Concrete's Liberating Allure

[khris]

...but not available to everyone. Stupid Microsoft.

42

Well, it's also relatively new. I'm sure eventually Safari will work with it. Firefox and IE do. That's the majority right now of browser users. It also works really well for mobile users.
I mean I can think of a lot of Apple products that aren't available to everyone either.

 

[interchange42]

Thanks for the heads-up about maps.live.com working on Firefox on Macs, Phunky. Too bad the 3D view isn't supported yet.

It's only the Apple stuff you have to pay for that doesn't work on pcs as far as I know. I'm not sure there are any websites that feature content that viewable only on Macs. (Traffic-wise, that wouldn't make much sense of course.)

42

 

[egotrippin]

With the exception of a precious few buildings, brutalist, and primarily concrete buildings in general are perhaps the worst example of an era of architecture. From before I understood or consciously had an interest in architecure, I'd always dislike the big ugly slabs. For starters, the style is called brutalist, brutal is right in the name. Almost all the structures are cold, grey, uninviting and imposing boxes of a structure. There is very little architectural merit, less window area than wall area. To make this worse, blank walls of concrete are inexpressive and foreboding. Walking under a building like the Sheraton Centre is unsettling. Not only are buildings like this uninviting at the street level, they are drab blights on the skyline.

I can never express how much I dislike almost all brutalist structures, and most buildings faced prominently in blank concrete. Perhaps I'm biased, as many of these hideous structures were built in the place of spectacular Georgian and Victorian building rows. I don't understand how anyone can justify the style as spectacular or interesting, especially when comparing the works to ornately styled classic architecture. You know, back in the day when there was true masonry and decorative skill put into the buildings.

/rant.

 

[unimaginative2]

Leaving aside their architectural merit, the biggest problem with many brutalist buildings is that they don't work very well for what they were designed. Many have tiny windows that make for gloomy interior spaces and add to lighting costs. Others have very inefficient internal layouts, like Robarts Library. Exposed concrete is also quite difficult to maintain, with staining and other frequent problems. Coupled with a general public hostility to most brutalist buildings, it could be very difficult to preserve them. That would be a real shame for some of the more interesting ones.

 

[junctionist]

Robart's thin windows achieve quite the effect at that night. Kelly Library has a more inviting use of raw concrete:

At both Kelly and Robarts, the concrete motifs continue on the interior ceiling. I think it could be possible to change public perception. Maintaining older buildings is challenging, no matter what the style. New skylights could be installed for more light.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Kelly...inviting...Ha!

And it's kind of funny how the alien language documents in 'Contact' were triangular - more efficient - but the "less sides is more" approach doesn't work for a library.

 

[JasonParis]

I got this from the Spacing Wire...

The Toronto Society of Architects has organized a panel discussion inspired by book Concrete Toronto released in November. The panel will be a broad and fun talk about the book, different approaches to concrete, the perception of the public vs. the perception of architects and also about tower renewal: making Toronto’s many high-rises green. If you’re one of the people who dislike Robarts library, you can explain why to people who love it.

When: Tuesday February 5, 6:30pm
Where: The Arts and Letters Club, 14 Elm Street.
Moderator: Michael McClelland, ERA Architects
Guests: Adrian Blackwell (Assistant Professor, al&d) Ian Chodikoff (Editor, Canadian Architect) Marsha Kelmans (Urban Designer, City of Toronto) Shawn Micallef (Associate Editor, Spacing Magazine)

Everyone is welcome. In the book, Adrian Blackwell wrote about Richard Serra’s “Shift” sculpture, constructed in a field near King City in 1970. Last week an article in the Toronto Star suggested there is some urgency in designating the sculpture historic, as the march of GTA subdivisions continues and may be heading for Shift.

 

[smuncky]

saw that earlier today and already got it down in my list of to do's for that day. what's nice is that it's right across from ryerson which means no need to walk far for me .

 

[LowPolygon]

this is a version of brutalism that i think still has its merits. its extreme modularity is not typical in certain ways i guess--but it still seems to hew to the brutalist ethos. either way, i still find this building to be very convincing...

 

[egotrippin]

I don't know, it reminds me more of that stack of boxes in the basement. You know the ones everyone has, you keep meaning to sort through it, but instead it haphazardly continues to pile up. The above building is the architectural expression of that. A mess.

 

[junctionist]

I don't know, it reminds me more of that stack of boxes in the basement. You know the ones everyone has, you keep meaning to sort through it, but instead it haphazardly continues to pile up. The above building is the architectural expression of that. A mess.

That's where the concrete comes in. It's rigid and creates a sense of order which is rather unexpected if the structures appears to be inspired from a series of boxes. And, you know they're not going to pile more onto it. It's perhaps an attempt to order the messiness with concrete, but it admits that reality can be messy and diverse, and that those qualities are unavoidable.

 

[LowPolygon]

I don't know, it reminds me more of that stack of boxes in the basement. You know the ones everyone has, you keep meaning to sort through it, but instead it haphazardly continues to pile up. The above building is the architectural expression of that. A mess.

i guess i can't really identify with your uhm, perspective on this matter, as i don't have any boxes piling haphazardly in my basement. i like to keep my place very neat.

maybe that's why i love this building.

in any case, you should really try to get that mess in your basement sorted out.

 

[jn_12]

if anyone has been to Trent University, it's probably the best example I can think of of concrete architecture (here's a virtual tour. It interacts quite well with its surroundings and environment and while in some places (mostly Otonabee College) it seems like a soviet era bunker they can be easily overlooked by the riverside views you get from the Library (especially the Smith Conference Room).

 

[smuncky]

doing some research for one of my classes, i had to find articles and information on a couple of buildings in toronto done by fairfield + dubois. While looking through their portfolio of work, it has given me even more appreciation for concrete as a building material. three examples which really stood out for me were New College at U of T, Albert Campbell District Library which looks like an amazing space to be in, and Central Tech Art School which was one of the first concrete structures in Toronto.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Coliseum (or Amphitheatrum Flavium) in Rome was a concrete building. But, it wasn't blank like many of today's concrete buildings.