Shop Products
Houzz Logo Print
mtnrdredux_gw

Eyesore or National Treasure?

mtnrdredux_gw
9 years ago

{{gwi:2137226}}

I have a feeling that Pal will get mad at me but I think this is an eyesore. I am trying to be open minded. But there it is. I particularly dislike the building's rear end. I wonder how this building functions with all that glass --- I am guessing glare and heat are issues. How do you deal with the need for all that WT fabric, in a public building? The fabric looks messy but is probably needed for function. It is just wrong. It's a mistake IMHO.

Oh wait, are those vertical blinds? even worse. The facade will forever be a slave to everyone having their blinds neat and in the right position, otherwise the bldg looks like an unmade bed.

Here is a link that might be useful: trash or treasure

Comments (43)

  • tibbrix
    9 years ago

    Eye sore. Reminds me of Boston City Hall. Looks like something you'd see in the Lenin era

    This post was edited by Tibbrix on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 20:00

  • bpath
    9 years ago

    I always like the interiors of those types of buildings, the exteriors not so much.

  • joaniepoanie
    9 years ago

    My first thought....it reminded me of East Berlin before the wall came down.

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago

    I'll say both.

    A lot of Brutalist buildings are ugly on some level, And there are a number of modernist buildings that have the same problem with the windows and window treatments. They now tend to use more mirrored glass mask what is going on inside and provide their own glare control.

    I am not sure how this building functions as a whole, and if it is also dysfunctional, maybe it's time to go. A lot of Brutalist buildings are actually pretty functional, but they may not be very Flexible over time either, and that can present a problem.

    But I think we need to be careful about what we tear down just because we think it's ugly. There has been a huge loss of late Victorian Eclecticism because the next generation (our grandparents and parents) couldn't stand it. That's what happened to a lot of Frank Furness buildings, and now they are treasured.

    (I think a lot of houses look like big unmade beds window wise now, since people favor no window treatments either giving a fishbowl view of cluttered interiors, or grommet panels which are always askew.--But that's a different topic)

  • MissJenn
    9 years ago

    I tried to like this....but it looks like jail for bad architects? lol

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago

    We also need to ask if its replacement is going to be any better.

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    "But I think we need to be careful about what we tear down just because we think it's ugly."

    I agree. I was kind of into Historic Preservation as a cause at one time. I volunteered, donated, read a lot about it, etc. I stopped because I realized I was a fraud. I did not want to preserve history. I wanted to save pretty things.

    Pal. in addition to the unmade bed look, I realize that the other problem with big glass expanses that then need expanses of WT is that they look like closed faces if you will, shut off. That is part of what makes them hostile.

    PS tsk tsk for the NYTimes. I don't think the author understood that Brutalism does not come from the word "brutal" but from the french "brut" and relates to the concrete form; yes?

  • kitchendetective
    9 years ago

    I stopped because I realized I was a fraud. I did not want to preserve history. I wanted to save pretty things.
    Bwahahahahah. Reminds me of when my staunchly Modernist cousins castigated me for loving Impressionism. Tough. I love pretty. I even like sparkly.

    I wouldn't want that brutally Brutalist structure torn down, though. Utter ugliness is part of our history and we cannot unwrite it.

  • raee_gw zone 5b-6a Ohio
    9 years ago

    But brutal in the English sense has always seemed apt. Big hunks just plopped down wherever.

    I don't like this style. It must have appealed to a significant segment, though, or were these buildings erected (the appeal was based on) just because the style was new/trendy/"art"?

    It is a little hard for me to put my finger on just why they don't work for me. I don't mind the corrugated concrete entirely but it would be better as an element instead of the whole; big windows work in other buildings; it is not even the asymmetry necessarily. But they just seem to lack grace, and don't connect well with their surroundings.

  • robo (z6a)
    9 years ago

    I thought I posted in this thread...sorry if I'm repeating myself!

    I think the window treatment thing could be solved pretty easily with solar roller blinds.

    I think it looks kinda neat. At least it HAS glass unlike some of the brutal* buildings around here. *double meaning

    Killam Library, crushing souls since it opened in 1971
    {{gwi:2137227}}

  • nini804
    9 years ago

    Here's the thing for me...why do Modernist buildings have to be devoid of landscaping? While I don't have a personal affinity for this architectural style, I try to understand what the architect is doing. To me, this would lose it's "East Berlin pre-perestroika " look if had some interesting landscaping, perhaps some park-like outdoor "rooms" and paths. And, of course, using at the very least, cohesive window treatments.

  • robo (z6a)
    9 years ago

    found my other post, whoops!

    This post was edited by robotropolis on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 11:44

  • busybee3
    9 years ago

    I am not a historical preservationist.... I think historical documentation would be plenty for that particular building!!
    it's time for some 'new history' to be built!! take lots of pictures- and display some if they wish!! but, I would not want to work in that building and I would not want to look at it on a regular basis!

  • _sophiewheeler
    9 years ago

    I rather like it. I imagine the interior is full of light and quite spacious.

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    LOL Robo.

    Yes, Brutal is apt. But anyone being published in the NYT on the subject of architecture should know what Brutalism is, and take the opportunity to at least explain they "why" of this style and the reasoning of those who defend it. That's just good journalism.

    To wit:
    Brutalist architecture is a movement in architecture that flourished from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, descended from the modernist architectural movement of the early 20th century. The term does not derive from the word "brutal", but originates from the French béton brut, or "raw concrete", a term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material.

    Concrete is used for its raw and unpretentious honesty, contrasting dramatically with the highly refined and ornamented buildings constructed in the elite Beaux-Arts style. Surfaces of cast concrete are made to reveal the basic nature of its construction, revealing the texture of the wooden planks used for the in-situ casting forms.

    Brutalism as an architectural philosophy was often also associated with a socialist utopian ideology, which tended to be supported by its designers, especially Alison and Peter Smithson, near the height of the style.

  • nini804
    9 years ago

    Ah ha!! So it *IS* a communist thing! That makes perfect sense.

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    Re landscaping --- in fairness, I cant seem to find many flattering photos ... need to look more. But iirc there is a courtyard. Keep in mind I think it has fallen into disrepair

    ANd one article included this:

    {{gwi:2137228}}

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    Here's a Brutalist bldg in Vancouver I think we'd all save

    {{gwi:2137229}}

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    Yup, or at least socialist. I'm no expert but that's why I also think of it as a style adopted mainly by (left-ish) universities) and left-leaning or socialist govt.s Lots of housing projects too.

  • mama goose_gw zn6OH
    9 years ago

    In re landscaping--is there room for a couple of runways?

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago

    The era of windowless-ness was coincident with the height of Brutalism. But they aren't really that directly related. The Brutalist building on my college campus (which has since been "prettied up" with traditional details and looks even worse for it) was mostly all glass on two sides.

    The near windowless buildings containing a lot of classrooms and offices were otherwise relatively traditional-academic looking.

    I think our notion of beauty changes, too, because a lot of Furness late-Victorian eclectic-grotesque buildings that were Ugly from about 1900 to 1950 are now beautiful.

    The internal glare and window-treatment issue could probably be solved less expensively than tearing the building down.

  • robo (z6a)
    9 years ago

    Having gone to school at a few (three) universities in stupid real-or-faux-Brutalist buildings (really just the cheapest thing they could throw up), many of them are definitely not worth saving as they are dark, depressing, and oppressive. And not comfortable! Just for example, what is with the corrugated concrete walls? They hurt to lean against! Students love leaning on things! Try accidentally brushing up against one of those monstrosities in a busy stairwell while you're wearing a silk blouse.

    {{gwi:2137230}}

    The Leacock building at McGill actually had SODIUM LIGHTING in the corridors. Shudder.

    This post was edited by robotropolis on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 12:25

  • selcier
    9 years ago

    I've come to love these buildings. Pittsburgh is dotted with them - especially the University campus. Posvar Hall is rumored to be the largest educational building with the most wasted space. Classic.

    But I agree that they look best when there is more greenery. They are supposed to be that sharp contrast to nature after all.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Posvar

  • joyce_6333
    9 years ago

    On a recent trip to France, we spotted this student housing complex built from (recycled?) shipping containers. Actually architect designed.

  • kswl2
    9 years ago

    We've been discussing this subject for a long time; I still have a thread bookmarked for the picture of the house in Spain!

    Here is a link that might be useful: Brutalist discussion from 2011

  • teeda
    9 years ago

    Here's an interesting article about my alma mater, UMass Amherst. There is now an organized effort to preserve its much criticized Brutalist architecture. I was surprised when I read the list of the highly regarded mid-century architects who designed many of the buildings on campus.

    Here is a link that might be useful: UMass Amherst: Museum of 20th Century Brutalism

  • tomtuxman
    9 years ago

    If I am not mistaken the OP pic is of Orange County NY County Hall in Goshen, right? Architect was the late Paul Rudolph who, for some inexplicable reason, became dean of the Yale Univ School of Architecture. He had previously been an architect in Florida where he had designed a number of nice small modern houses. Big jump to running Yale's arch school -- frankly I don't understand it.

    Anyway, the County hall in Orange Co NY is a totally dysfunctional building. I had the experience of doing law-and-architecture-related business with County gov't there some years ago and it is brutal in so many ways. The County executive's office actually had holes in walls and ceilings to trace roof leaks, and buckets on the floor to catch rain water. The once-thought "cool" multi-level design is completely inaccessible for the disabled, but even presents huge tripping hazard for people without disabilities. There are many chair-lift elevators that have been retrofitted all over the place. The rear facade is a blank. Main entries seem like emergency exits. Just a badly designed building.

    A few years ago, Yale decided to restore, renovate, retrofit its Rudolph-designed A&A building, which originally cost something like $10 Million to build. The rebuild cost around $40 Million as I recall. Was it worth it? Really?

    I've been involved in a lot of historic projects and I consider myself a preservationist, but one has to draw the line somewhere.

  • Boopadaboo
    9 years ago

    I agree, I did not love going there.

    I am annoyed they moved DMV so far, but It was not very functional when it was in that building. From what I hear, when people speak of it locally, I would say an eyesore. I LOVE driving down that street, My favorite old house of all time is on that street. and then, you come upon that! I know areas need to progress, but that is really the only progression in that area and it doesn't really seem to add to the beauty of Goshen.

  • mtnrdredux_gw
    Original Author
    9 years ago

    yes, Tom, see the link.

    It is on the front page of the Ny Times today,so that's what precipitated the discussion this time.

    Ok, and Robo, what was this about being pressed up against a stairwell in your silk blouse? Heavens.

  • Boopadaboo
    9 years ago

    Oh and to Pals other point, I agree, what replaces it could be bad or worse too.... :( Townhouses? Another ugly building? Goshen is not like Tuxedo where they have the money to make the bus stop and the train station fit in the surroundings with slate roofs, nice features and beautiful landscaping.

  • robo (z6a)
    9 years ago

    Mtn - much less exciting than it sounds!

    This post was edited by robotropolis on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 14:10

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago

    If it doesn't function, that's a good reason to do something about it. Many modernist buildings from the 1950s-1970s are problematic when it comes to function, mostly because of problems with universal access. But with a lot of modernist buildings, from International Style on, really lack a clear sense of entry or direction, so you can wander around the perimeter of buildings trying to figure out how to get in, and once inside, where to go may not be very clear either. Traditional buildings with much more ceremonial entryways, are more user friendly.

    But the problems with universal access are characteristic of Most buildings prior to the 1980s or 1990s, really. We hold it against modernist buildings more, because they Seem New enough that they should not have barrier-like stairs and level changes such as they do.

  • luckygal
    9 years ago

    As an architecture 'aficionado' I have not been happy with the state of current architecture for many decades.

    This monstrosity was built while we lived in Montreal and there was much controversy over it. However I think I like it better now than I did back then.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Habitat 67

    This post was edited by luckygal on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 14:35

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago

    I liked Habitat when I saw it at age 5 and I like it now. I think as a housing concept this one is considered pretty successful, isn't it? Much more so than the monolithic international-style apartment blocks that have mostly been demolished, since.

    I tend to think the biggest aspect that people react negatively toward is the concrete. If Habitat, for example was pure white, or blocks of color like a Lego construction, I think a lot more people would find it appealing.

  • patriceny
    9 years ago

    Habitat 67 looks amazingly cool to me. I've never seen it before. It is apartments? If so, what a neat way to give more privacy - there are less shared walls, and more private nook-like spaces. I don't know squat about architecture, but I sure like it.

  • palimpsest
    9 years ago

    These shots are the interior of Habitat. The top apartment obviously has new millenium details, while the lower apartment probably has the original stairs and parapet wall.

    You can't fake the amount of natural light these units are getting, and the essential volumes of the spaces seem to be pleasant. This is what good Brutalism is about. It's not about the surface appearance, it's about the enclosed space inside the walls.

  • louisianapurchase
    9 years ago

    The Habitat looks as if it could be a modern take on pueblos. Pretty neat I think.

    Edited to add my thoughts on the original building mentioned by the OP and the other brutalist buildings. I couldn't earlier due to time.

    I am captivated by them and not sure why architecturally speaking. I am not crazy about the outside of the first one but find the inside very interesting. Though now hearing from those who have been inside, maybe it is not interesting enough to off-set its lack of functionality.

    I really do like the outside of some of the others though. I can't explain at all why. I don't necessarily think it is because of the architecture itself necessarily but of the history surrounding the buildings (literal architecture and figurative or symbolic history). *Note: I must admit to always having had a bizarre curiosity of Russian history esp. during the Cold War.

    So maybe it's my Eastern European/Russian heritage from my mom's side and/or my keen fascination with Russia. Or maybe I have just been watching to many episodes of The Americans. LOL

    This post was edited by louisianapurchase on Wed, Jan 28, 15 at 17:20

  • sable_ca
    9 years ago

    I well remember when Habitat 67 was built. The architect was Moshe Safdie, an Israeli-Canadian. At the time, he mentioned that among his inspirations were the small villages that climb up and down the hills of the Holy Land, in other words, a nod to the Levant. And seen from a distance, those little towns do resemble pueblos.

    Here is a link that might be useful: Habitat 67

  • Errant_gw
    9 years ago

    Those corrugated walls absorb sound, Robo.

  • sjhockeyfan325
    9 years ago

    joaniepoanie, I had exactly the same thought!

  • awm03
    9 years ago

    "But Steven M. Neuhaus, Orange County executive...recently vetoed a proposal that would have allowed the county to sell the center to Mr. Kaufman [owner of Gwathmey Siegel Kaufman Architects who wants to purchase the building & repurpose it as an artists' residence and exhibit hall]."

    This is outrageous, especially since Mr. Kaufman has also offered to design a new Orange County govt. center for less than the proposed budget. But why save money & preserve a historic building when you can waste tax money & build cr@p?

    I'm a long-time member of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, so my bias is to save it. It's not a beautiful building, but it certainly is unique and interesting. It's a fine representation of an architectural movement and era, the work of an imaginative, notable 20th century architect, and both of those things make it worth preserving. I'm surprised it's still up though, as this controversy has been raging for a good while. Paul Goldberger wrote about it in 2012: Eloquent article by Paul Goldberger on Paul Rudolph and the Orange Cty. govt. center

    mtnrdrdx: "The WTs make it look like an unmade bed." LOL! Re glare & heat, I'd read comments before by workers complaining the building was too hot in summer & too cold in winter.

  • gsciencechick
    9 years ago

    Here's a similar looking complex to Habitat 67: The Ellicott Complex dorms at SUNY Buffalo. It was knicknamed "The Emerald City' by the students. I was a commuter, but my cousin lived there, and it was pretty hard to navigate inside the structure. You could very easily get lost.

    Here is a link that might be useful:

  • robo (z6a)
    9 years ago

    Habitat 67 is amazing...and check out Tropiques Nord right next to it!

    Here's one way to survive a Montreal winter...
    {{gwi:2137231}}

    {{gwi:2137232}}

    {{gwi:2137233}}