Back in my days of architecture school we threw around terms such as "human scale" and "typology" in classes.
The article demonstrates well the idea of "typology" - how we came to associate Brutalist structures with FBI-style surveillance states. Did you know we also associate stuff like Greek Columns with government in general?
The "human scale" term refers to how a building's shape and texture should be broken up to break up any notion of the building being looming/threatening to tiny humans by comparison - kind of like how a person would prefer wearing different colors as opposed to a monocolor jumpsuit.
Almost all "evil" architecture fails human scale design on purpose by making oversized elements or using the same material everywhere - the idea is to make the organization seem greater than the individual or even society, and make it seem impossible to challenge. This is also seen in architecture built or designed by fascist Germany and Italy back in the 1930s, for exactly this reason. Look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture if you want more.
There's a lot of brutalist architecture which is actually delightfully human scale. I love the good stuff and hate how 'brutalist' has become a synonym for 'domineering and brutal' to many.
Same here. While there are obvious exceptions, the style often makes me think of colleges and especially community colleges, which is a very good association. College buildings in this style are typically not as huge and monolithic as government buildings and often have brick, glass, and wood accents, which soften the look.
That's funny, in the context of American buildings, the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Greek columns in Georgian mansions. Only after that do I think of perhaps courthouses.
Here in Boston, the brutalist monstrosity that is our city hall has its Soviet oppressiveness enhanced by the pillbox-laden concrete wasteland that surrounds it. It really is a monument to government power.
Boston City Hall really is an epic attempt to outdo Soviet era totalitarian architecture. There is at least some effort to do something with the windswept brickyard that surrounds it. [1] I haven't followed these plans all that closely but, to the degree the surrounding space can be made more useful/inviting, it would help a lot.
I'd also note that the brutalist addition to the Boston Public Library always struck me as rather a desecration of the original Beaux Arts structure but the recent remodel and cleanup actually created a rather open and airy space. I still don't love the architecture but it's a big improvement.
Pure brutalism is bad enough, but in Boston (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the US) we just had to muck it up with fake-traditional touches like brick facing that make it look so much worse. IMO the worst part of City Hall isn't the concrete honeycomb superstructure, it's the brick-clad base. Brick is good when its appearance makes structural sense: arches or lintels over openings, proper sills, a combination of headers and stretchers, etc. However it's always monolithic, and the only thing worse than monolithic concrete is monolithic brick. That's why I'll take the BPL extension over city hall any day--at least BPL is purely brutalist and makes no apologies for it.
I think, just for the building itself, that the Houston Public Library serves its function very well. It is an excellent building for its purpose, and I rather like going there. The courtyard outside, though, is a stellar example of how US culture has completely forgotten how to create public spaces of value. (Why is it that Houston, of all places, seems to be challenged to remember why shade is useful!)
One of the things that seems to happen is that there's often a sufficient aversion to businesses making money in public spaces that you end up with barren expanses rather than cafes, shops/stalls, etc. In Boston the difference between the utilization of City Hall Plaza and Quincy Market/Fanueil Hall is instructive.
That's not to say that public parks need to be crammed full of commerce but people often need some reason beyond "open space" to go into an area.
If you can find it, Walt Lockley's "Brutalized in Boston" essay from 2007 is the best critique I've ever found of city hall, and what motivated the design of what appears to be an enormous concrete ziggurat fired point-down into what used to be Scollay Square.
I wish I had a copy-it is an enormously enjoyable piece.
(waltlockley.com still exists although it looks as if it hasn't been updated for almost 10 years. But some of the older content doesn't seem to be there any longer.)
ADDED: One fun paragraph from the piece:
So imagine the real experience of government through the eyes of a pedestrian forced to traverse a windswept empty plaza ('windswept' is just a word, but, please, understand that it's a whole set of unpleasant sensations, 'windswept' is shorthand for windswept, snowswept, exposed to cold wet penetrating Boston wind, featureless, hard and flat, forbidding, uninteresting, vulnerabilzing, isolating, scaled-to-intimidate), past the broken promise of a fountain that has never ever worked (too bad we don't have a Broken Fountains theory to go along with the Broken Windows theory), to approach the underside of a top-heavy, brooding, hulking concrete fortress (and by 'fortress' I mean instantly, cinematically, viscerally, recognizably-by-shape-alone out of human scale, comparable to the worst of Soviet work), rough to the touch and confusing as hell, a building that wastes your time, a building with cavernous voids vaguely threatening and vaguely empty, so he or she can climb upstairs and register to vote. All metaphors aside, that voter learns things during a journey like that. That voter draws certain conclusions about Boston and voting and his role as a citizen. Whether he knows it or not.
The Seven Sisters aren't representative of ugly mass of concrete Soviet-era architecture though. I'm not sure I'd call them beautiful but they're rather distinctive and they don't jump out as particularly ugly. Wikipedia claims they're a combination of Russian Baroque and Gothic styles but someone with more architectural background than I may have a better classification.
As the Wikipedia article also notes the Seven Sisters have considerable similarities to icons like the Wrigley Building in Chicago. (Not sure I buy a couple of the other comparisons.)
But Russians sometimes call the "ugly mass of concrete Soviet-era architecture" French style... And well, as a French, I can't claim they are wrong about that :-/
Yes, that accounts for one part, the one with ideas behind, a style, a urban and a life project. And then there is the other part, the loosely inspired, derived copies with no real plan.
Not sure which part brought the worst failures :-)
If you're interested in a good overview of Architecture in the context of period art/philosophy (and culture in general), it would be hard to recommend Kenneth Clark's Civilisation [0] series more. It shows the development of architecture through the ages in context, and he has extremely interesting and insightful views on what that says about the human condition of the people living at the time.
This building is less brutalist and more postmodern - notice how it has a less obvious shape (it's not just a tower or a big rectangle or anything) and is instead made up by many different shapes. Postmodernism actually tried to remedy some of the downsides of modernism/brutalism by trying out mixtures of forms and textures.
The SIS still suffers from a limited material palette and needs further break-up to reach the human scale. Especially at the ground level - imagine standing next to that building - it would feel like standing beside a huge wall!
Eh, that sounds like a 'no true scotsman' argument -- if the building doesn't suck, it must not be brutalist!
Some of my favorite brutalist buildings are libraries, somehow it works very well for the kind of very public building a library is. And the best definitely feel human-scale to interact with (often _especially_ in the interior plans, which you can't get from a picture really), and are more visually interesting than a big rectangle. I don't think anyone said if it's not a big rectangle it's not brutalist!
Funny enough, Geisel has many of the same problems that Boston City Hall/ Gov't Ctr. does...two that leap to mind is that the entrances to both are hidden under the concrete superstructure, and that the pedestrian approach to both at ground-level involves crossing a flat, empty concrete plain.
Rarely if ever did I see anyone at UCSD taking advantage of the area underneath the stack tower, even for shade on hot summer days. That said, the view from the stacks, with the floor-to-ceiling glass, was spectacular. Especially looking north, down the slope of pepper canyon. The rest of the library has the sort of issues that are common to Brutalist buildings in La Jolla-for instance, reinforced concrete is not as durable when sitting close to the ocean as you might hope. As was put by a faculty member I worked with "...the windows don't open; but they do leak!"
I prefer the enthusiastic futurist poured-concrete '60s buildings to the craptacular corporate office-park nonsense that so many newer buildings on campus
have.
Fun fact: Pereira did not intend the Geisel Library stacks to look like the concrete & glass banyan tree that got built...it was originally supposed to be a concrete sphere on a single, giant column!
Honest statement: maybe its because I'm a child of the 80s, and so grew up around media with strong dystopian/cyberpunk styling...
But I've always wondered why more tech companies and corporations don't embrace this aesthetic. The buildings are so distinctive and striking that it would result in very strong branding. And while motivated by questionable ethics, we do associate megacorps in fiction with bleeding edge technology and incredible capabilities.
It is not as if anyone takes the Google happy colors and 'don't be evil' motto as actually indicative of ethical behavior. Conversely, I don't think an insidious aesthetic would imply 'we are doing bad things' as much as a fun nod to sci-fi high tech.
> It is not as if anyone takes the Google happy colors and 'don't be evil' motto as actually indicative of ethical behavior
I ordered a Google Home for my dad for Christmas. It's ridiculous the only color available is white. I'm sure they are trying to avoid the 1984/2001 aesthetic by making it look as cuddly as possible, but they are just trading that for a Brave New World/I, Robot aesthetic. On top of that, it really does look like an air freshener.
I was up in the air between a Google Home and an Echo Dot for him, and the color alone would have been enough to sway me to the Dot, but I ordered just a few minutes too late for it to arrive by Christmas. I mean, that white is going to look absolutely awful in such a short time because they put capacitive controls under it. Have you ever seen the palm rests of the White Macbooks? They look like pit stains on the favorite undershirt of a very sweaty man.
I wish Google would stop copying the "look at me" aesthetic of Apple. I like where Amazon was going with the Dot. It looks nice enough that nobody is going to complain if they see it, but it blends in well enough that you probably won't see it unless you look for it. Google products aren't the cheapest things, but they don't "waste" enough money on design elements for them to actually stand up as aesthetic objects like Apple products do.
Yeah, definitely talking about the top of the device. I thought that was obvious from context, since the bottom appears to be silver in the photos I've seen, and you only interact with the top of the device.
It may be that the monolithic edifices that typify so many favorite dystopian worlds don't lend themselves to scaling up or down as an organization grows or contracts.
Perhaps only organizations that are immune to market vagaries can handle an architecture that does not respond easily to growth/change. Also, many prefer to lease rather than own, and real estate developers are almost universally conservative and conventional, thus unlikely to underwrite the costs of aesthetically significant architecture.
(In my experience it costs at least twice as much to construct things in a way that is outside standard convention.)
A mixed example, Apple's new campus is a more friendly-faced monolith, but will be difficult to expand without breaking the trademark purity of its circular geometry. (An aside, at least as shown in photos, that building puts my creative mind to sleep and carries a message of conformity, like any monoculture gone to far.)
My dad, who was a historian and business professor, told me once that you could trace the start of the decline of a company when they completed their showcase palace headquarters. The problem is they became focused on the edifice rather than their business.
I wonder how much of that is some sort of reversion to the mean though. I.e. you often don't build a showcase palace headquarters until you've clearly been a great success. Not always of course. Executive ego can't be discounted in some cases.
However, to the degree a showcase gets built when a company is riding high and growing, it's not unusual that looking out 5 or 10 years, that company won't be doing so well.
Apple already kind of does - their new "Mothership" in Cupertino is grand in scale and has a huge curtain wall that goes all the way around the building.
I don't know if it's intentional, but in my mind Apple is also "that organization with the eerily clean white interior" in real life. They are also unsurprisingly very secretive in their organization; I've heard their engineers have little idea what other other teams are doing, but it's a rumour http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AsceticAesthetic
> I've always wondered why more tech companies and corporations don't embrace this aesthetic
The Oracle Corporation's global HQ in Redwood City[0] does look a little like the Bonaventure Hotel[1] referenced in the original article, and has been used as a stand-in for at least one dystopian sci-fi megacorp[2].
I always liked those buildings. I thought it was an interesting coincidence that their HQ looks exactly like the stereotypical database icon: https://www.google.com/search?q=database+logo
> It is not as if anyone takes the Google happy colors and 'don't be evil' motto as actually indicative of ethical behavior.
It's also not as if the sterility that was some kind of "opposite"? For me it's certainly closer to a factory floor than to, say, Friedensreich Hundertwasser.
> Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius—and a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction.
This article really nails this topic. Architecture and film theory are two of my favorite topics, because visual symbolism is so integral in both. Both disciplines have a lot of domain-specific language that it's really easy to write an article that is inaccessible to most readers. Most articles by 99% invisible really hit the sweet spot where they are entertaining and accessible introduction to the subject, but are still interesting to people familiar with the topics being reported. This article could easily have been "Five real buildings that housed Evil Megacorporations, #4 will surprise you!"
Speaking of dystopian megacorps and their architecture, I bought Invisible Inc during the Klei sale on Steam. I'd highly recommend it. It's a turn-based stealth rougelike based based in a cyber-punk world run by dystopian megacorporations. You control a team of technologically augmented spies who infiltrate these megacorps. The levels are all procedurally generated, which works really well for the inhuman sameness that corporations have in science fiction.
The gameplay is well thought out, and the story mode is well written. It deconstructs a lot of themes typically present in cyberpunk, but the deconstruction doesn't upstage the gameplay (I feel like game designers sometimes try to be 'clever' when deconstructing tropes, to the detriment of fun.) The story mode isn't very long, but it has good replayability due to the roguelike nature and the procedurally generated levels. There is also an endless mode, which adds a lot of replay value, and is something that I miss in other roguelikes, such as FTL.
I played it on Linux, and it runs well. It's $20 normally. I'd say it's a must-buy at $10 or below if you enjoy roguelikes or stealth games. I'd say take a pass if you don't enjoy turn based games or cyberpunk. You can probably get a pretty good idea of the gameplay from watching a video on youtube, but I'd definitely try to avoid spoilers.
Thanks for the recommendation. The art direction on that reminds me a lot of absolute drift. I like how many games are getting back to isometric but using updated graphics, rather than going for the full-retro style. It seems like it makes it easier for developers to achieve their vision, and I feel like isometric games tend to flow better.
For those of you who enjoy a heaping meal of architectural commentary sprinkled with a generous portion of sarcasm, check out the author's blog [1]. Literally LOL every time I get a chance to read it.
I kind of hate that blog. They make fun of things for basically being slightly tacky. A lot of the criticism feels like it's just 'Stop Having Fun' Guy. (The heating bills for mcmansions are another story, but that's unrelated to the criticism.)
The English mini-serie 'Residue' has plenty of dark architectural scenes. I didn't find the plot very interesting, but if you want unending shots of grey oppressing buildings from UK and (mostly? dunno) Hong-Kong, you shall be satisfied.
This was good, worth the quick read. I particularly enjoyed the discussion of the Sydney office building where The Matrix was filmed, and how its suggestively spinal form echoes themes in the movie.
Given the discussion at the end about people working in factories and wanting to come "home" to simpler places, I wonder how the author would interpret the trend in modernism in apartments and condos. The Millennium tower in San Francisco, or a dozens of 3 - 4 story tall "mixed use" type facilities where there are apartments above and shops at ground level.
#/media/File:Moscow,_Dushkin%27s_Tower.jpg){kind=link}
The article demonstrates well the idea of "typology" - how we came to associate Brutalist structures with FBI-style surveillance states. Did you know we also associate stuff like Greek Columns with government in general?
The "human scale" term refers to how a building's shape and texture should be broken up to break up any notion of the building being looming/threatening to tiny humans by comparison - kind of like how a person would prefer wearing different colors as opposed to a monocolor jumpsuit.
Almost all "evil" architecture fails human scale design on purpose by making oversized elements or using the same material everywhere - the idea is to make the organization seem greater than the individual or even society, and make it seem impossible to challenge. This is also seen in architecture built or designed by fascist Germany and Italy back in the 1930s, for exactly this reason. Look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist_architecture if you want more.