Brutalism: Ethic over Aesthetic

Abstract
Brutalism is a divisive style of architecture. Critiques call this style ugly and barren, its use of
concrete and lack of ornamentation are common complaints. This paper reassesses the Brutalist style and
explores qualities beyond the appearance of beauty. The history of Brutalism, its theory, and acolytes,
provides a new criterion for judging both its style and architecture in general. Opponents of Brutalism may
rely on classical ideas of architecture, but a reading of classical architectural theory gives ample space for
Brutalism to exist. Three Brutalist buildings are examined and contextualized. These structures go beyond
the veneer of beauty to design around the human subject. This quality of Brutalism, so often ignored, when
recognized, may change our opinions on seemingly ugly buildings.

Introduction

The aesthetic of Brutalism is associated with concrete apartments, monumental blocks,

and dehumanizing architecture with the main material being concrete to build these structures.
This style was influenced by post-WWII Great Britain, and the issues faced by Britons during
that era. Simon Henley, an architectural theorist, highlighted this parallel by saying that (ft).
The late 1950’s to the early 1970’s was a period of reconstruction in Europe arising from the
Second World War.

“New Brutalism” began as an experimental aesthetic exemplified by prominent

architects Peter and Allison Smithson. Peter and Allison Smithson were British architects
working from around the period of the 1950’s up until the 1990’s. Robin Hood Gardens, a
residential estate located in East London, is their most well-known piece and is representative
of their Brutalist aesthetic. Drawing from modernist influences such as Le Corbusier, they
designed Robin Hood Gardens around the circulatory routes of residents and pedestrians rather
than a top-down design philosophy, a popular outlook at the time. Meaning, instead of
planning buildings and waiting for the reactions of residents, this take considered their peers
before construction. The English critic Reyner Banham, a close friend of the Smithsons, is one
of the pioneer theorists behind the Brutalist movement. He carved a niche outside of the then
popular style of modernism by emphasizing the relation of a building to a person. Banham
writes on three principles that made up the brutalist aesthetic: “1, Memorability as an Image; 2,
Clear exhibition of Structure; and 3, Valuation of Materials ‘as found.’”2 Regarding the first
principle, Banham explains “Where Thomas Aquinas supposed beauty to be quod visum placet
(that which seen, pleases), image may be defined as quod visum perturbat - that which seen,
affects the emotions.”3 Highlighting that the sight of a Brutalist building does not need to
please the eye, but rather elicit some emotion from the spectator.

Vitruvius’ Three Principles

The question of whether beauty is the goal of architects is a perennial dilemma. The aesthetic
styles loved in the past were noted for their beauty, their ornamentation, and their composition. A
Brutalist building's purpose, according to Banham, is to elicit a wide range of emotions from a
viewer, not just awe at beauty. People who may disagree with Banham might tout classical
architectural theory as superior and valid, but an understanding of this classical theory may just
provide room and space for Brutalism. Reflecting on the Roman architect and writer Vitruvius,
an onlooker may realize that there is more that goes into the building’s careful construction than
just its beauty. Vitruvius, the earliest architectural theorist whose work is still possessed
presently, backs this claim in book I chapter 3 of De Architectura (On Architecture), by relaying
three principles that should be considered when building. The stated principles are soundness,
utility, and attraction. When referring to soundness, soundness is in relation to how firm and
stable a structure is. Utility is related to how the building helps facilitate the use of space for its
intended purpose. Lastly, attraction is in reference to the level of physical appeal the building has.
Vitruvius connects beauty with symmetry, rightful proportioning, and that the infrastructure
should create a harmonious whole. Vitruvius writes, regarding design, that: “Design is the apt
placement of things, and the elegant effect obtained by their arrangement according to the nature
of the work.”4 Each planned construction of a building contains its own criteria for ‘apt
placement,’ or what is considered the right combinations of ideas and details. Brutalism does not
resemble the Greek Parthenon, but its own nature of work that produces a new reference to be
examined. Additionally, the aesthetic of Brutalism aligns with Vitruvius’ principles of soundness
and utility, with attractiveness being exchanged for Banham’s idea of image.

1
Henley, Redefining Brutalism, 12
2
Banham, The New Brutalism, 28
3
Ibid. 2
Skopje Archive
The examination of specific brutalist buildings from the lens of Vitruvius’ theory may show how
these structures can be synthesized in traditional architectural theory. The Skopje Archive building, located
in North Macedonia, is a public institution housing important records of the city. Designed by Georgi
Konstantinovski in 1966 (Figure 1) after an earthquake devastated Skopje, the capital city of North
Macedonia. The building itself is composed mainly of concrete which is a staple element of Brutalism. The
infrastructure is structurally sound due to the area in which it was built being known to have frequent
seismic activity. The requirement of Vitruvius that a good building ought to be stable is checked off, and
now we may wonder as to the function of it. A quick look at its interior offers us a glimpse of what
research and work would look like there (Figure 2). The archive building holds records of Skopje and is
mainly used by researchers and city workers. The interior consists of two large square areas with one
rotated 45 degrees; “This division reflects a separation of the functions: the entry and administration
occupy the lower horizontal rectangular space (broad on entry), while the workshop area lies perpendicular
to this in the upper rectangular space.”5 Utilizing Banham’s idea of image, we can see the archive building
representing a collected history of the city being secured in strong material and form. Many parts of this
design are striking, such as the six-foot tower in the back and visible stairwells to each of the upper floors
of the main building. The building is also effective with its detail of adjoining stairwells and towers, with
glass windows facing front to guide visitors to the main lobby.
The Skopje archive is more than a pleasing sight It is a city’s memory of past trauma from
disastrous earthquakes which destroyed the last city archive. The new design does not imitate the last
building, but rather pays respect to it by strengthening its foundation. Its design is human-centered because
its function as an archive necessities human agents to work and know how to navigate the building. People
were kept in mind when planning this archive, it was not only beauty which concerned the architect.

4
Vitruvius, De Architectura, 24
5
Lozanovska, Brutalism, Metabolism, and its American Parallel, 18
Figure 1: Skopje Archive

Figure 2: Interior Layout of Skopje Archive

 Boston City Hall
Boston City Hall (Figure 3), designed by American architect Paul Rudolph, faces threats
of demolition like many brutalist structures. The first impression of the public was quite negative,
criticizing its large size and look; "A councilor calls it ‘as lavish as a Babylonian temple.’ a city
hall secretary, on the other hand, “can’t stand” the rough concrete. Further complicating things, a
nursing student describes it as too much like a “fortress.” but, a cab driver says, ‘There’s too much
wasted space.’”6 Boston City Hall can stand in for many brutalist buildings which often receive
calls for its demolition. This is in hopes that ‘proper’ construction may make beautiful what
Brutalism spoiled. A question is raised of what exactly do critics of Brutalism dislike. The cab
driver bemoans the “wasted space”, but the same newspaper article later notes, “Its spaces are
meant to be grand and permanent, symbolic of the democratic ideals of a city.”7 An element of
the building is a large set of pyramiding brick stairs in the south entry hall (figure 4). These stairs
lead either outside of the building or into a much smaller ascending terrazzo stairway. What may
at first appear to be an obsolete staircase, became the setting of then Mayor Kevin White’s first
press conference in the building, “So the stairway becomes an amphitheater. And as an
amphitheater it is, in fact, delightful.”8 The building’s features are dynamic, they adapted to the
speech of the mayor by offering a dramatic space to address Boston citizens in their new city hall.
The emotions elicited by Boston City Hall range from solemnity and curiosity to skepticism and
disgust. To only consider the element of beauty in this structure overlooks its function for Boston. It is a
unique building which serves its community. Bostonians go to city hall for other reasons than just admiring
beautiful symmetry and ornamentation. The outside is domineering and massive, but the interior is
welcoming and flushed with natural light. Inside, the offices of the city staff may be seen from its atrium;
there is a transparency here which speaks to Boston’s desire for a democratic society.

6
Conti, John, A New City Hall: Boston's Boost for Urban Renewal, page 14. Wall Street
Journal. February 12, 1969.
7
Conti, Ibid.
8
Conti, Ibid.
Figure 3: Boston City Hall

Figure 4: The entrance of Boston City Hall

The Sirius Apartments
The Sirius Apartments were designed by architect Tao Gofers in 1980 (Figure 5).
Constructed in Sydney down by the harbor bridge, these apartments offered affordable housing
to people who could not comfortably afford living in a city when land and housing were soaring
in price. During the 80’s past housing typologies could no longer keep up with the increased
demand for places to live and the widening economic gap that was being created: “By the
1950’s, land costs in inner areas prohibited the development of cottage-based estates, and the
most cost-effective way of meeting increasing housing demand was to build higher.”9 The Sirius
Apartments offered a solution. This complex incorporated both standard family units and aged
units, catering to all age groups. Each unit had open areas for residents to use for any outdoor
desires they may have. All units had access to a communal roof garden, and balconies were
provided which allowed for spectacular views of the opera house, harbor, and city skyline.
9 Rodrigo, Aesthetics as a Practical Ethics, 93
Figure 5: Sirius Apartments

When the Sirius apartments first became operational, it quickly began to receive
criticism: “The staggered-level building Sirius, in Cumberland Street, with its central tower
rising above the southern Harbour Bridge approach, had drawn strong public criticism. The
National Trust, a newspaper, has called it “the lump on The Rocks.” The former minister for
the Department of Planning and Environment, where city ordinances and building laws are
overseen and managed, Mr. Landa, described it as “damned awful.” Architects have criticized
the design, motorists complained that it cuts off Harbour views and members of the public
have suggested that the central tower be demolished.”10 Based on The National Trust and Mr.
Landa’s thoughts, the Sirius apartments are just blocks stacked upon one another.
10
Glascott, Eyesore’ is a Welcome Sight for Residents
When considering the lives of the residents of the Sirius apartments however, one can see great
profit in the building. Although this newspaper harshly criticized the architecture, it also
illuminates the significance of it. The article displays a sort of advocation for by the Sirius
apartments because of its promise of city life for people who cannot afford to rent studio
apartments in historic downtowns: “Perhaps there is some merit in his criticism that the block
spoils the line of the Sydney Harbor Bridge but, I cannot help detecting hints of a more general
resentment which is perhaps leveled at those people who might win a place in this unique setting
- people who ordinarily would never be able to afford harborside accommodation.”11
Considering the opportunities for citizens that the existence of the Sirius apartments
offers, one may encounter a new perspective of Brutalism. Based on Vitruvius’ characteristics
that a building should have, the stability and utility of the building was successful. So why are
critics so fascinated with the aesthetics of structures? The aesthetics of Brutalism and the ethics
behind the style can both be defended. These are two distinct categories, each with its own
merits and faults. Often, an architect’s role in the designing of a building is thought of as only
concerning its visual character. Architects have always been capable of designing beyond
aesthetics; the Sirius apartments stand as such an example; “This ethical dimension places the
architect as intellectual and quasi-sociopolitical agent at the heart of the welfare state and its
manifestations.”12

Conclusion
Brutalism is not a monolith. Its theory and application vary wildly, but throughout the
examples explored in this paper a common characteristic is seen among these buildings. Each
considers the structure with people in mind. The Skopje archive holds crucial records for the
city, and its design creates a bastion which will not succumb to seismic activities. Boston city
hall houses the representatives of the city, and creates open, expansive spaces which are
transparent to a viewer. The Sirius apartments address a housing crisis in major cities and
offer accommodations which are not merely sufficient to live in but also are striking and
valued for its location. Architecture which puts people first must contain an ethical element
when deciding how and why a structure should be formed. Brutalism as an aesthetic may
always be despised by some, but to not see how these buildings strive for higher goods is to
be blind to architecture entirely.

11
Christie, Elitist Views
12
Henley, Redefining Brutalism, 21
 Works Cited

Christie, Ellen. Elitist Views. Sydney Morning Herald, 25 May 1979, p. 6.

Conti, John. “ A New City Hall: Boston’s Boost for Urban Renewal.” Wall Street
Journal, 12 Feb. 1969, p. 14.

Gatley, Julia, and Stuart King. Brutalism Resurgent. Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group, 2018.

Glascott, Joseph. Eyesore’ Is a Welcome Sight for Residents. Sydney Morning Herald,
20 Mar. 1980, p. 3.

Henley, Simon. Redefining brutalism. RIBA Publishing. 2019

Lozanovska, Mirjana. Brutalsim, Metabolism, and its American Parallel. Brutalism

Resurgent. Edited by Julia Gatley, and Stuart King. Routledge, Taylor & Francis
Group, 2018.

Reyner, Banham. The New Brutalism. The MIT Press. 2011.

Rodrigo, Russel. Aesthetics as a Practical Ethics: Situating the Brutalist Architecture of

the Sirius Apartments, 1975-80. Edited by Julia Gatley, and Stuart King. Routledge,
Taylor & Francis Group, 2018.

Vitruvius. De Architectura. Translated by Frank Granger, Harvard University Press, 1931.