Thread

1. javier_e06 · 1786029643 · focus · HN ↗

   I love the article.

   For my own reasons I went right away to search for the word "brutalist" which is what the older stations evoke when the cement ages around you.

   Not pretty to look at it.

   It reminds me of the Apple TV series Silo. It makes you want to escape to the surface to clean the camera.

   The new stations on the Silver Line to IAD bring better feelings.

   1. MSFT_Edging · 1786030432 · focus · HN ↗

      Brutalism is always a target for lazy critiques.

      Concrete heavy architecture enables far more interesting geometry due to how you can use various molds and modular construction.

      In addition, brutalist(and adjacent) architecture also plays a lot with lighting and sight lines, which IMO makes fore incredibly visually interesting structures.

      I think there's a weird cultural thing where the cold war attitudes towards the USSR then influenced opinions on concrete-heavy architecture and created canned "brutalism ugly" memes. This even swings back around with weird obsessions with "classical architecture", which means even less and often results in essential virtue signalling via shallow features glued onto facades.

      I think this also extends to various modern/contemporary art. Many people write it off before they even try to absorb it. They'll see a classical oil painting(with mid technique to boot) and go "pretty picture" and see a more modern piece with a lot of technique using shapes, color, and texture to draw attention in different ways and say "i can do that" but they wouldn't know where to start.

      Rothko and Rembrant both produced pieces with spectacular use of color and depth, but people write off the former to circle jerk on the latter, especially due to various "trad" virtue signal type behavior.

      Anyway, when you're looking at a brutalist building, follow the lines, look closely how the lighting interacts with the shapes, look how the lines interact with the flow of the room. There's so much thought and creativity involved, it deserves better.

      1. mejutoco · 1786040705 · focus · HN ↗

         I get the aesthetic of concrete. It is very appealing visually. At the same time brutalism is not functional. In a way, it is anti-human. One can compare it with functional architecture that takes the person into account and will see that visials only might not be enough for people living or working or studying there.

         All of this depends, of course, on what we consider brutalist, but I think we can agree the purest brutalist constructions are not thinking of the human experience.

         In a way, it is like marvelling at a torture device, like an iron maiden. It might be visually interesting but I think most people wont love it for hood reasons, not out of laziness.

         1. wahern · 1786043796 · focus · HN ↗

            The metro is pure brutalist, through-and-through, and it's utterly amazing. But you're inhabiting the space; there's little-to-no contrast with foreign elements; and the nature of the structure means everything about brutalism, artistically and functionally, could be exercised to its best effect.

            I will say that I've always disliked most of the above ground platforms, for the same reasons I dislike brutalist architecture generally. The underground platforms transport you to its carefully constructed world. The above ground platforms don't and probably never could have the same effect.

            As time goes on the metro has been slowly adulterated, but it's still amazing.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.