Béton Brut and Concrete Opinions
Words by Otty Allum
Every now and then, the brutalist style of campus architecture becomes a subject of debate amongst my peers. Some people despise it, some love it and some don’t really care. Architecture and the buildings we inhabit are such a fundamental part of our everyday lives, why does the fact that ours are made of concrete cause such polarity?
I spoke to Hazel, Mandi, Nina and Leah, part of the Un’I group, a group of second year curating students who are involved in the exhibition Concrete Opinions, a series of artworks inspired by the campus architecture. They intend to: ‘inform opinions’ on the campus buildings, as [they] understand that attitudes towards the architecture are usually influenced by preconceptions and loaded narratives (Un’l). They discussed how campus architecture has a very specific function which is reflected in the design. It was built for a purpose and the purpose of the design was to create a flow of students around campus. One of the initial design concepts was to ‘follow the electric wire’ - a red line running along the covered walkways that many people don’t initially notice or that has in some places been lost to time (Un’l).
People often cite Central Hall as the main reason for their dislike of the 60s style, despite its Grade II listing in 2018. Central Hall is perhaps the most polarising aspect of campus architecture, with several articles having been written describing it negatively, such as “Britain's Ugliest Building” (The Independent) (Un’l).
Campus architecture is in the style of brutalism which became popular in Post-War Europe, it was used for the urban redevelopment of the cities that had been bombed during the war. The utilitarian design combined with the durability and availability of concrete meant that brutalism was used frequently. Brutalism reacted against the sentimental nostalgia of 40s architecture and built on modernist principles of design where ‘form follows function’, in the words of modernist architect Louis Sullivan.
One of my favourite examples of Brutalist architecture is the Barbican Centre in London. The arts and drama centre is a part of the larger Barbican Complex, which includes 2014 homes, a school, a theatre, and a conservatory. Barbican was voted London’s ugliest building in a 2001 survey, despite its Grade II listing. The complex is inaccessible by car and the design somewhat mimics a Moroccan riad, creating an atmosphere of safety. Likewise, there is a sense of rhythm created by the patterns of straight lines, juxtaposed by the occasional curve.
The main feature of Brutalism is the idea of truth of material, thus the concrete is left uncovered, leaving evidence of the construction process. Even when it was first introduced Brutalism was highly controversial and polarising, however, there now seems to be an increase in interest for the architectural style.
As for the campus architecture; the University of York opened in 1963, at this point the university consisted of King’s Manor and Heslington Hall. The following year, work began on an area of land in the village of Heslington, and the construction had to be done quickly to accommodate the university’s expansion. The buildings were constructed using the CLASP system (Consortium of Local Authorities Special Programme), utilising prefabricated panels. Many of the spaces were designed to be multifunctional, for example Derwent encompasses teaching, social and residential facilities all in one space with walkways to direct the flow of students, hence the spaces reflect the purposes they serve.
Concrete Opinions will feature a series of art pieces from the university’s art collection, demonstrating how the buildings we see every day on campus have inspired artworks and photography (Un’l). One such artwork is the painting Giant Mushroom (2001) by Rex G Jowsey which encapsulates many of the themes explored in the exhibit. It depicts the water tower that used to stand on Campus West. Built in 1965 it was an iconic feature of the early campus but had to be demolished in 2001 due to its state of disrepair. The painting captures the coexistence of concrete and nature that defines the UoY campus. The fact of its demolition highlights how such human made structures fall victim to the effects of time and the environment if they aren’t attended to and preserved. Ultimately this painting draws attention to the relationship between humans and nature, and the option for that relationship to be symbiotic or destructive (Un’l).
I wish to really understand why the campus architecture and brutalism as a whole is so disliked, or at least very polarising. When brutalism was first introduced it was disliked due to its unfinished concrete exterior surfaces and aesthetic simplicity which was so different to the architecture that was popular at the time. It was inspired somewhat by a more socialist perspective on communal and functional space. The style was adopted during the 70s by the Soviet regime to create large-scale building projects in the USSR and its satellite states, for example Memory Park in Kiev and the Moldovan State Circus. Due to brutalism’s use in large scale social housing and its adoption by the Soviets it is often associated with urban deprivation and decline.
Un’I group believe that understanding the purpose of the brutalist style is an important aspect of its aesthetic appreciation. Once I started to understand the purpose and intention of the design, I began to be interested in it, and realised it was less a matter of taste and more of understanding the architecture (Un’l).
For me, I feel that those who are not well acquainted with art and design can misunderstand the purpose of architecture, as it is not something that is widely taught in schools or discussed to a great extent in popular media. Un’I group agreed with this idea: A big misconception about architecture is that it is purely aesthetically valued and that is not the case at all. I like to think of architecture as a vessel created to nurture movement and community. The university was specifically designed to facilitate togetherness and we can see this from areas such as Greg’s Place. In this sense the university is devalued, it is treated as almost a sculpture instead, regardless of function... Art is based on emotion and human interaction. Detaching the university from its core value of collaboration and integration is doing it a huge injustice (Un’l).
The name brutalism itself appreciates its own controversial nature. The word comes from the French phrase ‘Béton brut’ used by Le Corbusier, meaning raw concrete. Reyner Banham turned this into a pun to allude to the criticism the architectural style received when it was first introduced.
I find that discussions about brutalism often bring up the idea of ‘taste’; each side of the debate accuses the other of having ‘bad taste’. General public opinion often looks at that which has been mass produced for the consumption of working-class people with disdain, which makes sense when applied to brutalism as it was used often for social housing. The sociologist Pierre Bourdieu believed that taste was a class marker and an act of social positioning; the taste of a society is the taste of the ruling class and there is no such thing as good taste, just class taste. Likewise, Georg Simmel found that fashions are rejected by the ruling classes as they are adopted by the lower classes. I think it's important to note that Prince Charles is a famous anti-brutalist and when the Queen came to open the new colleges she expressed a disliking for their architectural style. I do not necessarily believe that brutalism is unpopular because the Royal Family dislike it, but it is food for thought and a lot more can be said about brutalism and its relation to aesthetics.
The aim of the Concrete Opinions exhibition is to enlighten; We want people to take away a greater understanding of campus architecture, not telling anyone what to think, but informing opinions (Un’l).
I hope after reading this you are able to understand brutalism and the campus architecture on a deeper level and see the building style as a reflection of the functions that occur within. I like to think of concrete architecture as a backdrop for our everyday lives, the fact that it is simple aesthetically only brings out the individuality of the people and the lives lived within it. As Le Corbusier said ‘a house is a machine for living in.’
