I love FLW, but I would describe his style as more of praire style with some sharp lines and natural incorporation. His houses tended to be be pretty short and long and it's the long lines and kind of war colours that give it a good aesthetic, which is pretty different to brutalism
brutalism traditionally just means its a structure with exposed concrete. the term "brutalism" as used in architectural discourse today is literally in reference to what is more properly called "new brutalism" a chief proponant of which was FLW with his "organic" movement.
saying its not brutalism because it incorporates colourful elements is nonsense.
tldr: brutalism has multiple styles, and is defined by its use of exposed concrete.
Fair enough. I’m not really an expert on brutalist, just a fan of FLW. I do think though that unfortunately his style doesn’t hold up as well for large buildings, most of his are single units and I tend to associate brutalism with larger multi unit buildings. I’d have to see some more brutalist buildings to develop a proper opinion. Some of the flat soviet ones are kinda boring and plain, but I like habitat 67 in Montreal. Pretty sure that became a bougie place to live though.
yeah, the style is tricky to scale upwards i could agree with that, but i wouldnt say its impossible to implement. just takes careful consideration, which is sadly lacking when the concern is profit rather than living standard.
either way, its still a good entry point for people who think brutalism by its inherent nature is ugly, since.. yknow.. obvious refutation
its an aesthetic, you dont have to personally like it.
personally i like the "organic" new brutalism stuff that frank lloyd wright was onto.
Interesting, can you link some pictures?
image off the frank lloyd wright website.
the bottom left is a really gorgeous example of the idea, was his personal home
I love FLW, but I would describe his style as more of praire style with some sharp lines and natural incorporation. His houses tended to be be pretty short and long and it's the long lines and kind of war colours that give it a good aesthetic, which is pretty different to brutalism
brutalism traditionally just means its a structure with exposed concrete. the term "brutalism" as used in architectural discourse today is literally in reference to what is more properly called "new brutalism" a chief proponant of which was FLW with his "organic" movement.
saying its not brutalism because it incorporates colourful elements is nonsense.
tldr: brutalism has multiple styles, and is defined by its use of exposed concrete.
Fair enough. I’m not really an expert on brutalist, just a fan of FLW. I do think though that unfortunately his style doesn’t hold up as well for large buildings, most of his are single units and I tend to associate brutalism with larger multi unit buildings. I’d have to see some more brutalist buildings to develop a proper opinion. Some of the flat soviet ones are kinda boring and plain, but I like habitat 67 in Montreal. Pretty sure that became a bougie place to live though.
yeah, the style is tricky to scale upwards i could agree with that, but i wouldnt say its impossible to implement. just takes careful consideration, which is sadly lacking when the concern is profit rather than living standard.
either way, its still a good entry point for people who think brutalism by its inherent nature is ugly, since.. yknow.. obvious refutation