[PGHFan]

Brutalism has produced some great buildings. But, like nearly every art/architectural/fashion/design school or movement, many of the products are merely average or worse. But, the bad examples do not justify throwing away the good. The Dallas City Hall and the Salk Institute are wonderful examples of brutalism, that I would not want to give up even though cities and university campuses are filled with bad brutalism. The same can be said about the Portland Public Service Building, a fine example of postmodernism, even though cities are filled with apartment buildings and suburban big box stores that have a clichéd postmodern corner turret. I like brutalism’s juxtaposition of planes and its ability to be monumental, even with a small footprint. Its lack of ornamentation is strength, especially when ornamentation would detract from the building’s overall strength and form, as exemplified by the Dallas and Salk buildings. In its simplicity, the Smithsonian’s Hirschorn building is an example of how a brutalist design is consistent with the goals of the building, i.e., showcasing modern art. The use of poured concrete in brutalist structures also provides texture and visual interest for the pedestrian. On the other hand, brutalism is not appealing, at least to me, in tall buildings where its small-scale virtues become large negatives. The repetitiveness and lack of ornamentation become overwhelming and surfaces appreciated close up are lost at a distance. Gray concrete with plywood imprints is interesting close up, but is simply gray at a distance. Another aspect of brutalism that is unattractive to me is the way that the dirt and grime of a city stain the flat, porous surfaces as a result of the flow of grit-containing water. I hope that we are not so shortsighted that we destroy the great buildings of the brutalist period to replace them with the newest architectural fad. We have done too much of that with the masterpieces of other eras.