They tend to look like something someone who didn’t give a shit made. “I just need a box for people to be in, who cares what it looks like?”

The example brutalist churches in another post here look like someone doing a horrible experiment in the Sims made buildings without bothering to use anything but some default wall texture they found buried in the dev tools that doesn’t even tile very well, because they just needed a place to torture Sims in and don’t care what it looks like.

Yeah, that comes off as oppressive.

The oldest churches direct you to the heavens and God.

Early modern churches direct you to the preacher.

Modern churches direct you to the architect. (Or building repair services depending on whom you ask.)

I don't see it that way at all. A lot of care and thought went into these designs, and they evoke the kind of awe you would expect from a god's house. These aren't just hulking concrete bunkers like some of the institutional brutalism you see.

Maybe these architects should think, why their "well thought" experiments just look lazy designed.

They don't. Are you telling me that you look at this and think "what a lazy design"?

https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2024/04/sacred-modernity-b...

30 seconds of Google search https://www.re-thinkingthefuture.com/wp-content/uploads/2020...

You think this is well thought.

That isn't one of the buildings we were talking about. Indeed, in the post you responded to, I contrasted them with

> hulking concrete bunkers like some of the institutional brutalism you see.

Please make more thoughtful responses in the future.

We were generally talking about brutalism and I searched shortly about sloppy designed example (besides many real life example I am unlucky forced to see)

Please think more next why people disagree with your opinion. Also see it as a hind to be more thoughtful why brutalism is so unpopular.

Yeah, I mean it seems to me you just searched for some random picture and made literally no commentary about it. It looks completely fine.

I always find it weird when people have this „everyone hates it“ attitude with no real commentary whatsoever.

I made several comments on this thread about the problem on this architecture.

Do you live in a area with brutalism ? (if not , why do you like it?) Have you ask random passengers about their opinion?

It's not natural, grey is a stupid colour, no ornaments. Only architects like brutalism.

But I am happy to know that brutalist churches in Germany will be destruct at first than older churches.

> It's not natural

A point of brutalism is "form follows function and "showcase the bare building materials" (1) - in other words, that's how the material looks, naturally. Bare, unpainted concrete is in fact more natural and honest than painted concrete. And brutalism deliberately leans into that naturalism (of modern materials).

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

The impression of Unnatural comes from the fact, that brutalist forms don't exist in Nature. Concrete is everything but not a natural material. Showing it isnt natural.

I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism. It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture and one day these buildings will vanish.

> I am still buffed they are people defending brutalism

You are confused, describing is not the same as defending.

> It is one of the biggest mistake in Architecture

I don't necessary agree, but I didn't even take a position on that.

> and one day these buildings will vanish.

Over enough time, so will all buildings. But the sturdy one will last longer.

Bricks and glass panels also don’t exist in nature. Only we humans bring them about, just as we do with concrete.

The forms used in classical architecture are way more natural than just stupid plain concrete.

Yes, it would be more natural to live in a cave or a wooden hut. There's a long essay on the subject from a guy named Ted who put it into practice.

Brutalism is beautiful