Bring Your Wrecking Balls

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I nominate the most evil structure in the world, Mayence's city hall. As my girflriend would put it, it looks like the Devil had built it.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hm, what exactly is Stalinist architecture?

Big square ugly piles of concrete popular for a few decades after WW II. Often with pretentious and equally ugly pillars and whatnot and a real sore thumb in the middle of many otherwise very nice and old city centers.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Boshko
Forget its name but the Cornell University building whose exterior was build out of a special rust-proof alloy that, um, rusted is quite hideous.

They used calculations from the air in NYC. It was supposed to rust to an even color, not be rust-proof.

[mrmitchell]

There's a couple derelict industrial buildings around here that deserve trashing, nor are the numerous low-income housing developments pretty, but seeing the pictures here makes me glad for the architecture I've got to be had.

[Bosh]

the Hall of The People in Beijing is another example of the monstrosity of Stalinist architecture

[Buck Birdseed]

I can't believe how many of you have nominated marvellous béton brut structures from the 60s, surely some of the most exciting and dynamic architecture of the century. Brutalism may well be my favourite movement of the century and I've found the majority of the buildings chosen so far to be marvellous.

In Stockholm, I've got two obvious nominations.

Firstly, Heron City in Kungens Kurva, a cuboid glass monstrosity full of garish consumerism with no redeeming social or artistic values whatsoever; a capitalist equivalent of Csaucsescu's Palace if you will.





(can't find a decent exterior pic, sorry)

The other is the tube station at the Old Town, which for some inexplicable reason is placed above ground, in a way which totally ruins the view.



Again no good exterior pics, but this should give you a pretty good idea what the problem is (the station is just ahead).

Functionally worst in Stockholm is the central station, which through the associated railway lines has ruined large swathes of prime beachfront parkland. The building is bearable in itself though, but you got to hate that bastard Nils Ericsson having a statue in front. North and South stations forever!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Hm, what exactly is Stalinist architecture?

You're soaking in it.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Sikander
You're soaking in it.

Nah, that's just Modernist boxes - most of them should be demolished. A prime example is the Cheungkong Centre. That's the large, boring concrete and glass box in the front.

[Alexander's Horse]

we have many horrors of modern architecture here in Canberra

[Bosh]

Boring square glass thingies (think the WTC) aren't so bad, glass is a lot easier on the eyes than concrete.

[Buck Birdseed]

It's an achingly dull material. Concrete lives, breathes, changes colour with the weather, has structure, depth, is incredibly flexible in molding and very, very versatile. I love it. Brutalism forever.

[Spiffor]

I agree with the Gamla Stan station. But how the heck can you prefer piles of concrete over piles of glass? At least, piles of glass give an impression of light

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Just googled it. But it's paltry compared to what every Stalinian building should aspire to. Bucharest's palace!

It's a typewriter gangbang, with arcading and pilasters and pillars.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
It's an achingly dull material. Concrete lives, breathes, changes colour with the weather, has structure, depth, is incredibly flexible in molding and very, very versatile. I love it. Brutalism forever.

You're insane
Non-blocky glass skycrapers can also be quite nice, like say the Empire State Building or some of the more modern curved ones (think there's some being built in Shanghai and there's smaller ones of the same kind of model around where I am) look fairly nice as long as the builder doesn't get carried away and gives a nice-looking skyline.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Buck Birdseed
It's an achingly dull material. Concrete lives, breathes, changes colour with the weather, has structure, depth, is incredibly flexible in molding and very, very versatile. I love it. Brutalism forever.

Bricks are better- they don't get stained by rusty ironwork or corroded steel fittings, they don't change colour from grey to dark grey when it's raining, they don't have a tendency to fall apart because of skimping on the quality of materials when the monstrous edifuce is being built an dthey tend to form buildings that are on a modest humane scale, and don't try to bludgeon the populace into submission.


Admittedly this is partly to do with misconceived notions about what concrete 'should' look like, based on misinterpretations of surviving pieces of Roman architecture.

But good grief, the Romans knew and used coloured concrete! They had sunny weather! They didn't llive in the temperate north where summer is three days in late July with minimum rainfall. And they certainly didn't have postwar town and city councils attempting to rehouse populations in vertical slums with deck access ideal for door to door vandalism, drug delivery and mugging.

I think concrete is a fine building material, in the right place- Tel Aviv's White City, small scale housing blocks, well-designed non-residential buildings, but monolithic tower blocks and multi-storey carparks in historic city centres?


Nay. Come friendly bombs and fall on post war nasty and cheap brutalism, and while you're at it, scour out the unlovely undecorated interiors of the Jubilee Line extension tube stations in south and east London.