at 3:14. somehow all that yellow makes it way more depressing. #22: "water tower, johannesburg," 9:33. makes me nervous to look at. i wanna nock it over. why does the big "jw" at the top look like it was attached with a gluestick? #21: "bulgarian-soviet friendship monument," 9:40. if your making something that serves no functional purpose and is just meant to look cool and you still wind up as one of the ugliest things on this list, you fucked up. #20: that thing at 9:23. this one is the one that most deserves that insult about looking like a rendering error. #19: "ship house, moscow," 3:43. even before i saw the title i went "oh, that is definitely a spaceship," so that's pretty cool, but like. why is there a giant black rectangle on the front?? #18: "national mortage bank, argentina," 9:51. if you're gonna be bigger at the top than at the bottom, fuckin commit. #17: "geisel library, san diego," 9:46. first one i like in a straight-forward, uncomplicated way. love the way the pillars start out vertical and then half way through go "actually, i think i wanna be diagonal." bit too much glass for my tastes though. #15 and #16: a tie between "33 thomas street, nyc," 4:59 and "buffalo city court building," 9:07. well, now there's too little glass, but if you're gonna make a tower with no windows that's the way to do it. #14: both of those housing complexes at 3:00. maybe if we built more stuff like this in the usa instead of endless suburbs and luxury condos, my rent wouldn't be so damn high. #13: "brezhnevka, russia," 3:09. look at how big it is!!!!! #12: that stuff at 3:17. also big but now there's lots of them! #11: "boston city hall," 4:06. blue is objectively wrong. that atrium at 4:17 kicks ass. i want to shoot at pedestrians with a crossbow from one of those little windows. #10: "boston government service center," 9:13. basically the same as boston city hall, but a little less busy and with nifty little exterior staircases. #9: "russian state scientific center for robotics and technical cybernetics, st petersburg," 3:49. i think this one is really pretty, but i'll admit that if you're gonna make purely ornamental fins like that, they probably shouldn't be made of bare concrete. #8: that thing at 0:49. looks like they forgot to build the elevator shaft until the rest of the building was done, which is ridiculous, but i dunno, i think it's charming. #7: "bank of georgia building, tbilisi," 9:27. it has a giant hole in it! it looks like a jenga tower!!! tell me that's not at least a little cool. #6: "russian academy of sciences, moscow," 3:54. oh my god i love how the concrete makes all that orange pop! #5: "dallas city hall, dallas," 8:52. dallas, don't listen to what blue said about how you should stop leering over us. you're a domineering jock who cornered me agains my locker and i'm a flustered schoolgirl with a crush on you. #4: "habitat 67, montreal," 0:51. ok, i'll give you that it looks like a rendering error, but i think it really works here. reminds me of that village from riven. #3: "salk institute, california," 5:36. even blue can't deny how beautiful this one is. #2: "russian embassy in cuba," 0:57. someone gave that skyscraper a hat!!! :D #1: "barbican estate, london," 9:20. another commenter said that brutalism works best as a backdrop for greenery and just, yes, holy shit that's gorgeous. if you live here, you should tell me exactly which apartment you live in so i can murder you and steel your identity.

I'm actually a big fan of brutalist architecture, but more specifically what I refer to as "natural brutalism" which takes these stark, utilitarian spaces, large or small, and breaks the space up with plants, pipes, electrical work, or even just the chaotic messiness of human life, like drying laundry, or similar. It's what I love about it, the starkness punctuated and broken by living things or the evidence of them. Light too, like mentioned in the video, also helps create this sort of style that I find quite aesthetically pleasing

"I dont care for brutalism" *Snap cuts to one of the coolest damn buildings I've ever seen.*

Ah yes, brutalism. One of those things that I just have an objectively incorrect opinion about. I love brutalism. It gives me a sense of power and awe. Balance and perfection. Practicality and starkness. *Chef's kiss.*

I love the contrast between this video and the Pisa video - in that one you talked about how much you disliked the Leaning Tower, but then came to appreciate it a lot as you researched. Here, you did research only to learn that you hate brutalism even more than you thought. Nice.

10:09 You’re right Blue, it isn’t harsh. It’s Brutalist.

I can appreciate the arguments made throughout the video, but I did find it funny to have Blue saying "it's so damn ugly" while showing some absolutely gorgeous buildings. Agree with the idea that overdone it can be overbearing and restraint is important. Brutalism at its best feels very Star Trek to me, a hopeful future. I also think brutalism pairs well with plant life.

My university was designed by Paul Rudolph, the guy who made the Boston City Hall, and the whole place is wild. The library has the exact same aero split windows, the dorms are depressing, and the entire campus has a panopticon kind of vibe to it. Which makes sense, because the campus was originally built to look like a Fibonacci spiral from above. Apparently he never actually got to fully complete his grand vision for the campus, because apparently those spoilsports in the town planning department and the Massachusetts state government kept saying things like “No you cannot build a network of secret tunnels connecting the Engineering and Liberal Arts buildings”. Oh also he made the roofs perfectly flat because he thought that in the future, we would have flying cars, and he wanted the roofs to be flat and strong enough to serve as landing pads. It’s ugly as sin, but it’s also so batshit insane I can’t help but love it in a weird way.

I've seen brutalism be criticized many times, and while I can see where people are coming from, I've never personally agreed (on a subjective level). Maybe it's my early exposure to the kinds of sci-fi that use brutalism for the ancient aliens that I think are badass, or a fondness for the overgrown modern ruins aesthetic, or some other reason, but I've never thought too negatively about brutalism. Yeah, it's not pretty, but I do think it's cool. I like brutalism.

3:01 khrushchevkas were a miracle at the time they were built. As in, they were designed with scientific studies in mind, alowing them to be liveable while also being compact and cheap. They calculated stuff up to how wide is the space needed to wash one's face in the morning (70 cm, I believe), so you had that exact space near the sink. Khrushchevkas have gotten worse and worse rep as time went on, because they weren't designed to stick around for so long. But giving out hundreds of thousands of flats to citizens all over the country for free was an undeniable achievement

The only brutalist style buildings I've ever had regular exposure to was this one store on a military base called the commissary. Whenever my mom would go shopping there, I, as a little kid, was honestly weirdly impressed with the contrast between the harsh appearance on the outside compared with the relatively friendly and welcoming environment on the inside. It was kinda like cracking open a geode, but more like a disarmed sea mine filled with half-wilted dandelion flowers. It didn't leave a great impression on me, but not a terrible one either, just... an impression.

"Citizens deserve beauty." Lemme get a tissue, I got something in my eye.

As an architect myself this was a blast from my college years of Architecture History. Brutalism can be cool! But man does almost everyone who does is miss the cool parts! Louis Kahn was always a favorite of mine, because he got it.

Aw heck. As soon as I saw the first image of the building when you mentioned ‘brutalism’ I immediately thought of the weird ugly buildings that I see on the way to school. I literally snapped a picture of one of them last week to diss about it to my brother.

7:23 Customers. You mean customers deserve beauty. Every single train station cited was built by private railroads who charged a LOT of money to move people around, and this also applies to a lot of early metro systems (which were also private). You want to know a metro system that is famously public? The D.C. Metro. You want to guess what style of architecture they chose for the stations? BRUTALISM.

I’m not big on brutalism in general but I actually liked a couple of the brutalist buildings Blue showed here despite that! Mostly I think the buildings like the one at 9:29 are silly-looking like something someone created from lego, like it’s from a movie about the future and shouldn’t actually exist in real life, and I think that’s fun to look at and that I’d enjoy being inside a building like that because it would feel like I’m defying logic just by standing in one of those weird jutting shapes!

At my university, most of the buildings are brick, a few are steel and glass. Two buildings stand out: one is a church made in a beautiful stone design. Unlike the uniform brick buildings that get boring to look at, the stones of the church have different size, color, texture, and the building itself has a rounded shape with pleasant details. Next to that church stands the library, an ugly mess of concrete blocks. It makes no geometric sense, as the blocks clearly serve no structural purpose and the gaps between them are just wasted space. The sides of the building are covered in disgusting streaks, like when bolts are rusting and the rust runs down from them. There are weird seams that I guess have to do with where the windows are put in, but they look out of place on the faces that have no windows. I've always wondered how someone got the go-ahead to build that library like that. The examples of Russian buildings that you showed look quite nice. They managed to find a way of detailing the buildings in a way that makes them interesting to look at. The Russian Academy of Sciences in particular makes an effort to at detailing in the form of impressions in the walls that draw the eye while emphasizing the structural might that the style already exudes. I think if more buildings made the effort to add detail to break up the monotony, brutalism could stick to its concrete roots while not being so maligned. TL;DR: Brutalism could learn something from Minecraft builder youtubers - add detail and texture.

I love Andor's use of Brutalism in Coruscant to highlight how dystopian the Empire is while making the characters feel like everyday people with their blue milk cereal. I wonder if Coruscant was like this even during the Clone Wars.

Always count on Blue to give Brutal critique of architecture.

blue keeps showing beautiful buildings and telling me how ugly im supposed to find them. im sorry, but the majority of these are really cool

I don’t know what the design is called but whatever the government wanted to use to keep people from wandering onto nuclear waste sites is probably the most stunning architecture I’ve seen

I think the central issue that comes up with Brutalism is that it's central idea/goal is to embrace practicality and utilitarianism, while rejecting pretentiousness and traditionalism; which let me be VERY clear, are valid, laudable even goals. The issue? Very often Brutalist designs end up doing the opposite. Like, how many of the architectural designs shown were inefficient blocks held in midair for no reason other than *~*aesthetics*~*? People often complain that Brutalists designs are all just a concrete rectangle, but I'd argue they are the less egregious ones, they at least understood the assignment, the ones that are truly a problem are the ones that can't decide if they want to be a functional building or an art piece so tries to split the difference and becomes neither.

As someone who grew in both eastern Europe and Italy, I have become a Brutalist Enjoyer due to the practicality of it, but not only in terms of housing, but also when it comes to city planning. Eastern blocks are generally very well laid out, communities form around the tiny plazas between blocks, theres soace to walk, and theres a very hard to describe yet very homely pleasure in all the life that happens in and out of each building - because whilst nice plazas and human centered city planning is also a thing in Renaissance plazas in Italy, good old commie blocks give a sense of security thanks to how sturdily they are built, and the blank slate that is concrete really allows easy and infinite options to make a block look however you and your neighbours like, for all that that's worth

Talking about the politics of Brutalism, and not talking about how Neoclassical, for example, was built on the foundations of inter-state (city or nation) rivalry, a desire to take on the mantle of 'New Rome' which reached its zenith in the Nazi plans for Germania, and as an expression of colonialism and its power, is an incomplete picture

Boston City Hall I think is going down as one of the most beautiful buildings in recent years. I love it. The patterned rectangular windows, the upside down pyramid roof, the balconys jutting out from the main body of the building that otherwise appears on stilts - Magic

I like Brutalist architecture as a blank canvas upon which to absolutely COVER with greenery.

My highschool design teacher summed it up as "historically architects either had to live in and look at their buildings, brutalism was by people who never had to do either". Not 100% in fact, but 100% in principle!

Ah, another Friday with Blue, the mortal god of architecture and history.

NOOO NOT MY BEAUTIFUL BARBICAN CENTRE!!!! Ok, plenty of brutalist buildings are too heavy and oppressive, but some of the examples used I really like. They don't give opulence. They give a more modern style. I'd much prefer a brutalist building than an only glass skyscraper or a plain white modern shopping centre. But I get when you need fancy, brutalism needs to take a step back. (Also, I think both neoclassical and brutalist buildings fall into the "let's forget to add any colour" trap)

Honestly I know its about architecture but seeing "History Summarized: Beauty and Brutalism" I feel actually sums up history quite well

I think Stan’s tv adaptation of Brave New World was the only time that brutalism managed at least the aesthetic of Utopianism - but to do that it had to let go of making *everything* concrete

sorry blue, bit of a strawman, it's fine if you don't like the concrete, it has its issues, and I agree that uniformity of style isn't great, variety is the spice of life and this holds with architecture I like big concrete monuments, I think they look nice, yes there's some very bad brutalist architecture, but you can find ugly nonsense buildings in most if not all styles, a big point of modern architecture was to find beauty in simple unadorned structure and shape now personally, I find a lot of modern architecture boring, just not brutalism, the concrete speaks to me, shame about the carbon footprint you make a big thing of brutalism being a shorthand for totalitarianism forgetting that both are associated with the eastern block, and that's a big part of why, particularly in America, brutalism is maligned, if the commies did it, it has to be wrong

See I understand and respect what you're saying on an intellectual level but having lived with and in buildings like these, these spaces feels like home and part of me will always always love it. I grew up in and around Brutalist buildings so I only learned that the socially acceptable opinion was that it was to get angry or dismissive when it came up until I got to college, and by then it was too late! I'd already come to appreciate the textures, the play of light on surface, and how its aging and marking were signs of humans living life, and how a space could be organized to suit any purpose, how line and form and light and plants could interact with concrete and glass, and how much thought could go into the geometry around us. I'm deeply sad that the places I love are slowly being destroyed because the haters are in the ascendant, especially given the cheap, computer generated looking, designed for profit over people things that take up those spaces (at least until the tide of public concensus is strong enough for people to put money into ripping those apart too)

I actually like Brutalism and for two very specific reasons. I like aesthetics a lot a lot and I hate beige interior and exterior design. However the two important things Brutalism has 1. Impact. Think that giant building in Blade Runner. 2. Brutalism is a very good base. It's so lacking in aesthetics its almost wanting of aesthetics. Build your brutalist building and let it weather. Let's its cement crack, its corners smoothen, let ivy grow over it, let kids graffiti it. Paint it pastel, cover it in chalk, plant a garden around it and let the weeds ravish it. It still won't be as appealling as other intentional aesthetics but it will have It's own raw energy.

I think brutalism is held back by how much we defend the original look of buildings. It can look truly inviting, unique, and "human" if its allowed to be covered in greenery, windows, murals, even graffiti. Though it does have to start without an inherently oppressive shape to it

Is this an out of season April Fool’s joke? In all seriousness, though, there’s bad architecture in all styles, there’s pretentious architecture in all flavors; just because we don’t see ugly roman buildings, doesn’t mean they didn’t exist, I mean, the pretty ones that we’re trying to keep standing are barely ruins at this point, what chance did the ugly ones ever have? Brutalism is my favorite architectural style, not because of buildings that want to pretend like they’re the future of architecture and art, but precisely for the ones where the architecture itself accepts it’s proper place in function, not as the star of the show but as the basis for something great: the play of light on the different textures. For example, in a museum, you shouldn’t have the architecture itself be a distraction but an aid to your exhibition by allowing the exhibit be the star of the show, and good brutalism lends itself to this in a way that allows itself to shine precisely by playing its role: take a step back, be functional, be quiet and direct people. Sure, brutalism can be ugly or tasteless like the concrete its made of, but saying that all brutalism is bad because some architects are too far up their own asses, is like saying all baking is bad because hardtack exists

Bostonian here. Not to defend the soul-sucking city hall, but why arrow-slit windows? Heating efficiency. There's much less glass transferring heat and cold, yet the slits' angles also allow one to see almost as widely as one could if the windows were normal width. To wit, incredibly clever and functional, but ugly.

I went to a uni with Brutalist buildings and now work in another one. They are THE most depressing buildings to be stuck in for hours at a time. THE WALLS ARE GREY INSIDE, TOO.

I grew up not far from one such a Brutalist landmark. This architecture looks alien. Like a piece of someone's abstract thoughts extracted into put into the physical world. It's an opera and ballet theater, except I never been there as a kid, never been around there when people went to see something there, so it was just The Building to me. Parts of it were taken by skaters. The back of it has a grassy open sky amphitheater. It was always that big thing, never in full view, no individual part of it making sense or building to anything concrete (sic!), always alien, always accepted without a question, veautiful, ugly, scary, soothing. I'd say it's good if it's not the only type of architecture. It is designed to stand out, but it excels at being challenging. It's hard to process, it's unsettling. And yet it can be accepted, it can resonate with you. The tall buildings, that composed the so called "sleeping districts" I didn't pay much attention too. Some were big, others were wide, some were short. I didn't grow up in or around one, it was always someone else's place. They were faraway things. I wouldn't say most of the time they are that bothersome except a bit bland. Trees, rows of kiosks, kid playgrounds, pavements and grass gives plenty to look at, at least in the summer. The ruins of the giant unfinished concrete monsters were the most interesting for me. These were things that looked truly out of this world. Unfinished hospital, bridges, stadiums. Carcasses of the great works to never see their completion. Ruins of the empire. It's not intentional, but it's a mood. Art is not there only to charm and please. You can do a lot of fascinating and horrifying things with brutalism, if you won't try to convert everything into brutalism. You can learn a lot of from the architecture, that doesn't aim to please.

I thought I enjoyed brutalism more, but your point about Lou Kahn's use of brutalist buildings to work with natural light made me realise that all the examples of the style that I actually like also use their shapes to paint with and shape light. Hell, even my own work (builds in games like satisfactory and minecraft) I make a conscious choice to play with light. I didn't realise how non-central to brutalism that is. Great video!

I don't see how brutalism is any more snobby than other architecture style I've seen talked about, but I'm also the kind of person that doesn't assume that something having an air of pretentiousness is always, incontrovertibly, a negative thing. I also assume you've run into different folks than I have. My understanding of brutalism was enhanced by the video, even if we disagree somewhat on what counts as 'ugly' architecture. I hope to see yet more videos focusing on architecture from this channel!

Cincinnati REPRESENT In all honesty, Union Terminal is an amazing feat of architecture that plays with lighting on the inside. The way it is structured makes it seem as if the dome you're under in the lobby is constantly lit by the sun. The murals give it the pop of color it needs to look like the golden sun is meeting the blue of our sky and the green of our earth.

A lot of the architecture you rave about I often find boring, but the vast majority of examples you used for brutalism, I thought looked beautiful. I guess this is an example of why beauty really is subjective.

I'm actually a moderate fan of brutalism, but I similarly dislike brutalist Art Pieces. The entire point is finding beauty in the unvarnished functionality of the structure - so doing anything with a brutalist structure that *doesn't* serve as a functional improvement to the building is just going to destroy any aesthetic value it had. Also, cliff swallows used to nest on the giant concrete football stadium at my alma mater, and seeing them flit around, treating it like just any other cliff face, never failed to make me smile. I'd like to see a spin off of brutalism that prioritizes not only the function a building has for humans, but also the function it has for other living things. Eco-brutalism, with nooks for nesting birds, nets for climbing plants, and soil and an ecosystem on top just like any other large rock. That would be nice. EDIT: I am learning from other comments that apparently eco-brutalism is an established thing, lol.

I just think brutalist architecture looks genuinely cool and pretty I’m honestly kinda taken aback at everyone working under the assumption that the buildings are hideous and the style’s merits have to come from elsewhere

Cincinnati’s old train station is now a museum and it’s gorgeous!

Oh. I thought all the dystopian architecture was supposed to look cool. I like the buildings.

Thank you Blue for eloquently articulating why the aesthetic contrast between the Justice Department Building and the FBI is deeply unsettling and lowkey pisses me off.

Brutalism, its interesting, you can do amazing things with shapes, light and shadow, and eco-brutalism The Villa Van Wassenhove is my favorite example ive seen irl of implementing not just nature in brutalism, but brutalism in nature. It basically fades into the environment, board-formed concrete so it has a wooden plank texture exposed and it just feels like bark or a rock, the moss and algae growing on it, the Japanese inspiration, openness to the outside, plants all around...

I enjoy brutalism!! but ONLY in its more practical forms. the super edgy strangely shaped buildings make me nervous, and you're right, they feel pretentious, but every now and then i see a building that utilizes the starkness of concrete very well against Living Material. Wood accents, interesting patterns along a side, but most importantly Plants. if a design utilizes lush areas it breaks up the gray and contrasts beautifully with the concrete, and if they add plants they must consider light and how it plays into a space so that the plants can thrive, and light is So Important for making a space feel open and fresh and beautiful. I would look to the game Control for some good examples. the architecture starts out stark and oppressive, but as you end up further into the space it opens up and there are some actually very beautiful courtyards, staircases, etc. brutalism is often taken too far, but using simplicity and harshness and mixing it with the natural world can really balance it out.

I think brutalism is used so *well* in the video game Control, which really combines all of these elements. The idea of the Oldest House, an eldritch location stretching back to time immemorial, having this particularly modern architecture... the way it captures both its beauty and its ugliness... A symbol of governmental oppression yet also a channel to highlight the beaty of light and nature... Its controlled, twisting shapes working perfectly with how the House reshapes itself... It really helped me appreciate brutalism more.

Having lived in Japan where my campus was right next to a bunch of *danshi,* I can tell you that another key in making brutalist architecture enjoyable is nature. There were over 54, ~20 story *danshi* all packed together into a space no greater than a square kilometer, but in between all of them were parks and greenery and walkways that all caught the sunlight and complex lights that made them feel alive and lived in rather than soulless towers to an ideology. I compare this to my university back home which went full brutalism and is only now recovering from it, with massive concrete eyesores that dominate the scenery, with the greenery subservient and lower than the towering slabs. It’s all about balance and humanity.

I unironically love the brutalist aesthetic. Am...am I an edgelord?

Art Deco Gang

One time I was in a TTRPG campaign where we decided each elf race had their own architectural style. High elves used Scandinavian architecture, wood elves built things in a similar way to Edo Period Japan, and drow used brutalism specifically to piss off the wood and high elves.

No better feeling is researching something and having your hatred of it justified rather than rebuffed into acceptance or adoration.

I just finished my third year of architecture school. I’m exhausted and don’t want to see a building ever again, and somehow Blue has me watching a video about architecture. Well played.

Any Brutalism defenders here?

Just want to point out something obvious here: I think it's important to remember not all the people who say they enjoy something we do not do it as a provocation. Some people sincerely find beauty in brutalist buidings, even people who live inside. Those architects live in their own buildings or in buildings of the same style most of the time, so they at least seem to sincerely think it is nice to live in those. I hear many people talk about how horrible it must be to live in those, but as someone who did live in brutalist housings for most of my life, I never minded it, in fact there is many things about this type of architecture I enjoyed and I do find sincerely beautiful. I completely understand why some people wouldn't though, I think it's like how some people enjoy modern and abstract art, or some people love free jazz, and other people consider it pretentious noise. It's obvious like I said, but it's the internet, and it's easy to forget the people on the other side of the screen are not after us specifically. Thank you for listening to my rambling, and have a great day :)

I unironically love the designs of the DC Metro's stations and the NCAR Mesa Lab, which are usually classified as brutalist designs.

I feel that two big problems with a lot of Brutalist structures are: A. A failure to make proper use of positive and negative space, to give Brutalist buildings any distinctive centrepieces. Any big, eye-catching elements, that stick in the mind and help onlookers remember what the building even looks like. Think of Neo-Classical architecture, and its obsession with slapping giant porticos on the fronts of buildings. They may be common to the style, but they make for very distinctive elements that help such buildings stand out. Meanwhile, Brutalist buildings tend to be covered in repeating elements, which rob them of their distinctiveness. Repeating elements read as negative space, so to onlookers the whole building ends up as memorable as a blank sheet of paper. It's just a big pile of geometry. B. A failure to embrace monumental beauty. You know what managed to make concrete look gorgeous? The videogame Mirror's Edge. That game is in love with concrete. Admittedly, most architecture in the game leans towards Modernism instead of Brutalism. But it still manages to make the concrete structures that it does have feel bright and vibrant. And a major element of that is colour. Mirror's Edge colours its concrete blinding white instead of drab grey. And it often plasters huge patches of vibrant colour onto its concrete. So huge that the individual could drown in them. And also admittedly, this is used as a symbol of dystopian domination. But it highlights a key point - why should concrete only be structure? Why can't it be a canvas, as well? And if you're going to build on a monumental scale, why not make use of your monumental canvas, and paint in monumental colours? This is just me rambling. There's more I'd like to say, but a RU-vid comment isn't a good fit for it.

It is always kind of shocking to me when people accuse brutalism of being both oppressive and pretentious while defending styles of architecture popular in fascist circles as homes of kings, emperors, and slave owners. The US using neoclassical architecture to mark them as inheritors of democracy is a bit of hagiography. The founders were famously interested in Ancient Rome, not always in ways that are flattering to the US. Slavery was extremely important to both societies. Neoclassical architecture was also VERY popular in the south, so it shouldn't be a surprise that many peoples first though seeing corinthian columns isn't liberty, its opposite. You see a plantation, others see a plantation.

You can't close this out by showing me building after building that fucks severely and expect me to agree with you here. I do agree that I like the work of Lou Kahn the best, as well as the philosophy behind it; the starkness of brutalism to highlight the natural world around it. In my eyes this shouldn't only apply to nature, but to human life as well. Its one of the reasons I actually love those soviet blocks, you can feel so strongly the people living there. Brutalism that plays with light, brutalism that gets covered in graffiti, with water features and gardens. It's like a blank canvas in a way no other style is, while lending interesting forms to it all with the whole 'concrete can be any shape' idea. Its a style you can leave your mark on in a way I feel you can't with others (at least when its not the overly serious pretentious types that cropped up later, agreed to hating those). But as said at the top, I do also like those 'intimidating' buildings, the ones your not supposed to touch. I don't think I'd want them as the foremost style of the city or anything, but they are a fun treat and I'd hate to see them go. The wild shapes and silhouettes are so cool! I love how they push the boundaries of what a building can look like. I'd argue, actually, that a lot of these have totally lost the plot on what brutalism is supposed to be. I mean really what functional purpose do any of those last few buildings serve being shaped the way they are???? That's for visual interest alone quite frankly. I think brutalism gets a bad rep when its really capable of some absolute bangers (who hasn't seen pictures of the cool capsule building in japan? Tho its in wild disrepair now sadly). Its just harder to do right and its cheep nature makes it ripe for developers who just don't care. But ANY style can get soulsucking if it's over done like that, looking at you American suburbia and those endless cookie cutter low rise condominiums they're putting up nowadays. And they HAVE design elements and reliefs, they're not brutalist, but the lac of visual variety is what's killer. Admittedly a trap much easier to fall into with brutalism. But I feel brutalism is much easier to dress up to circumvent that problem then 50 of the same building already dressed up the same way, due to its more blank canvas appeal. Not that I don't agree with a lot of critiques... but I think they miss the appeal that is there and could be more pronounced. So I'm glad you didn't dismiss the idea that brutalism CAN be beautiful

Brutalist only works when it gets softened up by trees, flowers, water features, lots of light and fun (preferably colorful or durable enough to be played on by children) sculptures. The library I went to as a kid had all that stuff and was brutalist done well. When you went inside it was very grand and airy with a giant skylight that ran the length of the building and decorative planes, birds, dragons, etc. suspended from the ceiling. There was even an indoor garden/greenhouse area with benches to read in. The outside was also beautiful as it had deliberately built around the giant trees and had flowers and a play area with climbable abstract sculptures. Brutalist can be done well but you need way more than plain concrete to make it work.

love the passion behind this video, I'm not a brutalism hater but I do think I has to be used wisely or sparsely, I think it was Kaz Rowe who made a video about this and actually managed to find some good beautiful pieces of brutalism but I think it was 3 buildings top lol

I propose a derived style: Brutalism With Plants. Popular with everyone that got way too influenced as a child watching Jurassic Park.

A video that shows what is great about OSP. Short and entertaining, but also depth and analysis so at the end I'm "Wow, never thought about that before"