\n
Another feature of this architect\u2019s work in this period was his way of using poured concrete. The material was formed in wooden molds, and when the timber was removed the patterns of the grain were left exposed on the surface of the concrete. Le Corbusier called this material b\u00e9ton brut (\u201craw concrete\u201d).<\/p>\n
Modern grandeur<\/h3>\n
This combination of b\u00e9ton brut and a blocklike design seemed to offer a way of using the materials of modernism to design buildings on a large scale, to create a sense of grandeur in a modern idiom. Such buildings could be imposing and dramatic, while also giving the surface of the concrete visual interest. The style seemed well suited to the type of apartment blocks, office towers, shopping centers and multistorey car parks that were needed in reconstructed Europe. It also suited university campuses in both Europe and America.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u2018The warehouse aesthetic\u2019 [was] a very fair description of what The New Brutalism stood for in its first phase.\u201d Rayner Banham, \u201cThe New Brutalism\u201d in A Critic Writes: Selected Essays<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Prominent exponents of the style included the British husband-and-wife team Alison and Peter Smithson, Ern\u00f6 Goldfinger, Sir Denys Lasdun, William Meyer, the Scottish firm of Gillespie, Kidd & Coia and the American firm Walker and McGough.<\/p>\n
Public misgivings<\/h3>\n
Although brutalism was popular among architects and planners, it did not always meet with the approval of the public. There were several reasons for this. Block-like concrete fa\u00e7ades that looked well in the light of India or the South of France did not suit northern light so well, and concrete that started out clean quickly began to look gray and grubby. In addition, in the post-war climate of rapid reconstruction, many brutalist buildings were poorly constructed.<\/p>\n
Perhaps the greatest problem was with the use of brutalism in housing schemes. Inspired by Le Corbusier\u2019s Unit\u00e9 d\u2019Habitation, many architects and planners laid out concrete housing schemes on a large scale. These schemes usually exploited fashionable planning theories that separated cars and pedestrians, providing access to flats via elevated walkways. They packed in hundreds, sometimes thousands of flats, often next to green spaces and incorporated the latest in modern technology.<\/p>\n
But the pedestrian \u201cstreets in the sky\u201d became the haunts of muggers, poor maintenance turned the flats into dingy slums, the green spaces became windy wastelands and the modern conveniences broke down. Many such housing schemes became bywords for deprivation and brutalism seemed uncannily well named.<\/p>\n
A source of controversy<\/h3>\n
Critics of brutalism, such as the Prince of Wales, have attacked both the uncompromising design of the buildings and the depressing living environment these structures often provide. As a result many brutalist buildings have had a short life, but conservation groups have campaigned against the demolition of notable examples, such as Plymouth\u2019s Tricorn Centre and the outstanding St. Peter\u2019s Seminary.<\/p>\n
\nBrutalism or new brutalism?<\/h4>\n
![\"Plymouth\u2019s](\"https:\/\/www.sribno.com\/architecturallife\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/Plymouths-Tricorn-Centre.jpg\")
<\/a>