easty said...

Wow, you architects really do have your own language and way of looking at things, don't you.

i is a drafty. "in the voice of borat"

Sailhack said...

Back to the original topic...what was it again?

Oh yeah - image...

Me windsurfing - white gath, orange (NP) harness, white h/lines (note-don't let a mate choose gear for you), sails with more duct-tape than mono, board with glassed holes from repairs (never painted over), buckled toes, hairy shoulders, bald head, beer gut, and a damn ugly sailor to boot!

Image is nothing...If I'm having fun, I don't care how bad I look!

yes, the multi task of back on topic. we must be women.

i walked past the office next door yesterday. noticed all of the guys crowded around a pc. watching chicks in bikini's walking down the beach.

they're architects too. [}:)]


the thing that upsets me the most is when my sail colour doesn't match my board colour. i just can't think under those conditions.

Sailhack said...

Gestalt said...

brutalism was all about function, it's expression and the use of materials.

Sorry, I misinterpreted the word function. What I meant was the function of the building itself in regard to its occupants. Many brutalist designs (and I'm probably generalising on the failures as you mentioned) weren't energy efficient, (either no windows, or all windows) were ergonomical nightmares with poor orientation and focused on meeting a certain 'look' instead of servicing the tenant's spatial requirements. I think we've got that sorted now, although as you said "I is a drafty too" (or as I like to say....."I'm an Architect-Lite") so I wouldn't dare to question the architectural fraternity on many of its questionable antics over the past 5 or 6 decades...

There is a certain irony that we are discussing brutalism in a thread titled image is everything to some.

please don't take this the wrong way, but I have to say. I really don't agree with your point. to say "Many brutalist designs (and I'm probably generalising on the failures as you mentioned) weren't energy efficient, (either no windows, or all windows) were ergonomical nightmares with poor orientation and focused on meeting a certain 'look' instead of servicing the tenant's spatial requirements" is really singleing out building that are not brutalist and focusing on building that fail the function test.

the fact that some of the true brutalist buildings in the uk are being softened/refurbished and becoming popular once more says it all. brutalism is after all based around function and not form. soften the hard concrete surfaces and exposed services and you should be left with palatable spaces that perform the tasks they were designed for.

if a building has ergonomic issues and or energy efficiency issues it is a bad design regardless of it's style. to say that brutalism falls into this category is to single out buildings designed by people who never understood the principles of the designs they were copying.

if you were to say you think brutalism is ugly, then fair enough. that one tends to polarize everyone and really just pays tribute to the mantra form follows function.

funny thing is that brutalism still to this day leaves it's mark on the buildings we use. well, all except project homes which missed th point completely and followed the path of post moderism.

with times getting tougher and social conditions becoming more difficult i'm thinking we will be seeing a return to some milder form of brutalism. it will just be called modernism so it is more marketable.

brutalism is a design philosophy.

the ambition was to design utopian urban developments, "streets in the sky".

these socialist doctrines also required that the designs be cheap to construct and easily replicated so they could be rolled out to the masses. affordable housing and public spaces were to be the main benefactors to this doctrine.

in the uk, it was used as a response to the failing social conditions of the time with the welfare state ideals becoming more favorable as economic turmoil occurred.
unemployment was on the rise, crime was increasing and the government decided to undertake cheap/fast construction of public buildings and affordable housing complexes which happened to suit the brutalist philosophies.

what unfolded was a number of poorly constructed imitations with no functionality that ended up causing suburbs to die. as they appeared to look like brutalist buildings the movement as a whole was hated.

even the well designed examples of brutalism were starting to have their philosophy questioned. although the functional aspects of their design worked they came under fire as social conditions collapsed. in contemporary times the simple tasks of adding proper security and building maintenance programs have seen previously abandoned brutalist buildings take on new life and become very favorable places to live.

here is a quote i found - "The style had a huge and now generally lamented impact across England and in cities across the United States, in large part because the followers weren't as gifted as the progenitors."

www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/portfolio/azrul/html/prac1.html

www.nyc-architecture.com/UES/UES112.htm

www.open.edu/openlearn/about-openlearn/frequently-asked-questions/looking-open2net (click on the buildings tab and read the description of the buildings. it clearly outlines the issues and solutions. )

www.ontarioarchitecture.com/Brutalist.htm

blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2007/06/breuer_brutalism_a_history.html

Wow, the 8 gazillionth post by windsurfers on kiters wearing boardies. Who do you think really has the problem here? Build a bridge and get over it boys and girls.

Red thumb away!