N01 brutalism Editorial 1

Le Corbusier / Unité d’habitation 1952

__________________________________________06

Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm / Villa Göth 1950

__________________________________________10

Peter & Alison Smithson / Hunstanton School 1954

__________________________________________14

Deeter & Ritchey / Litchfield Towers 1963

__________________________________________18

Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles / The Boston City Hall 1968

__________________________________________22

Denys Lasdun / The National Theatre, London 1976

__________________________________________26

3
 BRUTALISM
The Beauty of Raw Concrete

Towering, unapologetic, and monolithic—Brutalist thetic, one that has been embraced by filmmakers
architecture has long divided opinion. Emerging in and artists for its dramatic presence. However, the
the post-war era as a response to rapid urbanization very characteristics that make Brutalism striking
and social housing needs, Brutalism embraced the have also contributed to its controversy. Over time,
philosophy of form following function. Characterized many of these buildings have suffered from ne-
by raw concrete surfaces, geometric forms, and an glect, leading to calls for demolition. Cities eager to
imposing presence, it stood as a symbol of progress modernize their skylines have razed Brutalist land-
and modernity in the mid-20th century. Yet, for de- marks, while critics argue that their cold, fortress-
cades, these massive structures were dismissed as like appearances contribute to urban alienation.
cold, oppressive, and even dystopian. Now, in the
21st century, Brutalism is experiencing a renaissance, Despite its divisive nature, Brutalism is experien-
with architects, designers, and preservationists reco- cing a revival, particularly among younger genera-
gnizing its bold aesthetic and cultural significance. tions who see beauty in its raw, unfiltered honesty.
Architects and designers are drawing inspiration
Brutalism’s origins can be traced back to the work from its principles, using raw materials and bold
of Swiss-French architect Le Corbusier, whose Uni- geometries in contemporary projects. Social media
té d’Habitation in Marseille (1952) laid the foun- has also played a role in its resurgence, with plat-
dation for the movement. The name itself derives forms like Instagram showcasing Brutalist structures
from the French phrase béton brut, meaning “raw as iconic relics of an ambitious architectural era.
concrete,” reflecting the material that would come
to define the style. Throughout the 1950s to the Whether loved or loathed, Brutalist architecture
1970s, Brutalist buildings were constructed across commands attention. It is a testament to an era when
the world, particularly for government institutions, design was fearless, functionality was paramount,
universities, and public housing. Examples like and architecture dared to make a statement. As ci-
the Barbican Estate in London, Boston City Hall in ties reconsider the value of these concrete giants,
the U.S., and the National Theatre in the UK exem- one thing is clear—Brutalism is here to stay.
plify the movement’s stark yet functional beauty.

For many, Brutalist buildings evoke a sense of power

and permanence. Their monumental scale and lack
of ornamentation create an almost futuristic aes-

5
le corbusier

U N I T É D ’ H A B I TAT I O N

1 9 5 2

1 7
 • Horizontal Windows: Providing uniform lighting cessful examples of planned modernist urbanism.
and a connection to nature.
• Roof Garden: Reintroducing greenery to urban Controversies and Criticism
settings.
Despite his achievements, Le Corbusier’s ideas were
Modernist Masterpieces not without controversy. His vision of high-rise living
and rigid urban grids often clashed with organic
Le Corbusier’s architectural legacy is filled with ico- city growth. Many criticized his large-scale housing
nic structures that embody his radical ideas. Among projects as impersonal and alienating. Additionally,
his most influential works is the Unité d’Habitation his involvement in political ideologies and utopian
in Marseille (1952), a pioneering example of Bruta- ideals sometimes overshadowed practical concerns.
list architecture. Designed as a self-contained urban
unit, it combined housing, shopping, and communal Legacy and Influence
spaces within a single structure. The building’s bold
use of raw concrete (béton brut) and modular design Le Corbusier’s influence extends far beyond his li-
principles set the stage for the Brutalist movement. fetime. His theories shaped the development of
post-war architecture, particularly in social housing
Another masterpiece, the Villa Savoye (1929), re- and urban planning. His use of raw concrete directly
mains one of the most celebrated examples of mo- inspired Brutalism, and his modernist ideals remain
dernist architecture. Located in Poissy, France, it central to contemporary architectural discourse.
epitomizes Le Corbusier’s Five Points, with its raised

THE VISIONARY
pilotis, open floor plan, and ribbon windows. The villa’s In 2016, UNESCO recognized 17 of his buildings
simplicity and functionality demonstrated how mo- as World Heritage Sites, solidifying his status as
dern architecture could redefine domestic spaces. one of the most important architects in history.
His legacy continues to inspire architects and city

BEHIND Le Corbusier also contributed significantly to ur-

ban planning. His Plan Voisin (1925) proposed
replacing central Paris with a grid of high-rise
planners, demonstrating the enduring relevance
of his visionary approach to design and urbanism.

MODERNIST LIVING
towers, prioritizing efficiency over historic pre- Le Corbusier was not just an architect but a revo-
servation. Although never realized, this vision lutionary thinker who reshaped the way we per-
influenced modern city planning concepts. ceive and inhabit space. His commitment to mo-
dernity, functionality, and urban efficiency left an
Chandigarh: The City of the Future indelible mark on architecture, influencing eve-
rything from high-rise apartments to urban mas-
Perhaps Le Corbusier’s most ambitious urban pro- terplans. Whether admired or critiqued, his work
Few architects have left as profound an impact on and vernacular architecture during his travels across ject was Chandigarh, India. Commissioned in 1950, remains a cornerstone of modern architectural
modern architecture as Le Corbusier. Born Charles- Europe deepened his understanding of form and it was conceived as a utopian city, organized ac- thought, proving that great architecture is not just
Édouard Jeanneret in 1887 in Switzerland, he be- proportion. These experiences culminated in a bold cording to his principles of rational planning and about buildings—it’s about shaping the future.
came a towering figure in the 20th century, shaping approach to design, emphasizing geometric purity, zoning. Chandigarh’s layout emphasized wide
urban landscapes and architectural philosophy industrial materials, and a focus on human needs. roads, green spaces, and monumental civic buil-
through his revolutionary ideas. Le Corbusier’s work dings, including the Capitol Complex and Palace
transcended mere building design; he envisioned In 1920, he adopted the pseudonym “Le Corbusier,” of Assembly. The city remains one of the most suc-
cities as efficient, organized machines for modern marking the beginning of his professional identity
life. His principles of functionality, standardization, as an architect and theorist. By the 1920s, he had
and aesthetic purity redefined architectural norms, already developed his Five Points of Architecture,
influencing generations of architects worldwide. which became the foundation of modernist design:
• Pilotis (Columns): Lifting buildings on stilts to al-
Early Life and Architectural Foundations low for open ground space.
• Free Plan: Eliminating load-bearing walls for grea-
Le Corbusier was trained as an artist before transi- ter spatial flexibility.
tioning to architecture, which greatly influenced his • Free Façade: Allowing the exterior to be inde-
design philosophy. His early exposure to classical pendent of structural constraints.

9
Edman & Holm

VILLA GÖTH

1 9 5 0

2 11
Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm were two of Sweden’s sign, utilizing exposed concrete and timber to create
most influential architects of the 20th century, known a raw yet warm atmosphere. The interplay of mate-
for their innovative approach to modernism and their rials and geometric precision exemplified their ability
significant contributions to the country’s architectu- to blend industrial and organic elements seamlessly.
ral landscape. Their work combined functionalism,
material exploration, and a deep understanding of Another notable project was the Villa Göth
context, resulting in buildings that remain admired (1950), often cited as an early example of Swe-
for their bold designs and enduring relevance. dish Brutalism. The house, with its raw concrete
façade and simple geometric forms, was a radi-
Early Careers and Collaboration cal departure from traditional Swedish residen-
tial architecture. It set the stage for the wider ac-
Bengt Edman (1915–2000) and Lennart Holm ceptance of Brutalist aesthetics in Scandinavia.
(1917–2007) both emerged as key figures in Swedi-
sh architecture during the mid-20th century, a period
of significant transformation in Scandinavian design. Influence on Swedish Modernism
Influenced by the principles of functionalism and
Brutalism, they sought to redefine the relationship Edman and Holm played a crucial role in shaping
between architecture and the environment, embra- post-war Swedish architecture. Their designs em-
cing new materials and construction techniques. phasized the importance of sustainability and adap-
tability long before these concepts became mains-
Their collaboration produced some of Sweden’s tream. They believed in architecture that responded
most striking architectural works, characterized by to climate, culture, and societal needs, rather than
a thoughtful use of concrete, timber, and glass. They adhering strictly to international modernist trends.
aimed to merge aesthetics with practicality, ensu-
ring that their designs were not only visually com- Holm, who also served as the director of the Swe-
pelling but also deeply attuned to human needs. dish National Board of Building (Boverket), was
instrumental in shaping national architectural po-
Notable Works and Contributions licies, advocating for housing solutions that ba-
lanced efficiency with high design standards. His
One of the most renowned projects by Edman and influence extended beyond individual buildings to
Holm is the Östra Gymnasiet in Umeå (1965). This edu- the broader framework of Swedish urban planning.
cational facility was a landmark in Swedish school de-

Legacy and Lasting Impact singly focused on sustainable design, their pioneering
work remains as relevant as ever, offering lessons in
The work of Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm conti- how architecture can harmonize with its surroundings
nues to inspire architects and designers. Their pro- while pushing the boundaries of form and materiality.
jects demonstrate a rare blend of rationality and Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm were more than
artistic sensibility, proving that modernism can just architects; they were visionaries who redefined
be both functional and expressive. Today, their modern Swedish architecture. Their legacy is a testa-
contributions are recognized as key moments ment to the power of thoughtful design, proving that
in the evolution of Swedish architecture, brid- buildings can be both innovative and deeply rooted
ging the gap between tradition and innovation. in their cultural and environmental contexts. Through
their groundbreaking work, they left an indelible mark
Although their styles evolved over time, their core prin- on Scandinavian architecture, inspiring future gene-
ciples remained consistent: a commitment to material rations to continue exploring the intersection of tra-
honesty, spatial efficiency, and a deep respect for the dition, materiality, and modernist ideals.
human experience in architecture. In a world increa-

13
Peter & Alison
Smithson
H U N S TA N T O N S C H OO L

1 9 5 4

3 15
Peter and Alison Smithson were among the most Iconic Works and Urban Vision
influential British architects of the 20th century, wi- One of their most celebrated projects is the Hunstan-
dely recognized for their pioneering contributions ton School in Norfolk (1954). Built with exposed steel
to Brutalist architecture. Their work emphasized raw and brick, the school embodied the principles of
materials, honest construction, and a deep enga- Brutalism with its functionalist approach, strong geo-
gement with the social context of architecture. As metric lines, and emphasis on materiality. This pro-
key figures in post-war modernism, they sought to ject marked a significant shift in British architecture,
redefine the relationship between architecture and influencing future generations of architects seeking
urban life, shaping the built environment with a philo- to merge form and function with structural honesty.
sophy grounded in both practicality and aesthetics.
Another landmark work was the Robin Hood Gardens
Early Life and Architectural Philosophy (1972), a social housing project in East London de-
signed to create a ‘street in the sky.’ The Smithsons
Peter Smithson (1923–2003) and Alison Smith- envisioned it as an answer to the urban housing crisis,
son (1928–1993) met at the University of Durham’s offering communal walkways and a sense of neighbo-
School of Architecture and began their collaborative rhood connectivity. While the project was polarizing
career in the early 1950s. Inspired by the works of Le and ultimately demolished in 2017, it remains an impor-
Corbusier and Mies van der Rohe, they developed an tant study in architectural and social experimentation.
architectural language that responded to the emer-
ging socio-political landscape of post-war Britain. Influence and Legacy

They rejected the sleek, glassy modernism of the Beyond their built projects, Peter and Alison Smith-
International Style in favor of a more rugged and son were prolific writers and theorists. Their essays
expressive approach, championing Brutalism as and publications, such as Without Rhetoric: An Ar-
a way to create architecture that was true to its chitectural Aesthetic 1955–1972, explored new
materials and social function. They coined the ways of thinking about architecture and urbanism. Despite mixed reactions to their work, the Smith- their commitment to material honesty, social engage-
term ‘New Brutalism,’ emphasizing a raw aesthe- They were also key figures in Team 10, a group that sons' influence on architecture is undeniable. They ment, and structural clarity. While their designs were
tic that laid bare the structure of buildings rather challenged the orthodoxies of modernism and advo- championed an architecture that engaged direc- often controversial, they sparked critical conversa-
than concealing them with decorative elements. cated for more human-centric design approaches. tly with its surroundings and occupants, advoca- tions that continue to shape architectural thought
ting for buildings that responded dynamically to today. Their work remains a crucial chapter in the
human needs. Their legacy lives on in contempo- history of Brutalism, reminding us of the power of ar-
rary discussions about urban planning, social hou- chitecture to reflect and influence society.
sing, and the ethical responsibilities of architects.

Peter and Alison Smithson redefined British architec-

ture, pushing the boundaries of modernism through

PIONEERS OF BRUTALIST
ARCHITECTURE
17
 Deeter
& Ritchey
L I T C H F I E L D T OW E R S

1 9 6 3

4 19
Deeter & Richtey were two influential architects zing space and offering panoramic views.
known for their contributions to modernist and Bru- • Raw concrete exteriors, embodying the Brutalist
talist architecture in the mid-20th century. Their most philosophy of exposing materials in their most au-
notable work, Litchfield Towers (1963), stands as a thentic state.
testament to their ability to blend functionality with • Vertical efficiency, with a layout that maximizes
a distinct, bold aesthetic. Through their architectu- the number of occupants while maintaining
ral endeavors, they sought to redefine urban living comfort and accessibility.
spaces while embracing the principles of Brutalism • A centralized hub, integrating dining and com-
and modernism. munal facilities to encourage student interaction
and social cohesion.
Architectural Philosophy
Influence and Legacy
Deeter & Richtey believed in an architecture that was
not merely aesthetic but deeply rooted in practicality The impact of Deeter & Richtey extends beyond Lit-
and human experience. Like many of their contem- chfield Towers. Their work exemplifies how modernist
poraries, they were inspired by the works of Le Cor- principles can be adapted to large-scale urban hou-
busier, Mies van der Rohe, and the principles of the sing projects. Though often divisive due to the stark
Bauhaus movement. Their approach emphasized: aesthetic of Brutalism, their architectural contribu-
• Material honesty – utilizing raw concrete, steel, tions have continued to inspire discussions on func-
and glass in their natural states. tionality, urban planning, and sustainable housing.
• Structural clarity – ensuring that form followed
function in a direct and intelligible manner. Today, Litchfield Towers remains a central part of the
• Urban integration – designing buildings that res- University of Pittsburgh campus, standing as both
ponded to their surroundings and enhanced a functional living space and a historical artifact of
community living. mid-century architectural experimentation. The de-
sign principles introduced by Deeter & Richtey can
Litchfield Towers: A Landmark of Brutalist Design be seen echoed in contemporary high-density ur-
ban housing, demonstrating their lasting influence.
One of their most significant achievements, Litchfield
Towers at the University of Pittsburgh, was designed Deeter & Richtey were pioneers in architectural de-
as a modern housing solution to accommodate the sign, pushing the boundaries of form and function.
growing student population in the 1960s. The three Their commitment to material integrity, innovative
cylindrical high-rises, now iconic, reflect their innova- spatial planning, and urban engagement ensured
tive approach to spatial efficiency and urban density. their place in architectural history. While their Bruta-
list legacy remains debated, there is no doubt that
Key features of Litchfield Towers include: their work—especially Litchfield Towers (1963)—
• Cylindrical forms that break away from conven- continues to shape discussions on modernist archi-
tional rectangular dormitory structures, optimi- tecture and its role in urban development.

VISIONARIES OF BRUTALIST
DESIGN
21
Kallmann,
McKinnell
& Knowles
THE BOSTON CITY HALL

1 9 6 8

5 23
Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles were an influential Transparency and Accessibility: Despite their mas-
architectural firm that played a significant role in the sive forms, the firm emphasized the importance of
development of Brutalist architecture in the mid-20th making public buildings accessible and transparent.
century. Known for their bold, innovative designs, the They sought to create open, welcoming spaces
firm embraced modernist principles while pushing the that encouraged civic engagement and connec-
boundaries of civic architecture. Their most notable tion between the government and the people.
works, including the iconic Boston City Hall (1968),
stand as enduring examples of their unique approach Boston City Hall: Defining Brutalism in Civic Design
to architecture, characterized by the unapologetic Boston City Hall, completed in 1968, remains the
use of raw concrete and massive, sculptural forms. most famous and controversial example of Kallmann,
McKinnell & Knowles' architectural legacy. The buil-
Architectural Philosophy ding stands as a powerful testament to their commit-
ment to Brutalism, characterized by its unapologetic
Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles approached ar- use of raw concrete and monumental design. It has be-
chitecture with a focus on clarity, transparen- come a symbol of the Brutalist movement, both reve-
cy, and a sense of monumentality. Like many of red for its boldness and critiqued for its imposing form.
their contemporaries, they sought to express the
power of architecture through form and mate- Key features of Boston City Hall include:
rial, believing that the built environment could re-
flect and shape society’s values. Their design phi- Exposed Concrete: The building’s raw concrete ex-
losophy was informed by several key principles: terior is a hallmark of Brutalist architecture, with the
material’s rugged texture and unrefined finish making
Material Expression: They were advocates for a bold visual statement. The use of concrete reflects
exposing materials in their raw, unrefined state. the firm’s commitment to material honesty and a
Concrete, in particular, became a defining feature belief in the aesthetic power of industrial materials.
of their work. Rather than hiding the material’s in-
dustrial qualities, they showcased its texture and Massive, Geometric Forms: The building is com-
mass, making it an integral part of the design. posed of dramatic, stacked concrete forms that
give it a sculptural, almost fortress-like appearance.
Monumentality and Civic Identity: Kallmann, McKin- The cantilevered sections and angular lines create paration between the government offices and Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles’ emphasis on
nell & Knowles saw civic buildings as symbols of a sense of dynamic movement, making the struc- the public. Despite its imposing appearance, functionality, transparency, and the use of indus-
power and permanence. Their designs often em- ture stand out against the surrounding cityscape. the plaza and open spaces invite public interac- trial materials has continued to inspire new gene-
bodied monumental scale, with strong geometric tion, reflecting the architects' desire for trans- rations of architects. Their work encourages dia-
shapes and bold forms, to communicate the authority Public Engagement: The building's design fea- parency and accessibility in civic buildings. logue about the relationship between buildings
and importance of the public institutions they housed. tures a large elevated plaza, creating a clear se- and their users, particularly in the context of public
Influence and Legacy architecture. Whether appreciated or critiqued,
their designs continue to provoke discussion
Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles’ work has had a about the role of architecture in shaping society.
lasting impact on both Brutalism and civic archi-
tecture. Their designs have influenced the way Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles were among the
cities think about the role of government buil- most important architects of the Brutalist move-
dings in urban life. While their monumental, raw ment, with their work redefining civic architecture
concrete style has been the subject of much de- in the mid-20th century. Through their bold use of
bate, the firm’s approach to blending architectu- raw concrete and monumental forms, they created
ral expression with civic purpose is undeniable. buildings that were both visually striking and deeply
rooted in the principles of modernism. While their le-
The firm’s influence extends beyond Boston City Hall. gacy remains controversial, especially with works like
They designed several other notable buildings, inclu- Boston City Hall, there is no doubt that they reshaped
ding the Government Service Center in Boston, which the discourse around the role of public buildings in
shares many of the same design principles. Though urban spaces. Today, their contributions continue to
these buildings have also been polarizing, they remain influence architectural thought, pushing the bounda-
landmarks of mid-century architectural ambition. ries of design and sparking ongoing debates about
the nature of civic engagement through architecture.

25
 Lasdun

T H E N AT I O N A L T H E AT R E

1 9 7 6

6 27
Denys Lasdun, one of the leading British architects pact. Despite its imposing form, the building’s de- der contributions to British architecture. It serves as a
of the mid-20th century, left a profound legacy Integration with Context: While his buildings were sign communicates an openness to the public. bridge between the ideals of modernist architecture
through his innovative designs, and none is more often monumental in form, Lasdun was careful to and the more ambitious, social approaches to public
iconic than his design for The National Theatre in ensure that his designs responded to the environ- Terraces and Walkways: Lasdun designed a series buildings that emerged in the post-war era. Its com-
London. Completed in 1976, this bold and groun- ment around them, whether that be urban or natural. of terraces and walkways that wrap around the buil- plex forms and bold, uncompromising materiality have
dbreaking building is an exemplar of Brutalist archi- He saw architecture as a conversation between the ding, creating both functional outdoor spaces and a sparked both admiration and criticism over the years.
tecture and a testament to Lasdun’s ability to merge building and its surroundings, not an isolated object. dynamic relationship between the structure and its
surrounding environment. These walkways allow vi- Lasdun’s work continues to inspire contempora-
sitors to approach the building from different angles, ry architects, particularly those working in cultu-
offering varying perspectives of the grand form. ral and public spaces. The National Theatre re-
mains a model for how architecture can foster
Layered Levels: The design of the building fea- a sense of communal identity and engagement
tures multiple levels, creating a sense of depth while embracing the power of raw, monumental
and complexity that invites exploration. The laye- form. It is an architectural achievement that has
ring of spaces allows for different functions to had a lasting impact on the design of performance
coexist, with performance areas, administrative spaces and public buildings in the UK and beyond.
spaces, and social areas all carefully integrated
within the same structure. This spatial layering is Denys Lasdun’s design for The National Theatre
a hallmark of Lasdun’s approach to urban design. (1976) stands as one of the most iconic and contro-
versial buildings of the 20th century. It is a masterful
The Theatres Within the Building: The National example of Brutalist architecture, combining bold,
Theatre comprises three separate theatres, each raw forms with a sensitivity to both human expe-
designed with specific performance needs in rience and the surrounding environment. The Na-
mind. These include the Olivier Theatre, the Lyt- tional Theatre continues to serve as a cultural hub,
telton Theatre, and the Dorfman Theatre. The embodying Lasdun’s belief in the transformative
spatial organization of these theatres within the power of architecture to shape public life. While it re-
building reflects Lasdun’s commitment to both mains the subject of ongoing debate due to its stark
functionality with striking aesthetics. The National functionality and artistic expression, ensuring that aesthetic, there is no question that the building’s
Theatre stands as a defining work in the landscape Functional Spaces: For Lasdun, form was always dic- each performance space was tailored to enhance significance in architectural history is immense. It is
of British cultural architecture, offering a unique tated by function. His designs were deeply pragmatic, the experience for actors and audiences alike. a lasting testament to Lasdun’s vision, both as an ar-
reflection of Lasdun’s architectural philosophy. seeking to enhance the experience of those within the chitect and as a creator of spaces that engage the
building by ensuring that the spatial organization was Influence and Legacy public in meaningful ways.
Architectural Philosophy clear, efficient, and conducive to the intended use. The National Theatre is a pivotal example of Brutalist
architecture, but it is also a reflection of Lasdun’s broa-
Denys Lasdun’s work is often associated with the The National Theatre: A Masterpiece of Brutalist Ar-
Brutalist style, which emerged in the post-World chitecture
War II era and focused on raw, functional forms and The National Theatre in London, one of Denys
materials. However, Lasdun’s approach was distinc- Lasdun’s most iconic works, stands on the Sou-
tive in its ability to integrate these elements with th Bank of the River Thames and embodies all the
a deep sensitivity to the social context and human principles of his architectural philosophy. The buil-
experience of the spaces he designed. His archi- ding is monumental in scale, yet its layout is de-
tecture was not simply about bold forms; it was signed to emphasize both accessibility and func-
about how those forms could enhance the expe- tionality, reflecting the National Theatre’s role
rience of the people who would interact with them. as a cultural institution accessible to the public.

Key aspects of Lasdun’s architectural philosophy in- Key features of The National Theatre include:
clude:
The Brutalist Exterior: The building’s raw, exposed
Honesty of Materials: Lasdun believed in the raw concrete exterior is one of the most striking as-
beauty of materials such as concrete, which was fre- pects of its design. The stacked, angular forms of
quently exposed and left untreated in his designs. He the structure are intended to give the building a
sought to create architecture that was direct, unpre- sense of weight and permanence, while the rough
tentious, and made a statement through its materiality. concrete texture creates a powerful visual im-
29
From Le Corbusier’s visionary Unité d’Habitation (1952) to Denys Lasdun’s monumental National Theatre (1976),
the Brutalist movement carved out a new architectural language—one that rejected ornamentation in favor of
raw materials, structural honesty, and a deep commitment to social function. Architects like Bengt Edman and
Lennart Holm, Peter & Alison Smithson, and Deeter & Ritchey each contributed unique interpretations of Bruta-
list ideals, shaping modern urban landscapes with bold and uncompromising designs.

The Boston City Hall (1968) by Kallmann, McKinnell & Knowles stands as a testament to the movement’s in-
fluence on civic architecture, while structures like Hunstanton School (1954) embodied Brutalism’s emphasis
on exposed materials and functional clarity. Though often polarizing, these buildings represent more than just an
aesthetic choice; they are cultural artifacts, reflecting a time when architecture was driven by utopian ideals of
progress, accessibility, and innovation.

Today, Brutalism’s resurgence proves that these concrete behemoths still have a place in our cities. Whether
through restoration, adaptive reuse, or as inspiration for contemporary designs, the movement’s legacy endures.
Brutalism was never about being beautiful in a traditional sense—it was about being honest, expressive, and
unapologetic. As we continue to reassess the value of these structures, one thing is certain: the conversation
around Brutalism is far from over.
31
(+32) 486 60 49 05
[email protected] olivia.studio.be