I think the Delhi metro is a good example of appropriate contemporary usage of brutalism: https://imgur.com/a/oJm9qHy
If the concrete was plastered and painted it would look bad after only a couple months in the sun and rain. (Medieval rulers had a similar idea but using red sandstone instead of concrete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort#/media/File:Red_Fort_... )
I might agree on the sentiment but East Germany was not part of the USSR, technically.
The USSR proper had some very interesting periods, in terms of architecture. Like all countries that could start basically from scratch, they were free to experiment and dream; some of those dreams turned into nightmares, but others did advance the state of the art.
The Warsaw Pact was an alliance of nominally-independent states. They all relied on the USSR in one way or another, but they had their internal dynamics and cultural differences. Their architectural efforts were often manneristic towards Soviet styles, rather than original.
I think USSR relied on many of them actually. Eastern Germany and Czechoslovakia provided best tech and foreign currency source, and the whole area between Germany and USSR was planned to get nuked in case of an all-out war between NATO and USSR, in order to protect USSR's mainland. Fun times for Central European countries I guess, getting shafted from both sides continuously for centuries.
It wasn’t “centuries”, it was barely 50 years. The USSR itself didn’t last 80 years, and before WWII most countries in the area (with the notable exception of Poland) were just fine - in fact, they were pretty happy after the fall of the Austrian Empire. Warsaw Pact countries were still relatively free to chart their own path in non-military matters until the Prague Spring of 1968.
Russian influence on the region is a related but separate issue, but let’s not paint central Europe as some sort of perennial victim.
It blows my mind how far behind schedule BER is. According to Wikipedia, construction started in 2006 and was scheduled to complete in October 2011 (aka about 5 years was allocated for construction). It's now almost October 2018. We're now 7 YEARS past the originally scheduled completion date. It's claimed that the airport won't open until Fall 2020. That means the airport won't open until at least 9 years past the original opening date. If that happens, construction will have taken 14 years when it was originally scheduled to take 5 years.
Based on its history I'm skeptical about the airport opening in 2020.
It probably would have been cheaper to flatten that damn thing in 2011 and start from scratch.
It's a fascinating story, though, of hubris, corruption and about what happens when you try to change an existing massive structure in the middle of construction.
One of the funnier stories was the first attempt to open it. Fire management systems were non-existant (actually they were there. The components were piled high on pallets, alas with no working plan to implement them).
So airport management suggested to hire 800 minimum wage folks. Supply them with cell phones (a total no!no! For emergency response), folding chairs and hi-viz vests to then distribute them strategically throughout the airport.
If they noticed something suspicious, like smoke or fire, they would call it in.
I leave it up to your imagination what the higher ups of the fire brigade thought of this brilliant plan. Especially with the memory of a catastrophic fire at Dusseldorf airport not too long ago.[1]
-In Tegel's defense, it was built when area was definitely at a premium, seeing as it was in former West Berlin which simply didn't have the luxury of expanding into the surrounding farmland.
The other West Berlin Airport - Tempelhof - was marvellous, though. Built during Weimar Republic years when air travel was for the wealthy few, the terminal was (and is!) as monumental as a palace.
Tempelhof was started during Weimar, but it was rebuilt by the Nazi government, which is why it looks how it looks (and why nobody wants to reuse it, given a chance).
The bit on the left, I assume, is the modern terminal. Notice the scale. The old building is small, for modern use. If it gets preserved, they must find a way to generate some additional income, because it's probably too obsolete to do that as an actual airport.
Given that the new terminal is just a few minutes aways, its probably safe to say that security is very tight and urban explorers cant enter the old building? Maybe someone from Armenia has some details?
The old Terminal is really small, but the new terminal is not that much bigger. Having flowed out of both I don't think the size is the problem. The problem is lack of desire to invest (probably justifird financially) in presercing the building.
The old building is likely small, not adapted to modern security, equipments, facilities and will cost much more in refurbishment and use. It also probably was not that well built and/or degraded for years. Just replace it, new will be better in this case.
The movements for preservation of architecture would likely have something to say about that. A lot of people are tired of the whole demolish-build shtick, and yet others find it insulting in its disregard for what they find to be monuments. In my opinion, some of the most inspiring uses of space and architecture today are happening in ex-abandoned, ex-unused industrial buildings.
An example I've visited recently is the former Peugeot factory in Brussels [0] that is currently used for exhibitions, concerts, or just hanging out at the bars and food courts that have installed themselves there following a doctrine of minimal intervention. Shortly it will be transformed into a museum of modern art as an outpost of Centre Pompidou [1]. To quote the architects whose proposal won: "We want to radically engage with and trust what is there." That sentence pretty much sums up the trend I'm pointing out.
Another example is Rijeka, a city with a unique history, that has a heritage of an abundance of industrial architecture and very unique urban planning. Many of its industrial complexes lie abandoned, within earshot of city centre. Some of them are being brought back to life, spurred, in large part, by the European Capital of Culture 2020 that is happening there. This summer EASA took place there [1]. It used the revitalised Export building (in the photos look for the building that has "exportavo" witten on it). 600 people slept in the same hall for two weeks. I was there, it was a cool experiment.
I'm not saying that all old buildings should be replaced: there are a lot of good examples around, we have many here in Paris too, also thinking of the famous Saarinen TWA Flight Center (still have to see some transformation results on this one though).
However, this one, compared to other projects you mention, won't likely be usable for art or other entertainment as it is located within the airport area. It won't likely work again as an airport facility either, since too small and not adapted to modern requirements. It could maybe become a hotel like the TWA building, but that would likely cost a huge lot of money seeing the current state on the pictures, and the need has to be justified, "tourism" like for the Saarinen building won't probably be enough.
I'd be happy to argue "for" preservation, but the article does not show any viable projects either: it seems like people want to preserve, but without a clear idea about what to do with it.
On the "against" side, there are a lot of new projects replacing old buildings that have been a huge success.
I would be very surprised if refurbishing it and adding more modern terminals is more expensive than a new airport. Just the process of figuring out what to build and how you're going to build it costs a lot.
At first glance, it looks like something from Star Wars. I do miss the bold architectures that were more than a glorified warehouse.
This reminds me of CDG-1, AKA the "Camembert", which is way smaller and in many ways terribly unpractical compared to CDG-2 but has that mid-century futurist vibe that makes it quite charming if you happen to be into architecture.
I was always surprised how little people care in Armenia about the old airport. Imagine you land in an airport that is nothing like all the other "conventional" airports with high ceilings and huge open areas. Wouldn't you want to just fly to Armenia if your experience starts in a museum like airport? Probably Armenians would not care too much to frequent in the old terminal, but it could be a nice turist attraction, no?
The people would agree with you, local business owners would agree with you, but the leaders are basically organized crime types, corruption is rampant, most money dedicated to this project would be stolen and end up in London and Toronto real estate. They also suffer from the influence of Russia, i.e. destabilize as many former soviet countries as possible in order to benefit from the chaos. That part of the world is in for a lot of trouble over the next 50 years.
Off-topic, on a reasonably fast connection on a machine with Intel i7 and 16 GB of RAM, this page loads slowly and scrolling is painfully slow and not smooth. No ad blocker because this is a new machine and new setup. Of course, I will add an ad blocker extension.
Frankly I'm struggling with the fact that there are links to that fascist shitrag on the front page of HN. I should have looked more carefully.
For anyone else interested in the subject but not wanting to give the DM traffic, the discussion here is around the proposed demolition of the Old Terminal at Zvartnots Airport.
It's an ad-supported site which I'd have preferred not to support. I don't want to read their 'articles', much like I don't want to click through to a breitbart article.
I guess it's all there though, I just missed it. I'll just have to be a bit more cautious as to what I'm clicking on when I'm on HN in future.
>It's an ad-supported site which I'd have preferred not to support. I don't want to read their 'articles', much like I don't want to click through to a breitbart article.
Others do, however. Are you in favor of shutting them down or forbidding links to them?
And who would determine which are OK to link to?
Some elite? Common consensus? Yeah, because either of these has worked great in the past...
Also, how about toning down the hyperbola a little ("fascist"). It's DailyMail, a known popular low-quality gossip right-wing newspaper. Hardly fascist though (except in the all too common sense of "Everyone I disagree with is Hitler").
It doesn't say "city of the future" to me, as the author seems to suggest, but city of the past. And not the glorious past or the beautiful past, but a period of architecture dominated by harsh lines, masses of exposed concrete, and the idea of architecture expressing domination over the land and over the people who used it.
Brutalism, here in the UK, is largely seen as an ugly mistake. I would categorise this with it.
That's likely subjective, as I think it's extremely aesthetically pleasing - I've always seen Brutalism as having strong links with the Bauhaus style, something else I have high regard for.
I won't argue with your city of the past argument as I'm not sure I'd term it as the dominant architecture of a city of the future, but I think it definitely has a place. I would argue against Brutalism expressing domination over people - I've always seen it more as expressing function in form, which would be the opposite. Given it's close ties to Soviet architecture I can see how a lot of the buildings built in the style would have literally been used for the oppression of individual will, however.
Also, with regards to it's opinion in the UK and worldwide, Brutalism is experiencing something of a revival:
> Brutalism expressing domination over people - I've always seen it more as expressing function in form, which would be the opposite
It expresses the architect's idea of function, which may or may not have anything to do with the actual users. However, whenever the actual users of a building complain about the poor UX (noise, leaks, discomfort difficulty finding things in the layout) or their feeling of unhappiness induced by the blankness, it's traditional for Modernists to tell the public and users that they're wrong. It's that elitism which more than anything else characterises the failures of Modernism, of which Brutalism is a part.
It's unlikely to be popular in the UK again any time soon, it reeks of depressing grey misery and inhuman, unfriendly architecture. It also reeks of crap 1960s city centres.
I hope this 'revival' is strangled in infancy.
I also disagree that it is function in form - brutalist buildings often fail to perform their function well, usually due to ignoring human factors like requiring light and air, or encouraging criminality and vandalism by having dark, semi-accessible corners.
I look at brutalist structures like the Heyward Gallery and despair that anyone could have thought inflicting that on the world was doing it good, when looking across the river at what else London has to offer.
Whether an individual building performs its function well or not, its still a central tenet of Brutalism to embed the function in the form.
I appreciate that if everything was Brutalist it would be an overwhelming sight, but I definitely think it has its place.
I'm also not keen on the Hayward personally, but places like Brunel University, the Barbican and the airport in the article have a really nice reduced functionalist style with interesting angles and use of glass.
Edit: Also in terms of popularity of Brutalism, the Barbican is constantly getting praise, and I think has or had architecture tours happening.
I also find this sort of thing very telling, about a residential estate many considered to be some of the finest the movement had to offer -
"The campaign to save Robin Hood Gardens drew very little support from those who actually had to live in the building, with more than 75% of residents supporting its demolition when consulted by the local authority."
Yeah, it's nothing like 1-2 storey buildings with exposed brick and wood, often conjoined in pairs, triples or long lines, that take up large swaths of land on a small island.
If you can't readily tell at a glance whether a building was designed as a minimum security jail, you can't expect the people around it to want to preserve it.
Very similar vibes to the mothballed TWA terminal at JFK, and a lot of the same problems: beautifully architected indoor spaces which are way too small to accommodate the large numbers of people needing to pass through (or wait at) a modern airport, not enough internal separation to facilitate current security needs, and tons of open staircases everywhere— basically zero ability to comply with ADA or even fire regs.
As a westerner living in Russia, I love seeing all the old soviet stuff (despite the dark history). Ok, maybe not the soviet apartment blocks. But many of the statues and brutalist structures are very unique and I truly hope they're preserved. None of the new construction here is nearly as interesting.
I grew up literally behind the Moscow Academy of Sciences, and loved looking at that building every day.
It was also fun when they started tearing down the statues; just these huge, metal bodies and heads laying in the courtyards for us kids to clamber over.
The churches, as a non religious person, I can tell you the churches in Russia are gorgeous. The one in St Petersburg on the original island is simply stunning.
If Yerevan is going to spend a bunch of money on something architectural, it would be nice to see the Yerevan Cascade finished... it's beautiful, til you get to the top, and see a 200 foot pit...
This is exactly the kind of thing I like to explore when travelling. Albania was amazing because these kind of relics are everywhere. There are no fences, guards, demolition or repair.
It would be nice if they could just leave it there, and let people explore it at their own risk.
65 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadIf the concrete was plastered and painted it would look bad after only a couple months in the sun and rain. (Medieval rulers had a similar idea but using red sandstone instead of concrete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort#/media/File:Red_Fort_... )
The USSR proper had some very interesting periods, in terms of architecture. Like all countries that could start basically from scratch, they were free to experiment and dream; some of those dreams turned into nightmares, but others did advance the state of the art.
Russian influence on the region is a related but separate issue, but let’s not paint central Europe as some sort of perennial victim.
There's always Berlin Brandenburg, which should open any day now.[1]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_Brandenburg_Airport
It probably would have been cheaper to flatten that damn thing in 2011 and start from scratch.
It's a fascinating story, though, of hubris, corruption and about what happens when you try to change an existing massive structure in the middle of construction.
One of the funnier stories was the first attempt to open it. Fire management systems were non-existant (actually they were there. The components were piled high on pallets, alas with no working plan to implement them).
So airport management suggested to hire 800 minimum wage folks. Supply them with cell phones (a total no!no! For emergency response), folding chairs and hi-viz vests to then distribute them strategically throughout the airport.
If they noticed something suspicious, like smoke or fire, they would call it in.
I leave it up to your imagination what the higher ups of the fire brigade thought of this brilliant plan. Especially with the memory of a catastrophic fire at Dusseldorf airport not too long ago.[1]
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%BCsseldorf_Airport_fire
The other West Berlin Airport - Tempelhof - was marvellous, though. Built during Weimar Republic years when air travel was for the wealthy few, the terminal was (and is!) as monumental as a palace.
https://www.fotocommunity.de/photo/im-flughafen-tempelhof-ho...
I know that it probably wouldn't work as a modern airport but I wish that there had been a way. It's so weird and... Berlin. Love it.
Yes. A total disappointment. And the "main" terminals are the worse, the low cost ones are less crappy.
The bit on the left, I assume, is the modern terminal. Notice the scale. The old building is small, for modern use. If it gets preserved, they must find a way to generate some additional income, because it's probably too obsolete to do that as an actual airport.
The movements for preservation of architecture would likely have something to say about that. A lot of people are tired of the whole demolish-build shtick, and yet others find it insulting in its disregard for what they find to be monuments. In my opinion, some of the most inspiring uses of space and architecture today are happening in ex-abandoned, ex-unused industrial buildings.
An example I've visited recently is the former Peugeot factory in Brussels [0] that is currently used for exhibitions, concerts, or just hanging out at the bars and food courts that have installed themselves there following a doctrine of minimal intervention. Shortly it will be transformed into a museum of modern art as an outpost of Centre Pompidou [1]. To quote the architects whose proposal won: "We want to radically engage with and trust what is there." That sentence pretty much sums up the trend I'm pointing out.
Another example is Rijeka, a city with a unique history, that has a heritage of an abundance of industrial architecture and very unique urban planning. Many of its industrial complexes lie abandoned, within earshot of city centre. Some of them are being brought back to life, spurred, in large part, by the European Capital of Culture 2020 that is happening there. This summer EASA took place there [1]. It used the revitalised Export building (in the photos look for the building that has "exportavo" witten on it). 600 people slept in the same hall for two weeks. I was there, it was a cool experiment.
[0] http://kanal.brussels/ [1] https://www.dezeen.com/2018/03/23/car-factory-transformed-ar... [2] https://www.flickr.com/photos/107959684@N04/sets/72157670142...
However, this one, compared to other projects you mention, won't likely be usable for art or other entertainment as it is located within the airport area. It won't likely work again as an airport facility either, since too small and not adapted to modern requirements. It could maybe become a hotel like the TWA building, but that would likely cost a huge lot of money seeing the current state on the pictures, and the need has to be justified, "tourism" like for the Saarinen building won't probably be enough.
I'd be happy to argue "for" preservation, but the article does not show any viable projects either: it seems like people want to preserve, but without a clear idea about what to do with it.
On the "against" side, there are a lot of new projects replacing old buildings that have been a huge success.
This reminds me of CDG-1, AKA the "Camembert", which is way smaller and in many ways terribly unpractical compared to CDG-2 but has that mid-century futurist vibe that makes it quite charming if you happen to be into architecture.
Outside: https://www.planitecbtp.setec.fr/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/...
Travel through time and space: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4YQxmQXUAInJRM.jpg
This feels like it's from The Jetsons: https://farm3.static.flickr.com/2899/13922331726_fd05d69d1f_...
For anyone else interested in the subject but not wanting to give the DM traffic, the discussion here is around the proposed demolition of the Old Terminal at Zvartnots Airport.
Maybe we should gather and burn its print copies /s
It's an article. Enjoy it or not on its own merits.
I guess it's all there though, I just missed it. I'll just have to be a bit more cautious as to what I'm clicking on when I'm on HN in future.
Others do, however. Are you in favor of shutting them down or forbidding links to them?
And who would determine which are OK to link to?
Some elite? Common consensus? Yeah, because either of these has worked great in the past...
Also, how about toning down the hyperbola a little ("fascist"). It's DailyMail, a known popular low-quality gossip right-wing newspaper. Hardly fascist though (except in the all too common sense of "Everyone I disagree with is Hitler").
It doesn't say "city of the future" to me, as the author seems to suggest, but city of the past. And not the glorious past or the beautiful past, but a period of architecture dominated by harsh lines, masses of exposed concrete, and the idea of architecture expressing domination over the land and over the people who used it.
Brutalism, here in the UK, is largely seen as an ugly mistake. I would categorise this with it.
I won't argue with your city of the past argument as I'm not sure I'd term it as the dominant architecture of a city of the future, but I think it definitely has a place. I would argue against Brutalism expressing domination over people - I've always seen it more as expressing function in form, which would be the opposite. Given it's close ties to Soviet architecture I can see how a lot of the buildings built in the style would have literally been used for the oppression of individual will, however.
Also, with regards to it's opinion in the UK and worldwide, Brutalism is experiencing something of a revival:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/t-magazine/design/brutali...
https://www.europeanceo.com/lifestyle/brutalisms-message-may...
https://houseandhome.com/decorating-design/brutalism-revival...
It expresses the architect's idea of function, which may or may not have anything to do with the actual users. However, whenever the actual users of a building complain about the poor UX (noise, leaks, discomfort difficulty finding things in the layout) or their feeling of unhappiness induced by the blankness, it's traditional for Modernists to tell the public and users that they're wrong. It's that elitism which more than anything else characterises the failures of Modernism, of which Brutalism is a part.
I think the argument you're making lends itself well to a criticism of any pre-planned system.
I hope this 'revival' is strangled in infancy.
I also disagree that it is function in form - brutalist buildings often fail to perform their function well, usually due to ignoring human factors like requiring light and air, or encouraging criminality and vandalism by having dark, semi-accessible corners.
I look at brutalist structures like the Heyward Gallery and despair that anyone could have thought inflicting that on the world was doing it good, when looking across the river at what else London has to offer.
I appreciate that if everything was Brutalist it would be an overwhelming sight, but I definitely think it has its place.
I'm also not keen on the Hayward personally, but places like Brunel University, the Barbican and the airport in the article have a really nice reduced functionalist style with interesting angles and use of glass.
Edit: Also in terms of popularity of Brutalism, the Barbican is constantly getting praise, and I think has or had architecture tours happening.
To me it still looks violence, depression and poverty, summed up in miserable, grey-brown concrete.
"The campaign to save Robin Hood Gardens drew very little support from those who actually had to live in the building, with more than 75% of residents supporting its demolition when consulted by the local authority."
There's more than one type of ugly around. Brutalist buildings in the UK are some of the worst, bleakest and profoundly unfriendly places.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_Center
https://www.wired.com/2015/08/max-touhey-twa-flight-center/
And also on this blog, from a guy who snuck in during a layover:
https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com/2018/01/25/twa-fligh...
It was also fun when they started tearing down the statues; just these huge, metal bodies and heads laying in the courtyards for us kids to clamber over.
It would be nice if they could just leave it there, and let people explore it at their own risk.