+ Follow

Want a Better Society? Try Better Buildings. (Published 2024)

The author reflects on the architectural movement of Brutalism, advocating for its core values of community and egalitarianism in contrast to modern urban development's obsession with luxury and individualistic design. The narrative begins with a personal anecdote about the author's desire for apartment living, stemming from a childhood spent in a communal flat in Leningrad. This early experience fostered an appreciation for collective living, despite the cramped and dilapidated conditions of his family's building. He contrasts this with his current suburban life and idealizes a Brutalist apartment building, the Foxhall, in Washington D.C., imagining a vibrant, communal existence within its walls. The article traces the origins of Brutalism to post-World War II efforts to rebuild society, emphasizing its goal of fostering community through architecture. The movement, often misunderstood due to its name, utilized inexpensive concrete to create large, functional buildings designed for collective living. The author cites The Egg in Albany, N.Y., as a sublime example of Brutalist aspiration, representing a more hopeful and audacious societal vision than the present. He argues that Brutalism is about values, not just aesthetics, highlighting how his Leningrad upbringing instilled these values, which he recognized more fully after moving to the United States. Upon arriving in the U.S. in 1989, the author observed a societal shift towards inwardness, private pleasures, and an increasing fear of others, marked by empty streets and barren lawns in the suburbs. This contrasted sharply with his earlier experiences of bustling communal life. As he moved to New York in 2002, he witnessed a building boom characterized by an "inexhaustible obsession with luxury," epitomized by developments like Hudson Yards. He views these modern luxury constructions as bland and isolating, lacking the community-building ethos he admires. The discussion then shifts to the reception of Brutalism in Washington, D.C., noting that the style was initially embraced for its unornamented practicality, aligning with visions of an egalitarian society under Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. However, this acceptance has waned, with Brutalist structures now facing indifference or hostility, and many are in disrepair or targeted for demolition. The author laments the modern cynicism and willingness to dismantle both buildings and institutions, attributing it to a collective inability to agree on shared realities. Despite the challenges and the prevailing negative perception of Brutalism, particularly from older generations, the author expresses a belief that its core values remain relevant. He acknowledges that a grand Brutalist revival is unlikely but asserts that the essence of Brutalism lies in fostering connection and compassion, rather than in concrete structures alone. He concludes that one can embrace a "Brutalist" ethos anywhere, without the need for specific architectural forms, by prioritizing community and empathy for others. #Brutalism #Architecture #UrbanPlanning #CommunityLiving #SocietalValues #ModernDesign #ArchitecturalHistory #PublicSpace #SocialCommentary #Brutalism #Architecture #UrbanPlanning #CommunityLiving #SocietalValues #ModernDesign #ArchitecturalHistory #PublicSpace #SocialCommentary

23 months ago

Read Full Article