Winston Churchill, in a speech to the House of Lords in 1943, famously said “We shape our buildings; thereafter they shape us“. The pre-war urban landscape of Britain was very different to what it is today, with many of the major cities bombed out during the blitz and needing rebuilt, and the same can be said for any historic city that has expanded itself over time with modern architecture.
Most of the major UK cities before WWII displayed a rich tapestry of architectural styles, each reflecting different historical periods, cultural influences, and regional characteristics. This could be anything from Medieval structures, to Neoclassical, Georgian, Edwardian, Victorian, neo-Gothic, Renaissance, Art-Deco, or a myriad of other building styles.
This is in stark contrast to the architectural style that became prominent after WWII and was aptly named ‘Brutalism‘.
Brutalism is the poetry of raw concrete
Reyner Banham
Function Over Form
The term “brutalism” is derived from the French word “béton brut,” which means “raw concrete.” The practicality and cost-effectiveness of concrete made Brutalism an attractive choice for post-war reconstruction projects. Brutalist architects and planners prioritized functionality in their designs. This approach was in line with the post-war ethos of addressing pressing social and urban needs, including housing shortages and the construction of public buildings and educational institutions.
The 1950s and 1960s were marked by a broader global interest in modernist architecture, which sought to break from historical architectural styles and embrace new materials and design philosophies. With its focus on exposed concrete and functionalism, Brutalism aligned with these ideals. Many British architects of this era had been trained in modernist architectural schools, where this style was a dominant influence. Architects like Denys Lasdun and Alison and Peter Smithson, among others, were proponents of Brutalism and played significant roles in its development and in doing so, the prominence of Brutalism in modern British architecture.
Despite its proponents’ claims that Brutalism represented a bold and honest approach to design, this architectural style has been a subject of controversy and criticism for many generations. With its stark and uninviting aesthetic, Brutalist buildings dominate the streetscape, creating an environment that some find intimidating rather than welcoming. Their imposing presence, massive concrete facades, and lack of decorative elements, can make these structures appear cold, harsh, and alienating. Perhaps a symptom of a world, coming out of two World Wars, that saw a cold, harsh and brutal future ahead.
Brutalism is not a style, but a view of the world. You can’t avoid it.
Peter Zumthor
Rich World / Poor World
At the end of World War II in 1945, the UK’s national debt stood at approximately £24 billion (equivalent to about £1 trillion in today’s currency, adjusted for inflation). This debt was a considerable burden on the post-war British economy, and addressing it required careful fiscal planning and economic policies. The economic challenges and austerity measures in the post-war period certainly influenced government spending, including public infrastructure projects. It is also of note, that whilst exchange rates between the gold backed USD and the Great British Pound were fixed, the UK officially left the gold standard in 1931, ending almost two centuries of a sound money standard.
The ornate and highly decorated buildings of the past, often inextricably linked to stable and prosperous periods, reflected the cultural values and aesthetics of their age. When wealth was concentrated among the elite, such as during the height of the Roman Empire or the Renaissance, elaborate and costly architectural projects were commissioned. Wealthy individuals and institutions, spared no expense in constructing buildings that served as symbols of power and prestige. Because the currencies were pegged or were denominated in a fixed quantity of gold, this reduced the risk of inflation and currency devaluation. This stability allowed builders and patrons to undertake ambitious and long-term architectural projects with confidence that their wealth, and thus the projects costs, would remain stable over time.
Brutalism and Minimalism, in comparison, are products of the modern fiat age and have frequently been associated with a rejection of excessive ornamentation and a focus on functionalism, simplicity, and honesty in design. These movements often reflected a desire for transparency, efficiency, and social equality, but also a style that is monotonous and impersonal.
The gold standard provided a stable economic backdrop for the creation of enduring architectural masterpieces
John Kenneth Galbraith
Newer, But Not Better
There is a substantial body of research that explores the relationship between the built environment and human mood, attitude, and overall well-being. This field of study often falls under the broader category of environmental psychology or environmental design. Various aspects of architecture, urban planning, and interior design can influence people’s psychological and emotional states, the benefits of natural spaces having been discussed in Chpt 15: Attitude Adjuster.
Aspects of this include biophilic design (aspects of nature), access to natural light, color, urban planning, and integration with the surrounding landscape. Brutalism would seem to go against all of the recent learnings about how we respond to aspects of architecture in regards to our mood and health. These buildings usually have a limited number of windows, which are typically small and deeply set within the concrete façade. This design choice can create a sense of privacy and security but can also result in darker interiors. The vast expanses of grey concrete give them a rough and monumental appearance. They are utilitarian, stark and austere, giving an imposing and almost fortress-like presence.
Parallels can be drawn between the post-war Brutalism movement and the architecture of Soviet era and other such socialist countries. In an attempt to rebuild the world to provide for the people, we removed the aspects that made public buildings awe inspiring and wonderful to begin with. There is good reason why buildings such as churches and cathedrals are created the way they are, to inspire emotion and feelings, to stir the soul and evoke wonder. Classical architecture was a celebration of talents and humanity, a song for the craftsmen of the age to sing, modern brutalism was a funeral dirge.
Brutalism was for the people. It wasn’t for the classes, it wasn’t for the architectural elite.
Owen Luder
Conclusion
Brutalism, in certain contexts, was seen as a style that could serve socialist ideals of providing functional and affordable public buildings, and housing, for the masses. Its associations with socialism are not universally applicable to all Brutalist buildings or architects. The relationship between architectural styles and political philosophies is complex and multifaceted. We have to also take into account the economics of the building style and it’s materials, as well as the political landscape of the time, of governments burdened with debt and recovering from the war.
Whether you want to call it Brutalism, Functionalism, Minimalism, Progressivism, it is clear that the style, despite its attempts to provide for all, could possibly have taken away more than it gave. We know that the aesthetic qualities of grand architecture, including its beauty, symmetry, and craftsmanship, can evoke strong emotional responses. Beauty has been shown to elicit positive emotions, such as joy and admiration, and can enhance overall well-being.
In removing that beauty from the world around us, modern architects are removing the soul from our surroundings.