Brutalist Architecture

 Characterized by raw, exposed concrete, bold geometric forms, and a utilitarian aesthetic, often associated with institutional buildings, Brutalist architecture emphasizes the honesty of materials and construction, rejecting ornamentation in favor of functionality.  After facing massive destruction and a housing crisis during World War II, brutalist architecture gained popularity for its affordability, functionality, and durability, considering the low cost and ease of construction using raw cement. 

The term “Brutalism” comes from the French béton brut (raw concrete), popularized by Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier. His Unité d'Habitation (1952) in Marseille is considered to be one of the first Brutalist buildings, featuring raw concrete, modular design, and communal living spaces. 

In the 1950s, British architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term “New Brutalism”. They emphasized its honesty in materials, structural expression, and social purpose. Two notable examples are The Hunstanton school (1954, UK) featuring its exposed steel frames, visible pipes and brickwork, and The Park Hill Estate (1961, Sheffield) featuring a massive housing project with a rugged concrete design. 

To start with, Many European cities, including London, Berlin, and Warsaw, were heavily bombed, leaving a dire need for rapid, low-cost construction, especially taking into account that many rural populations were moving to the city in search of work, increasing demand for housing. Seeing how slow and expensive the traditional building methods were, concrete became the go-to material, being cheap, durable, and easy to mold. Before WWII, Art Deco and Beaux-Art styles dominated the field, but later on, their decorative elements were seen as wasteful in the dire post-war era. It slowly gave rise to Modernist principles, emphasizing functionality over form. 

Many post-war governments, especially in Europe, leaned towards social democracy and welfare projects, where Brutalism became the architectural language of social housing, universities, and governmental buildings. The style was seen as anti-bourgeois, rejecting the elitism of pre-war architecture. Governments and institutions used Brutalism to project strength, permanence, and transparency. Reinforced concrete allowed for bold, geometric structures, gaining interest from many. Some notable examples are: Boston City Hall (1986), Barbican Estate, Eastern Bloc Brutalism, etc.

By the 1980s, Brutalism had completely fallen out of favour. Many Brutalist buildings, particularly public housing projects, became synonymous with poverty, crime, and neglect. A notorious example is Pruitt-Igoe (St. Louis, USA, 1972), a high-rise housing complex that was demolished just 20 years after being built, due to crime and structural issues. Not to mention, governments cut funding for maintenance, leading to water damage, graffiti, and concrete decay, reinforcing negative perceptions. Critics argued that Brutalism was cold, oppressive, and alienating. They argued that massive concrete structures dwarfed pedestrians, creating unwelcoming environments, and that, unlike classical or postmodern buildings, Brutalism rejected decorative elements, making it seem sterile and joyless. They also added that concrete stains and cracks over time, making buildings look dirty and dystopian. Brutalism was symbolized as bureaucracy and institutional control rather than progress.

In the 20th-century modernism, younger generations who didn’t get to experience the decline of Brutalism architecture now see it as bold and authentic, compared to today’s glass-steal corporate architecture. Platforms like Instagram and TikTok reframed Brutalism as aesthetic and photogenic, highlighting its dramatic shadows and textures. Critics now argue that Brutalism’s failures were due to poor maintenance and policy, not the architecture itself. Brutalism is now seen as anti-gentrification – a relic of a time when cities were built for the people, not just for profit. 

Brutalism declined because it was too rigid, too linked to failed policies, and too harsh for public taste. Yet, its raw honesty and monumental presence have led to a reassessment. Today, it’s both loved and loathed, but undeniably influential.