Share this on Facebook
download .zip with all pictures
Preservation is not solely about what someone deems beautiful or not. I understand the link you are making, but to ignore brutalism is to ignore a specific time-frame and mindset of architecture. Also, you point to homes that were destroyed in the name of brutalism, but have you thought that maybe nobody cared about those homes in the 60s and 70s? Its easy now to say, “Oh, we no longer have all of these grand Victorian homes.” But in 1970, what did they think? Its easy now, some 40 years later to argue against something. To me, the beauty of brutalism is the simplicity, the attempt to make something different. While I know that may not always be a popular opinion, if you look at the trend of preservation, buildings generally become out of favor 40-50 years after being completed. After 70 years or so, people start to regain interest in them. Not saying that brutalism will gain the popularity that say a craftsman bungalow has, but I think more people will see it outside of the veil of old and ugly. Preservation is not just an, “I think this is ugly so let’s tear it down and build something pretty.” Its about preserving something for its contribution to society, for its importance in history, or even perhaps, its rarity. I appreciate brutalism. Do I think its appropriate for everything? No, its definitely a polarizing style. It does have a tendency to de-humanize the experience. But to say it looks like a, “rundown totalitarian town,” is to ignore the history or Raleigh. Brutalism marks an important boom of civic and corporate building in that city.