Brutalist Architecture

Recently, I read this article The concrete buildings of Brutalism are beautiful. https://aeon.co/ideas/the-concrete-buildings-of-brutalism-are-beautiful?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter

My natural taste is not to agree with this eulogistic analysis. I wouldn't say I am on the side of King Charles, who appears to condemn any modern architectural style, as I can admire many modernist buildings, but I do think the aesthetics of a building is all-important, and the dehumanising effect of brutalism I find discourteous.

The article, however, did make me think that I ought to sort out in my head what Brutalism really is and not just use the jargon to condemn a building.

On the positive side, Brutalist architecture is bold: it is a modernist architectural style that emerged in the mid-20th century (1950s–1970s), characterised by raw, unadorned materials, monolithic forms, with a focus on functionality. The term comes from the French béton brut ("raw concrete"), as many Brutalist buildings prominently feature exposed concrete with rough, textured surfaces.

Its materials are exposed: primarily rough, unfinished concrete (though brick, steel, and glass are also used). It is geometric with blocks of heavy, angular shapes and a massive, imposing presence.

What I dislike is that it is primarily function over aesthetics – emphasis on practicality and structural honesty, often rejecting decorative elements. I want some beauty, which for me is about proportion and naturalism. I find its scale is often intimidating but I recognise it has a sense of monumentality: many Brutalist buildings are large, institutional structures like government buildings, universities, and housing projects. Its patterns tend to be repetitive – with modular elements and repeated geometric motifs. It claims to be honest, as if deception in a building is somehow immoral, so that structural elements (like beams, ducts, and elevators) are often left visible.

Developed from modernist principles (Le Corbusier was a major influence, particularly his Unité d'Habitation in France), Brutalism was popular in post-war Europe and the U.S. for its cost-effectiveness and durability. Sometimes associated with socialist and utopian ideals, it was used for social housing and civic buildings.

Here are some examples of Brutalism:

• Barbican Estate (London, UK) – A massive residential and cultural complex. Photo: Barbican Towers:

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

• Boston City Hall (USA) – A controversial but iconic government building.

• Trellick Tower (London, UK) – A high-rise social housing project by Ernő Goldfinger.

• Habitat 67 (Montreal, Canada) – A modular housing complex by Moshe Safdie.

• National Theatre (London, UK) – A cultural landmark with a distinctive concrete form.

• 
  

I sympathise with the criticisms which often describe Brutalist buildings as "ugly" or "oppressive" due to their harsh, imposing appearance. I can also understand why some Brutalist buildings have been demolished due to public dislike.

Recently, Brutalism has seen a renewed interest on the grounds of its apparent boldness, honesty, and historical significance in architectural styles.

I am wrong in my disdain for this style? What do you think?