Chartsengrafs

Absolutely! I had no idea that it was considered a style in it's own right though! It's very hip. I just ran a search and found these websites on it, which have nice photo galleries, background information, etc.: http://www.spaceagecity.com/googie/ http://roadsidepeek.com/googie/index.htm

Date: 7/16/2005 9:03:47 AM Author: Leviathan569 Then what is the difference between a viaduct and a bridge?quote> Basically, as GaryReggae has more or less said, a viaduct is a type of bridge!

Date: 7/17/2005 3:30:10 PM Author: DuskTrooper ^^ Exactly. And once again, everything done by those architects seem the same. Take Gehry's Bilbao Museao, the Walt Disney music hall, as welkl as part of the Chicago Millenium Park. All of them use the same curved metal elements, which was great at first, but, is now becoming cliched. Then, he is hired by other firms, just because he is Gehry, and then, you know the results. Now Libeskind's design habits involve the usage of crystalline forms, and many angles, which is becoming overused (especially in the WTC plans, where several of the buildings are nearly the same; the only main difference is the heights of the structures). Also, I agree that Libeskind, and the people whp are in charge of the new WTC project are making the project a symbol of greed, and super-egotism.quote> I take it that you're agreeing with the others on Gehry and Libeskind then!? The thing that has to be kept in mind is that every architect has their style - a sort of signature, so certain themes or forms will likely recur in their designs. I feel I should stress that Libeskind is an innocent party in the watering-down of the WTC plans. The guy is determined not to be pushed out of the project, but creative control over the design was wrestled from him by Larry Silverstein and his people. Unfortunately, it's the usual story, and nothing has been done to rectify the situation, probably because no-one is bothered enough.

Date: 7/17/2005 2:23:17 PM Author: Motina Date: 7/17/2005 6:04:28 AM Author: Kwakelaar Architects are not artists. Art is made for its own sake, architecture is made for a purpose. This is ofcoures an opinion, and not the universal truth. But that is the thing. Ghery and Lebeskind look at architecture as art. They use feeling instead of thought or a plurality of the two. Getting back to the other post.. They both hit it big after a certain project, and then they go around accepting large named projects (The Art Gallery of Ontario, and Royal Ontario Museum in the case of Toronto). The AGO not being a big income producer hires Ghery because he is Frank O'Ghery. I do have to give it up for Ghery though; he did trim it down despite still containing questionable design features that serve no purpose. As for the ROM, The Diamond that neither looks like a diamond or structurally sound as a diamond. Daniel Lebeskind and Zaha Hadid are both criticized for creating structurally unsound buildings and have been sued quite a few times. This is a really interesting debate! I personally don't think that Libeskind and Gehry have 'sold out', they've simply achieved a status that is uncommon for architects, because they come up with such daring designs. I also believe that they are intuitive designers, and treat their architecture more like an expressionist artform, rather than a technical solution to a problem. If that leads to structurally unsound buildings, then it is more than likely down to structural engineers, rather than the architect. Certainly, I don't know who has the final say in such a situation, but if a design cannot be made structurally sound, the engineer should be sure to let the architect know that that is the case. I also find it odd that design features that serve no purpose should be criticised, when many older buildings are heavy with decoration that serves no practical function. I noticed that the plans for the World Trade Centre site were criticised on the previous page. I wondered if everyone is aware that Larry Silverstein (the owner of the site), appointed his own architect to work with Daniel Libeskind? I don't know what the most up-to-date situation is, but Silverstein has in the past claimed that he has the right to rebuild how he sees fit, and had unfortunately managed to use a variety of tactics and bullying to give his architect creative control over the project. Last I heard, he had even managed to get the Mayor and State Governor on his side. Silverstein initially had the plans revised, because Libeskind's design did not feature enough commercial floorspace and would not be as profitable as he would like. (This from a man who is already a multi-millionnare, if not billionnare, and stands to gain (or has already gained) a further 3.5-7 billion in insurance claims). The plans have since been revised again, to create 'safer' buildings, that are less susceptible to attack or fire, however this has meant that Libeskind's initial plans are so watered-down that they are unrecogniseable. I saw a photograph just recently of the latest plans being unveiled, and noticed that Daniel Libeskind stood apart from the others... Anyway, it appears to me that the new development will be more of a monument to greed than a monument to the people who died on September 11th, 2001.

I wrote a big, long reply to this post, then accidentally deleted it. I can't be bothered typing it out again. Suffice it to say, I like most styles, particularly Gothic, Neo-Gothic, some Georgian, some Victorian, Art Nouveau, Art Deco, Bauhaus, De Stijl, International Style/Modernist (especially by Le Corbusier), Brutalist (particularly by Sir Basil Spence and Gillespie, Kidd & Coia), Post-modern/High-tech by Renzo Piano, and Deconstructivist (especially by Daniel Libeskind and Frank O. Gehry). I don't like anything that's a watered-down version or a pastiche of something from a bygone age. I also get hacked off when people attack the various modernist styles...especially when talk of demolition comes into it! As far as planning goes, I think it's an area where no-one has really devised an effective solution. That said, radial layouts, as used in Paris and Amsterdam, do seem highly effective, and Dutch New Towns, such as Ijburg and Leidsche Rijn, also appear to be well-planned developments. Many of my favourite buildings are located in Scotland, but I'm going to save them for my Scottish architecture thread, when I get around to making it. Outside of Scotland, I admire a lot of buildings, particularly those designed by Le Corbusier, Piano, Libeskind and Gehry, and also many of those that have appeared in the 'Brutalist architecture discussion thread'. I also absolutely adore the Chrysler Building!

I actually posted in the 'Architects and architect students' thread before I saw this one. D'oh! Nevermind. I've recently graduated with a planning degree, but I'm not sure yet if that's how I intend to make a living.

I recently graduated with a degree in town and country planning, so I'd be happy to try to answer any questions anyone may have, whether you are considering studying planning, or just have questions about planning matters in general.

This is my first post in a while (I've been busy), so I was very surprised to discover this new forum! Thank you Dirk! It's good to see my Brutalist architecture thread is still running! I might finally get around to making my Scottish Architecture thread now...

Hi there! I'm a fairly new member here, but after a little encouragement, I've decided to start a new thread dedicated to Brutalist architecture. Any earlier Modernist architecture which inspired Brutalism (mainly the work of Le Corbusier and Ludwig Mies van der Rohe) is also welcome. The aim of this thread is to provide information and discussion on, and hopefully lots of interesting pictures of, Brutalist buildings for general interest and hopefully inspiration for willing and able BAT-ers! Before reading on, I would suggest reading this . It briefly explains what Brutalism is and what characterises the style, gives a short history of the style, and provides some information on a number of famous Brutalist architects and their buildings. There are also a few photographs and a number of links. Please note however, that this is by no means an exhaustive list of buildings and developments that are of interest. If you know of any others, or wish to discuss any of those outlined in the above link, feel free to bring them up! I'm going to begin by providing this link to a section of a website called Hidden Glasgow, which looks at a variety of forgotten places in and around the City of Glasgow, Scotland. This particular section details a visit to the crumbling ruin of St. Peter's Seminary near the village of Cardross, just outside Glasgow. This building is almost a living metaphor for the death of Brutalism - an unloved and forgotten, yet once state-of-the-art piece of architecture, rotting away in quiet seclusion. Be sure to take a swatch at the photo galleries (ignoring the local fleetos), and the 'Virtual Restoration' link from the site. This website doesn't have much in the way of content, but it does have some interesting articles on various Brutalist structures in Glasgow, and links to a few more photos taken at St. Peter's. Be sure to turn your speakers on for this one (unless you are at work), because the site music sounds like Sim City gone New Wave!

Again, lots of good points spa! You're right about south-facing windows, now that I think about it! Would I be correct in saying that Halifax catches a little of the Gulf Stream as it drifts up, and across the Atlantic towards Ireland and Scotland? Or did I just make that up!? I agree with you about mixing uses. The lack of mixed-uses was probably the greatest failure of the peripheral housing estates, that were built around towns and cities in the '60s. People were used to having local shops, a pub on every corner and a picture house not too far away, but when they were moved out into the new estates, they had none of these facilities (well, perhaps a general store and pub that were expected to cater for 50,000 people!) - a problem that was compounded by irregular bus services. I have seen some Brutalist blocks with shops in the ground floor, but unfortunately these tended to close down as crime and anti-social behaviour increased - usually due to the 'dumping ground' approach adopted by Local Authorities. Having said that, mixed uses can bring their own set of problems. The presence of pubs can lead to crime and anti-social behaviour, while shops tend to attract gangs of youths who can intimidate other residents, as well as commiting acts of vandalism and in some cases, violence. I've noticed that modern 'yuppie flats' usually do not have local facilities, as most residents own a car, however car-dependancy is something that planners and architects should be trying to 'design out' of these schemes, mainly for environmental reasons.

All very true, ILL Tonkso. A place is what people make it. I honestly don't buy into that 'people are a product of their environment' nonsense. The people around you in a particular area could have a negative influence upon you, but the physical fabric of an area is not to blame. Don't get me wrong, a physical environment can be uplifting or depressing, and it can also present opportunities for potential criminals (dark corners, underpasses, etc.), but ultimately the decision to be bad or good lies in the person. It never ceases to amaze me how Local Authorities use certain areas or flat-blocks as 'dumping grounds' for all the local psychopaths, thieves, liars, junkies, con-artists, anti-social families, etc., then wonder why the area is such a problem! You have to marvel at this dystopian future that we live in...

wallasey: Those blocks in Liverpool look pretty good, especially the first one - it looks great! The colour really lifts it, but it could pass for nearly new! It might be because of it's shape, but honestly, it would sit nicely amongst the new 14-or-so storey, luxury appartment blocks that are being built along the banks of the River Clyde, in Glasgow. Either way, it's nice to see buildings like that being given a new lease of life. spa: Those Canadian buildings are Brutalist to the max! I have to say though, apart from the use of bare concrete, which becomes unsightly through weathering, don't you think the design of those buildings suits a severe Canadian winter? The lack of windows and apertures would likely minimise heat-loss, and I would imagine that the flat roofs are probably less susceptible to damage from high winds. GaryReggae: Another nice photo collection! I like the Scottish Provident HQ in Kent - it actually doesn't look terribly dated, it just needs a clean! The Engineering Research Building is very striking - it looks like something off a Pink Floyd or Yes album cover! Huddersfield Market Hall and the Pasmore Pavillion are two nice examples of Brutalism made very attractive, and La Tourette Monastery is of course, a masterpiece!

I'm really glad that this thread is still going!! Some of the photos that have been added since I last posted are great! Lots of interesting buildings. I agree with what a lot of you are saying about Brutalist buildings looking scruffy due to weathering, though. The unfortunate irony there is that a lot of Local Authorities use that as an excuse to brand them 'eyesores' and tear them down, when many Victorian (and earlier) buildings are listed, despite being black as coal from soot and smog back in the day! There are many buildings in Glasgow that are in such a condition, but they can't be (or at least haven't been) cleaned, because the stone is too soft and would be damaged in the process, or because the cost is simply too great. Regardless, they are listed and all sorts of measures are taken to protect them. A perfect example was the former church that housed 'The Shack' nightclub. It was a listed building, stained black with soot, but even after it burned down rather spectacularly at the end of last year, every effort was made to save what was left. Go figure! Another thing that people forget is that a lot of people like living in high flats. Usually this is dependant on the security arrangements in the entire building, but a lot of people feel secure locked away at night in their little capsule in the sky - especially in rough areas. I'm personally concerned that by demolishing buildings of this nature, we are erasing historical 'documents' and an important part of our urban heritage. I know that in Glasgow, hundreds (possibly thousands) of tenement blocks (many designed by Alexander 'Greek' Thomson) were demolished under the 'Comprehensive Development Area' (CDA) schemes of the '50s and '60s, then twenty or thirty years later, people realised what a mistake that had been and began to call for renovation, rather than replacement. I can't help but wonder if the same thing will happen with the high rises and Brutalist estates once it's too late. Trellick Tower and the Barbican have demonstrated how well these buildings can function when they are renovated, and proper security arrangements are put in place.

Date: 6/25/2005 11:27:47 AM Author: brancra Brutalism is to architecture what heavy metal is to music- severe, unrestrained and having a few loyal followers. That's a pretty good way of putting it! I remembered the name of the estate that 'A Clockwork Orange' was filmed on: Thamesmead Estate, in the London Borough of Bexley. Here are some photos: Under construction: http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/thamesmead-under-construction-00699-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/thamesmead-under-construction-00707-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/southmere-lake-00704-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/thamesmead-under-construction-00697-350.jpg align=baseline> Landscaping and finishing touches: http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/thamesmead-under-construction-00708-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/thamesmead-00710-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/thamesmead-00712-350.jpg align=baseline> The completed estate: http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/showpiece-00705-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/thamesmead-from-maplin-house-00700-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/coralline-walk-00702-350.jpg align=baseline> http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/southmere-lake-00709-350.jpg align=baseline> This last one may seem familiar: http://www.ideal-homes.org.uk/images/bexley/thamesmead/southmere-lake-00711-350.jpg align=baseline> All of the images above are from here .

Date: 6/24/2005 9:51:07 PM Author: gascooker In the context of the game, does anyone think that there are too few examples of RL Brutalist buildings to merit being 'growables'? ie is Brutalism in SC4 a landmark or reward 'one-off' scenario? If you take habitat 67, is it too unique for it to grow more than once across your cities? Many of the larger structures would be more suitable as landmarks or rewards, but I think some would work well as growable lots. Using a modular system, as we discussed, would allow large estates like Park Hill to grow on high density residential zones. something in the style of Alexandra Road might be suitable for medium density zones, and those mushroom-houses (I think they're great!), would be an interesting alternative for low density zones. Exhagaga: I notice Alex there in your avatar - the London estate that 'A Clockwork Orange' was filmed on is another great example of Brutalism. The name of it escapes me at the moment, but if I find it I'll try to post some pictures. GaryReggae: Thanks for clearing up the 'tallest towers' issue! I didn't realise that the Shakespeare and Lauderdale Towers and the Barbican were built as recently as they were.