[HN Gopher] Why brutalist buildings should stay, even if people ...
___________________________________________________________________
Why brutalist buildings should stay, even if people think they're
ugly
Author : everybodyknows
Score : 16 points
Date : 2024-08-12 22:23 UTC (37 minutes ago)
(HTM) web link (text.npr.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (text.npr.org)
| drekipus wrote:
| "because demolishing buildings is bad for the environment"
|
| Ok. Remodel them instead.
| coldtea wrote:
| Because the class that writes and reads NPR, living in nice cosy
| neighborhoods and suburbs, can signal their superior taste, while
| not having to suffer living anywhere near those buildings.
| janice1999 wrote:
| Brutalist buildings are not the sole domain of the poor. You'll
| experience them as government and university buildings, where
| the class that read NPR can be found.
| thomasmiller_ wrote:
| Iglesia El Rosario, located in San Salvador, is a beautiful
| Brutalist structure.
| dudeinjapan wrote:
| Perhaps there are worse things for the collective psyche than a
| bit of extra carbon in the atmosphere.
| samcat116 wrote:
| This seems like a really lazy argument. You could say the same
| argument about getting rid of almost anything thats old and isn't
| working 100% for current requirements
| skywhopper wrote:
| tldr: it's often more expensive to tear them down than to update
| them. Okay. Same goes for all buildings.
| platz wrote:
| the argument isn't that it's expensive to tear them down, it's
| that a lot of carbon was released to create them, so to tear them
| down would be wasteful.
| evanjrowley wrote:
| Is brutalist architecture actually unpopular, or is it just
| popular to rail against brutalism?
| ortusdux wrote:
| One thing I find interesting about brutalist architecture is that
| the name originates from the term 'Beton brut', which translates
| to raw concrete.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9ton_brut
| DoreenMichele wrote:
| Too little info in the article to judge the value of the position
| suggested.
|
| They are hard to maintain and update. They tend to not be
| accessible.
|
| If you believe they "should" be preserved, perhaps write up
| guidelines on how to update them and publish it.
|
| They are raw concrete. Surely someone could potentially _paint_
| them to improve their appearance.
| arbfay wrote:
| The only valid argument I see is that some brutalist buildings
| are historically important and even we don't like them today we
| should keep some of them for future generations to visit and see
| what we have tried, and disliked.
|
| But to use the environment as an excuse is silly. There are
| always things that can be done for that: recycling the concrete,
| rebuild to reduce car dependency and improve energy efficiency,
| choose more sustainaible materials (like wood) that can easily be
| replaced in the future (instead of more concrete), etc
| imgabe wrote:
| Buildings from 50+ years ago are not necessarily the most well
| insulated and efficient. Nothing is going to unrelease the carbon
| that was involved in making them, but they also consume energy on
| an ongoing basis and replacing them with something more efficient
| might be a net reduction overall.
| int0x29 wrote:
| If there was ever a case to link to a text only version a
| discussion of architecture isn't it. The full article with
| images: https://www.npr.org/2024/08/12/g-s1-6417/brutalism-
| architect...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-08-12 23:00 UTC)