Brutalism

close

When we talk about brutalism in architecture, we are not referring to a specific period in architectural history. It is a qualifier given to architectures in which we can identify a series of common features, but which are not defined by any manifesto or treatise. To clarify what we mean when we describe a work of architecture as brutalist, we will need to review the process of the term’s coinage and its evolution, in addition to identifying the works that are most commonly referred to as such. On the other hand, the term has become more popular recently, and the architecture that has commonly been defined as brutalist is seeing a resurgence and an increase in its aesthetic and social value. This popularization has also gone hand in hand with a somewhat arbitrary use of the term, however, which can lead to confusion. In the end, defining a work as brutalist is a personal assessment that ultimately responds to subjective criteria.

Normalizing the Use of Reinforced Concrete in Architecture

Brutalism is associated with the use of concrete as a building finish, without cladding, and in keeping with an appreciation of the material’s expressive capacity. Concrete is not a homogeneous material; in addition to cement and water, it is made up of a series of aggregates that can give it very diverse textures and even colours. Moreover, the formwork —the mould used during construction, which is removed once the material has hardened— can transfer its textures and the markings of its different sections, with the most common material being wood. For all these reasons, concrete offers architects multiple possibilities to lend aesthetic qualities to its surfaces.

The widespread use of concrete in architecture began in the early 20th century, when a series of patents began to appear in northern Europe that made concrete easier to use by relying on systems that included formwork, reinforcing bars and the first mathematical tables. Initially, the experiments focused on the structural possibilities offered by reinforced concrete were limited to the field of engineering. Soon enough, however, the ease of execution of the material, its versatility and its affordable cost made it attractive for architectural structures as well. All the same, there was initially a limited confidence in its expressive possibilities: structural concrete was clad with other materials, or its plastic quality was used to imitate other architectural languages. In the works of Auguste Perret, one of the pioneers in the architectural use of reinforced concrete in France, the buildings’ appearance is assimilated to a classical architectural language by equating, for example, concrete pillars with classical columns.

Le Corbusier and béton brut

Le Corbusier was no doubt the pioneer in emphasizing the expressive possibilities of reinforced concrete as a material for building finishes. In the 1920s, in his manifesto “Les cinq points d’une architecture nouvelle”, he pointed to the compositional possibilities offered by the structural use of concrete pillars and slabs. When vertical structures are freed from load-bearing walls, the interior partitions and façades no longer need to support loads, which offers complete freedom in the distribution of room dividers and façade openings. Beginning in the 1940s, the concept of béton brut began to appear in Le Corbusier’s texts and letters. He began to advocate for the expressive potential of concrete as a finish, and in books such as Le Modulor (1948), he associated the choice of concrete as a finish with honesty in the use of materials.

After the Second World War, the use of concrete in architecture made a significant leap in scale due to its ease of implementation and low cost for the large-scale reconstruction of cities that had been devastated in the conflict. From there, Le Corbusier, and others, began to use it in buildings, which, from today’s perspective, can be described as brutalist. Residential buildings such as the Unité d’Habitation in Marseille appeared alongside other building typologies, which used concrete as a finishing material: the chapel in Ronchamp (1954), the La Tourette monastery (1953-1960), and urban planning projects in Chandigarh (India, 1950s). From that moment forward, the use of concrete as a finish became increasingly widespread.

“The New Brutalism”: Reyner Banham and TEAM X

The following references to the term brutalism come from the works of TEAM X, which was founded in England. TEAM X was a group of architects that emerged in the 1950s as a reaction to the rigid rationalism of the Modern Movement and the principles defined at the CIAM by the first generation of modernist architects. Rather than prioritizing abstract functionality and universal solutions, they promoted a more humanistic architecture, befitting specific social, cultural and urban contexts. Two of the main proponents were the English architects Alison and Peter Smithson.

In 1954, Alison Smithson wrote that brutalism was not just an aesthetic, but an “ethic of architecture”, based on the truth of materials and structure. This definition was taken up and popularized by the British architectural critic and theorist Reyner Banham in an article from 1955 titled “The New Brutalism”. Years later, in 1966, in his text “The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?”, Banham analysed the development and evolution of the kind of architecture that would be consistent with his definition of brutalism, offering multiple examples that helped to clarify the term. In those same years, the Smithsons continued publishing articles that contributed to narrowing down a definition of architectural brutalism.

A large number of works built between 1950 and 1970, both by the Smithsons and by other British architects such as Denys Lasdun, Basil Spence, Owen Luder and Erno Goldfinger, were widely recognised as brutalist. Other European architects who were members of TEAM X also designed works that have been referred to with the same term: Aldo van Eyck and Jaap Bakema in the Netherlands; Giacomo and Giuseppe Ridolfi and Giancarlo di Carlo in Italy; Candilis, Josic and Woods in France; and Ralph Erskine in Sweden.

Works that have been traditionally considered brutalist, designed by members of TEAM X or others influenced by them, include the following: in Berlin, the Freie Universität by Candilis, Josic and Woods; in London, the now defunct Robin Hood Gardens residential complex by Alison and Peter Smithson, the Trellick Tower by Erno Goldfinger, the Barbican complex by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon, and the cultural complex on the South Bank; near Paris, the Ivry-sur-Seine residential complex by Jean Renaudie; in Italy, the Villaggio Matteotti by Giancarlo di Carlo; in the Netherlands, the Amsterdam Orphanage by Aldo van Eyck; and, in Canada, the Habitat 67 residential complex by Moshe Safdie.

There are countless buildings from the 1960s and 1970s that could be described as brutalist,but from the 1970s and 1980s onwards, new trends like postmodernism and “high-tech” offered formal and material alternatives that began to deviate from the aesthetic tastes of what had been brutalist tendencies.

Decline and Resurgence

Over the years, all things related to architectural brutalism gradually lost their social value. Many projects associated with large public housing developments, due to their large scale and lack of maintenance, created pockets of poverty and urban deterioration. The result was the stigmatization of certain types of architecture and urban developments, especially those that had been labelled brutalist. Some of the urban forms developed during the 1960s and 1970s, regardless of whether exposed concrete was used as the predominant material, resulted in projects of dubious urban quality, and the buildings and public spaces suffered from intense deterioration, often going hand in hand with serious security problems. As a result, some iconic projects, such as London’s Robin Hood Gardens, were demolished and others were subjected to extensive renovations.

Despite the stigmatization of brutalist architecture, in recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in these constructions, with conservation movements and a renewed appreciation to the point that buildings and neighbourhoods that were previously disparaged have reclaimed their prestige and have even become the object of a certain fascination. In recent years, we have seen an explosion of books on architectural brutalism, as well as a slew of articles; curiously enough, many of these books and magazines are not the product of architectural criticism but rather of publishing houses and outlets related to style and visual trends.

Does Brutalism Exist in Spain?

In Spain, we can point to a development similar to that of other European countries regarding the use of reinforced concrete as an expressive medium, although with some specificities – and perhaps with a less widespread use compared to other countries. First, a number of important engineering works, some of which are little known, are magnificent examples of architecture that could be called brutalist. It is worth highlighting the work of Joaquín Vaquero Palacios and Ignacio Álvarez Castelao for their hydroelectric plants in Cantabria. Additionally, many industrial buildings in our country could easily be labelled as brutalist.

Certain architects showed a predilection for the use of reinforced concrete in different typologies, including Antonio Bonet Castellana and Antoni de Moragas in the Catalan context and mainly in residential buildings, and Fernando Moreno Barberá in his works across the peninsula. Miguel Fisac was a pioneer in Spain in the innovative use of concrete just as the industrialization of construction was beginning to gain momentum. He experimented with this material to achieve various textures and forms, but also in the generation of new structural forms, such as his “bone beams” or prestressed concrete girders.

The Brutalism of the Madrid School: The Organic Decade

If there is a time and place that shows a certain concentration of buildings which we might describe as brutalist, it would be the period that been called the Madrid School. Juan Daniel Fullaondo published the article “The Madrid School” in 1968, aiming to provide a coherent overview and establish relationships between a series of works and authors practicing especially in the Madrid area (although not exclusively), during the 1960s and 1970s. In his text, Fullaondo suggested the existence of a so-called “organic decade” in Spanish architecture. Architects such as José Antonios Corrales, Ramón Vázquez Molezún, Javier Fernández Alba, Fernando Higueras, Javier Caravajal, Miguel Fisac and Francisco José Sáenz de Oíza, while they did not form a homogeneous group or style, designed a series of works that, because they coincided in space and time, can be understood as a tendency or current in Spanish rationalism. Many of these works used concrete as a means of expressing organic forms which could also be described as brutalist. They include the Carvajal and García Valdecasas Houses, as well as several works by Fernando Higueras and the legendary Torres Blancas building by Sainz de Oiza, the building most commonly associated with the concept of brutalism in Spain.

Roger Subirà/Fundación Docomomo Ibérico

Bibliography

GARCÍA ALCÁNTARA, Alejandro, Madrid Brutal (historias de Madrid), Ediciones La Librería, Madrid, 2023.

CONTE, Roberto, PEREGO, Stefano, FORTY, Adrian, MURRAY, Damon, SORRELL, Stephen, Brutalist Italy: Concrete architecture from the Alps to the Mediterranean Sea, FUEL Design & Publishing, London, 2023.

TOROMANOFF, Agata, Brutalism reinvented: 21st century modernist architecture, Prestel, London, 2022.

TRASPADERNE, Carlos, Brutalismus, Aloha Editorial, Instituto de Estudios Riojanos, Logroño, 2022.

SUSTERSIC, Paolo, Barcelona brutalista y tardomoderna, la construcción de un paisaje a escala metropolitana, 1953-1976, Ambit Serveis Editorials, Ajuntament de Barcelona, Barcelona, 2022.

PHAIDON EDITORS, Atlas of Brutalist Architecture, Phaidon, Londres, NewYork, 2018.

CHADWICK, Peter, Un mundo brutal, Phaidon, Londres, Nueva York, 2019.

HARWOOD, Elain, Brutalist Britain: Buildings of the 1960s and 1970s, C20 Twentieth Century Society, London, 2002.

RISSELADA, Max, VAN DEN HEUVEL, Dirk, Team 10 1953-81: in search of a Utopia of the present, NAI Uitgevers/Publishers Stichting, Amsterdam, 2002.

SMITHSON, Alison Margaret, The Charged Void: Architecture, Alison and Peter Smithson, The Monacelli Press, New York, 2001.

FULLAONDO, Juan Daniel, “La Escuela de Madrid”, en Arquitectura 118, October1968, pp. 11-20.

BANHAM, Reyner, El brutalismo en arquitectura: ética o estética?, Gustavo Gili, Barcelona, 1967.

BANHAM, Reyner, The New Brutalism, Architectural Press, New York, 1966.