Slog Comments
The Good Architecture of Seattle
3
dude, people from seattle aren't so good with architecture. you have to go to a real actual city to see good buildings and bridges. i think it is because the pay sucks in seattle or something.
6
I like the Rainier Pump Station, but I also like the Beacon Hill library. Although I wouldn't call either "beautiful", they are both "interesting". I like interesting art and architecture.
The beacon hill library may be a little too interesting, but better too interesting than boring.
The beacon hill library may be a little too interesting, but better too interesting than boring.
7
The shrubbery is too dominant. Landscaping is important. I would like to see smaller patches with maybe something that cascades a little over the wall, to soften the lines.
8
I can only interpret this as intentional self-parody. Good architecture=stuff that makes Charles feel good. But when people say Beacon Hill library makes them feel good, they are wrong, for it is a heap of bad ideas.
Therefore, false consciousness?
Oh, Marxists.
Therefore, false consciousness?
Oh, Marxists.
9
Charles, what is it physically about the building you like? Why does that arrangement of materials give you the feelings it does? Saying it gives you feelings is putting the cart before the horse. No, "simple and compact" is not enough of an explanation – by that standard you could call a Snickers bar beautiful. God, you are probably now going to declare a Snickers bar beautiful.
10
Hey everybody I thought I had taste, but Charles has clearly shown me by demonstrating that the things he likes are good and the things he doesn't like so much are not good. Thanks Charles! Do you like your blog posts? I'm dying to learn what my opinion should be.
12
Either you're a fan of cartoonish, clichéd examples of brutalism... or you're just being a troll again.
13
@9, in my third post on beacon hill library i gave my reasons for why i thought it is bad. in this series, please let the images soak in and, at the end, i will detail my reasons.
14
I have mixed feelings about brutalism.
Some of the buildings on the MIT, UW, and Evergreen campuses are quite nice. The Christian Science mother church in Boston is amazing. I've always sort of liked Freeway Park even though as an urban environment it is a bit scary.
On the other hand I never felt easy even walking around Boston City Hall, an inverted pyramid plunked in the middle of an ill designed courtyard.
This pump station seems like a good example of where brutalism is used best. It seems to fit urban infrastructure rather well. And the building has nice details.
Some of the buildings on the MIT, UW, and Evergreen campuses are quite nice. The Christian Science mother church in Boston is amazing. I've always sort of liked Freeway Park even though as an urban environment it is a bit scary.
On the other hand I never felt easy even walking around Boston City Hall, an inverted pyramid plunked in the middle of an ill designed courtyard.
This pump station seems like a good example of where brutalism is used best. It seems to fit urban infrastructure rather well. And the building has nice details.
15
Alright, carry on then. I do hope you have an explanation at the end that places at least some of the meaning created by the building in the physicality of the building. An object, a work of art, a building is not a neutral container for an idea or set of ideas. The medium in which an idea is encountered affects its orientation of meaning, such that medium and message cannot be disconnected.
16
The Magnolia branch of the Seattle Public Library kicks the aesthetic stuffing out of both of the buildings you're comparing (of which I much prefer the pump house).
17
This is hideous. There is no humanity in this. It's isolating and without warth, personality, invitation.
Charles has horrible taste. Absolutely horrible.
Charles has horrible taste. Absolutely horrible.
19
The Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels in Los Angeles is a recent example of brutalist architecture. From the outside it is a squat, heavy, brooding hulk that brings to mind all sorts of apt metaphors for the current Catholic hierarchy and its defenders.
On the inside, though, it's a soaring, beautiful, light-filled space, and well worth a visit if you're walking around downtown L.A. The translucent alabaster panels used in place of stained glass are especially nice.
On the inside, though, it's a soaring, beautiful, light-filled space, and well worth a visit if you're walking around downtown L.A. The translucent alabaster panels used in place of stained glass are especially nice.
22
Was going to comment on this post and this building but there is no point. I occasionally read posts by Charles only because the entertainment level is to see if the same old points of view are still being rehashed. Your point of view has not changed much over the years and comes across as tiring trolling.
I have dishes to wash which is far more engaging than getting sucked into this debate.
I have dishes to wash which is far more engaging than getting sucked into this debate.
23
Why does every imposing, minimal, bland piece of architecture that looks like it was designed by some uptight Objectivist get considered good by those who would have us believe they possess some enlightenment?
26
I like the structure, but the retraining wall is too much. The gimmick is to often repeated, like a film with way too many track shots. or something.
28
While I don't particularly like Charles' example du jour, it hits on a key point: that the very shapes, forms, and materials that make Brutalism so appallingly brutal in large civic structures can be quite interesting and humane when reduced in scale.
This is the fundamental disconnect of 20th century design: the modernists (and their offspring) dreamed big, but thought small; none of their best work scales. Thus the Walter Gropius House outside of Boston is a miracle of minimalism, but his JFK Federal Building is an eyesore. Le Corbusier would have destroyed the world's great cities with his human-phobic regimentation boxes if given the chance, but his modest Carpenter Center at Harvard is amazing.
@14: The Christian Science campus you describe is actually an early work by I.M. Pei, who was never really a Brutalist. The space is stunning because, for all of its grandeur and "openness", Pei paid careful attention to how the forms would visually and functionally intersect for any person moving through it, at any time of year. The space is meant to be experienced from within, rather than admired on a drawing board. As a result, it is one of the (few) great public places built from scratch in the late 20th century.
(FYI, the Christian Science Church is broke, and is looking to leverage some of its prime real estate to cope. The primary plan is to build and sell a skinny, unobtrusive condo tower between Huntington Ave and the wedge-shaped Reflection Hall, which is not a terrible idea at all. The other thought is to cut the reflecting pool in half for some arbitrary pass-through, which is an awful idea. If you're in Boston, I strongly encourage you to show up at design review hearings and voice your objections to the latter.)
More...
This is the fundamental disconnect of 20th century design: the modernists (and their offspring) dreamed big, but thought small; none of their best work scales. Thus the Walter Gropius House outside of Boston is a miracle of minimalism, but his JFK Federal Building is an eyesore. Le Corbusier would have destroyed the world's great cities with his human-phobic regimentation boxes if given the chance, but his modest Carpenter Center at Harvard is amazing.
@14: The Christian Science campus you describe is actually an early work by I.M. Pei, who was never really a Brutalist. The space is stunning because, for all of its grandeur and "openness", Pei paid careful attention to how the forms would visually and functionally intersect for any person moving through it, at any time of year. The space is meant to be experienced from within, rather than admired on a drawing board. As a result, it is one of the (few) great public places built from scratch in the late 20th century.
(FYI, the Christian Science Church is broke, and is looking to leverage some of its prime real estate to cope. The primary plan is to build and sell a skinny, unobtrusive condo tower between Huntington Ave and the wedge-shaped Reflection Hall, which is not a terrible idea at all. The other thought is to cut the reflecting pool in half for some arbitrary pass-through, which is an awful idea. If you're in Boston, I strongly encourage you to show up at design review hearings and voice your objections to the latter.)
29
i guess, seeing how it is a pump station, that it is adequate and purposeful. yet, it is still fuck ugly.
also @5, 11, 17, 20, & 21.
more importantly images ARE NOT feelings. especially the ones you take chuckles.
also @5, 11, 17, 20, & 21.
more importantly images ARE NOT feelings. especially the ones you take chuckles.
30
The only thing of merit about Brutalist architecture is that when society collapses it will have given us plenty of featureless concrete walls against which the firing squads can shoot fans of Modernism.
32
this just happens to be trendy at the moment. Whoever the 1994 version of Mudede is would totally love the beaconhill library. The raw concrete look was kind of the dominant trend in cutting edge industrial design about a year ago. Before that there was a handfull of wierdo artists on the international scene using it. [now they've started adding tropical color to the slate gray]
http://www.cracktwo.com/2011/04/25-aband…
http://www.cracktwo.com/2011/04/25-aband…
33
Charles my friend, allow me to introduce you to the best tumbler evar:
http://fuckyeahbrutalism.tumblr.com
http://fuckyeahbrutalism.tumblr.com
Comments (33) RSS