The definition first:

(in modern architecture) the aesthetic use of basic building processes with no apparent concern for visual amenity. ... The term was first applied to functionalist buildings of the 1950s and 1960s that made much use of steel and concrete in starkly massive blocks. ... The term originates from the French word for "raw" in the term used by Le Corbusier to describe his choice of material béton brut (raw concrete). British architectural critic Reyner Banham adapted the term into "brutalism" (originally "New Brutalism") to identify the emerging style.

There are examples of béton brut style that are distinguished, and there are examples which are properly loathed by one and all.

For quality, Breuer's Abbey is an outstanding example of what can be done with raw concrete.



An Eastern European Soviet monument is also a good example of quality.


Béton brut or Brutalism fails most horribly when it is neglected. Lots of buildings in the world have been neglected, but béton brut is oddly sensitive, for all its raw mass.




No doubt there are factors contributing to extreme ugliness: the quality of the concrete, the way it was cured, the location of the building, how the building sheds water, and (most basic) the design of the building. Maintenance, of course. Nothing man made can keep its looks without upkeep.

The first Soviet-style housing unit suffers from several design and maintenance decisions:

Most prominently, the concrete is crumbling, cracking, discoloring, and streaking. Streaking one can understand -- deposited soot + rain = streaks -- it's inevitable (but it can be cleaned off). Discoloring may be cosmetic or more serious. But the really serious problem is crumbling material. Concrete cracks. In cold climates there are two kinds of concrete: cracked, and not cracked yet. But cracks in buildings can be repaired to reduce re-bar rusting, more cracking, and continued crumbling. It's noisy, time consuming, expensive, and recurring work -- but far cheaper than replacement.

The other problem with this building is that the aesthetics of design are poor--from the shape of windows inset into the concrete section, to the design of the ribbon window sections. Mullions and transitions are minimally designed -- if one can call it that at all. (No architect anywhere has figured out an attractive way to mount air conditioning units on the exterior walls of a building.)

It is possible that the interior spaces of this building are excellent and even cherished by the residents. I'd be very surprised, but it is possible

The second, round, housing unit is more of a success, though it too is suffering from a failure of maintenance.

The shape -- cylindrical central core serving a larger round building -- presents some inherent design problems. The high-end round Marina Towers in Chicago share the problem with this building: rooms and floor plans take on odd shapes out of necessity. Alternating bay windows and balconies is a good idea. The windows could stand a better design, and the whole thing probably looked pretty good when it was new. Concrete structures should last longer than 50 to 75 years. At 50 or 60 years, they should NOT look like they are ready for an implosion crew.

There is something inherently demoralizing about living in a crumbling building which has become brutally ugly (in a way it wasn't to start with). My guess is that heating, electrical, and plumbing services, fixtures, walls, stairwells, and so forth are all in discouraging condition in both buildings, with leaks, shorted out circuits, buckling tile (if there is tile), peeling paint, more dirt, and so on--not to mention vermin. (It usually isn't the people, it's usually the building.)

I've lived in roach infested slum dwellings that were 75 to 100 years old and were not in good shape, but the better built ones were recoverable, whether they were wood frame or brick. Once concrete is sufficiently cracked and crumbled, extensive re-bar exposed, too many systems failing, restoration becomes much more expensive than replacement.

Raw concrete is a good thing -- it can be beautiful, long lasting, very strong, and easy to keep maintained if not neglected.