Controversial architectural style brutalism is back in fashion. After reaching its apogee in mid-20th century Europe, proliferating across cities in the form of housing or public use buildings in the post-war era, it gradually fell out of favour in the 1970s before being almost completely discarded as a style by the 1980s. Now, however, there is a surge of interest in the concrete structures that sprung up across the continent – although not necessarily from architects. The revival seems to have taken place in two different, yet related forms: an artistic appreciation of the shapes such buildings took, and a sense of nostalgia and a desire to preserve brutalist buildings as monuments of a time past – a sort of archaeological preservation.

Béton Brut
In 1953, Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term ‘brutalism’, taken from the French phrase béton brut which translates as ‘raw concrete’. Indeed, one of the main features of brutalism is its use of concrete; it is to brutalism what brick and stone is to Georgian architecture, or what limestone was to Ancient Egypt’s pyramid builders. According to the Saylor Academy: “Brutalist buildings are usually formed with striking, repetitive, angular geometries, and, where concrete is used, often revealing the texture of the wooden forms used for the in-situ casting.”

Many of the structures which were erected by brutalist architects were not supposed to last more than a few years

The key characteristic of brutalism, however, is the use of strong, bold shapes, composed of reinforced structures on a large, often imposing scale. It includes large blank surfaces as well as strong lines. As Spiked recently noted, brutalist style is “sublime, even delicately terrifying at times. And it’s usually gigantic; it seeks to dominate its environment.”

Brutalism originated with the works of Swiss architect Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris, better known as Le Corbusier. In the early 1950s, he designed the Unité d’Habitation and the Secretariat Building Palace of Assembly in Chandigarh, India – two buildings seen as pioneering efforts of the brutalist form. Eventually, the style was picked up across Europe, as a means of creating new, cheap mass housing in the wake of the Second World War. A similar look was also adopted in Eastern Europe, as the neo-classical Stalinist style was phased out. While the UK was the most popular place for brutalism, all across the continent social housing and public buildings were erected in this style – often connected to the general social democratic consensus on the continent at the time.

However, the ideas gradually fell out of favour with both the public and architects. The poor quality of housing brutalism often produced, due to underfunding and technical difficulties, led it to be associated with poverty and social decay. The style was replaced by new cultural trends, with the imposing concrete look being seen as part of the post-war social planning hubris, and no longer interpreted as futuristic. Between the 1980s and 2000s, many of Europe’s brutalist structures were demolished.

Looking back
However, brutalism is now in the midst of a revival. In autumn 2013, English Heritage hosted the Brutal & Beautiful exhibition, celebrating the beleaguered style. In 2012, the World Monument Fund added brutalism as a category on its watch list. There have also been a number of campaigns to save brutalist structures across Europe, most recently the famous Red Road Flats in Glasgow. The National Trust has also launched a new project called Brutal Utopias, to promote the popularity of Britain’s remaining brutalist buildings and estates, such as the Trellick Tower in London and Park Hill Flats in Sheffield. According to Joseph Watson, the trust’s creative director: “There is now such a rapid pace of change, we need to think about the buildings we want to save for the future.”

Owen Hatherley, author of A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain, has pointed out a problem with the new movement; it is restricted to aesthetic appeal alone. Removed is the original vision and meaning of brutalism. While it is now perhaps fashionable to look at, there is no desire to revive the ambition to build such grand structures. The architectural style was a bold form of modernism and the expression of a new-found sense of ambition and egalitarianism after World War Two. Beyond the imposing structures was an idea of the mass creation of decent and liveable housing for citizens. Architects envisioned streets in the sky and a new modern age of communal living, which is no longer being pursued.

There is also something odd about tours being arranged for people to appreciate the aesthetics of housing estates in which many people still live. Many of these estates are in deprived areas, with housing conditions often in a relative state of disrepair, in which many people live not out of choice, but due to having nowhere else to turn. Yet still, groups of tourists, who are often fortunate enough to live in better-serviced and furbished homes, come to gawk at the environments of others, before returning home. Indeed, the interest in appreciating the look of buildings can easily turn into a form of voyeurism. This, Hatherley pointed out, is one of the problems with the revival, although he noted that tours around public use buildings, such as the National Theatre in London, do not have the same moral complications.

At the same time, the treatment of these building and other housing buildings as some sort of national monument goes against the militantly modernist ethos of the brutalist movement. Many of the structures which were erected by brutalist architects were not supposed to last more than a few years. They were expected to be torn down and rebuilt again – a form of relentless progress. The modernist and progressive worldview of brutalist builders did not expect their structures to last forever, as progress and the ever-greater refinement of modernity were expected to outpace their concrete buildings, allowing something better and more modern to rise in their place.

Architecture to archaeology
The attempt to preserve brutalist buildings runs counter to this ideal. Some brutalist buildings are admirable in their ability to bear down upon the human viewer, and so the attempt at preservation is, in some ways, understandable. Ultimately, however, it is a sort of back-to-the-futurism, wherein the boldly forward-looking and futuristic designs of the past – in a time when those values were truly believed in – are preserved, with the original philosophy detached. Whether this leaves a beautiful relic or a sad structure long past its natural life is a matter of debate.