It's a real mystery why a design style called Brutalism didn't catch on.
If you haven't heard of the style, you might think, "Hmm, sounds nasty. Mean. Cruel. You know, brutal." In my opinion, you'd be right.
Brutalist architecture takes a nod from influential architect Le Corbusier's beton brut, or "raw concrete" work. From the 1950s to the mid-1970s, institutions such as government and universities loved the Brutalist aesthetic. It was powerful. It broke the accepted norms of architecture, including the idea that a building had to be appealing.
When the style was applied to a City Hall, as in Boston, it told you where the power lay. When applied to a housing development (England is uniquely cursed with swaths of concrete, stacking people into dank proletarian storage boxes), it was a way of reminding the citizen that they were units to be managed, not people to be valued.
But, like any style, it had its defenders. And, lately, there has been a spate of pieces in architectural and design journals asking us to reconsider Brutalism.
OK. Let's give it another look.
Nope. Still ugly.
Don't agree with me? Let's look at some local examples.