Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: NPR story on Brutalism

  1. #1
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Nairobi Hilton

    Default NPR story on Brutalism

  2. #2


    I heard some of that story yesterday.

    The central point of contention is a "37-year-old church was designed by Araldo A. Cossutta, who had been an architect in I. M. Pei’s firm, and declared a landmark in December." The New York Times story.

    Church of Christ Scientist in Washington DC:

    A great flickr photoset here by rodeomilano.

    The congregation wishes to demolish it and see preservation restrictions limiting their First Amendment "right to worship."

    J. Darrow Kirkpatrick, the church’s former first reader or lay leader justifies the claim, reasoning: “We believe this brutalist, unwelcoming, bunkerlike building is not a proper representation of our practice or our theology and, that without a compelling government interest, our members, not the Historic Preservation Review Board, are in the best position to determine that representation.”

    Not a very strong case considering the church's world headquarters at the Christian Science Center in Boston is of the brutalist style -- by THE SAME ARCHITECT.

    From the Church of Christ, Scientist website:
    Expansion of The Christian Science Plaza
    The Plaza was expanded in the 1970s with a design by Araldo A. Cossutta, Architect-in-Charge, for I. M. Pei & Partners and Araldo Cossutta, Associated Architects. The original works for the Plaza include: a 28-story Church Administration building; the Sunday School, the shape of which reflects the dome of The Mother Church extension; a 525-foot-long Colonnade building featuring solid sunshade columns; an 80-foot-diameter fountain that sprays water as high as 40 feet into the air; and a 98- by 686-foot reflecting pool, which is almost twice as long and two-thirds as wide as a standard football field.

    The Administration Building and the Colonnade contain the world headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist, and the offices of The Writings of Mary Baker Eddy and The Christian Science Publishing Society, which publishes The Christian Science Monitor, The Christian Science Journal, Christian Science Sentinel, The Herald of Christian Science and the Christian Science Quarterly Bible Lessons.

  3. #3


    16th Street Showdown: Demolish Church To Save It?

    By Marc Fisher | November 26, 2008; 8:05 AM ET

    Deep into more than 10 hours of argument and testimony in a jam-packed District government hearing room yesterday, someone finally dared to predict the fate of the Brutalist bunker on 16th Street NW that the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, has miserably called home for 37 years.

    "We all know how this case will end," said Jack Jacobson, an advisory neighborhood commissioner in Dupont Circle. "The First Amendment will be upheld somewhere. Somewhere, somehow, common sense must prevail."

    It takes a special strength to maintain that kind of optimism in the face of the mind-numbing torrent of fantasies and fear-mongering that flowed before D.C. planning director Harriet Tregoning--who is hearing the case of the Christian Science congregation's plea to be allowed to demolish its concrete home two blocks from the White House.

    Tregoning, acting as Mayor Adrian Fenty's agent, is charged with deciding the fate of the church, which historic preservationists say is a modernist jewel that must be saved even if its owners despise everything about it, and which the congregation contends is a money-sucking, energy-wasting, decrepit dump that is so cold, so ugly, and so anti-pedestrian that it undermines their spiritual mission.

    The dispute has dragged on for decades (the D.C Preservation League has a good history of the case here), and this latest phase is well into its second year. The city's historic preservation board voted 7-0 almost exactly a year ago to declare the church a D.C. landmark, thereby preventing the Christian Scientists from bulldozing the bunker.

    The question before Tregoning is whether to approve the church's request to raze the building. But just as the city's Historic Preservation Board refused to consider any First Amendment issue in the case--does a city government, trying to preserve its architectural heritage, have the right to tell a religious organization what to do with its sanctuary?--so too is Tregoning limiting testimony mainly to whether the Third Church would face an undue financial hardship if it were forced to keep a building it says it cannot afford.

    Through much of yesterday's session, it was hard to remember that that was the issue. Preservationists were intent on demonstrating to Tregoning--but really more to the church and its members, many of whom were in the room--that there were all manner of alternatives to tearing down the building, which academics and preservationists love, in good part because no one else sees any merit in the structure.

    When supporters of the church protested that they too believe in historic preservation, but that this building is neither historic nor worth preserving, the city's architectural defenders scoffed and exchanged little laughs among themselves.

    "Ours is a community that exists only because of historic preservation," Jacobson said of Dupont Circle. But he said the Third Church case just doesn't meet the basic standards for preservation: "No one is tearing down the National Cathedral here to put up a Wal-Mart. Everyone here today wants to preserve a church. The difference [between us] is whether the church is a building or the people within it."

    Arthur Cotton Moore, the elegant architect who designed Georgetown Harbour, was typical of the pro-preservation witnesses in putting forth all manner of suggestions for how to save the building. "I can see the church is in a hard place and I'd like to help them," he said. He warned against demolishing the building simply because it is unfashionable, and he recalled the great battle that preservationists won to save the Old Post Office Pavilion on Pennsylvania Avenue NW--a building that was much derided as ugly and inefficient when it too was proposed for demolition.

    Moore proposed adding windows and a new street-facing entrance to the blank concrete walls that now face 16th and I streets. He suggested adding retail or restaurant space on the ground floor of the building to provide the church with an income stream that could pay for the $7 million-plus in repairs that the church edifice needs. He said Third Church should hire a lighting consultant. And he presented Tregoning with a sketch showing how a five-story office building could be cantilevered over the existing church to give Third Church a strong income stream and save the building below.

    "Washington is notorious for being one of the dullest architectural scenes anywhere," Moore said. "We have squat boxes everywhere" because of the city's height restriction. Putting an office building over the church could create a fascinating new structure, help the church's finances, and preserve a landmark, he said.

    Other preservationist witnesses suggested adding a museum or gallery to the church's building, or sharing the space with another church, or renting out the sanctuary for meetings, parties, or services of other religions.

    Thanks, but no thanks, say church members. They never considered and they don't want "a nightclub or a gallery or a restaurant," said the church's lawyer, George Keys. "The intent of Third Church is to remain on the corner of 16th and I as a church--period."

    They want to build themselves a new church at that same location, and they want that new church to be everything that this building isn't: light, airy, open, friendly, economical, energy-efficient, intimate, and, God forbid, church-like.

    "There's always been someone who thought they knew better than Third Church what was right for our membership," said former church board chairman Mark Mathiesen. "It's ironic that we're asking for relief from a government that's always been in the same situation with the federal government."

    There were choice moments throughout the day, as a concrete restoration contractor testifying for the preservationists admitted that his conclusion that the concrete damage on the church exterior could be repaired was identical to his conclusions about every single building he'd ever examined--"Anything can be repaired," he said.

    An architect testifying for the church slammed Brutalism, quoting the National Capital Planning Commission's own plan for the city, which said that modernist buildings "have proven to undermine vibrant urban life." And of course architects for the other side said the building improves urban life by adding variety and telling the story of that chapter of our design history.

    In all, an extraordinary number of experts on structural and mechanical engineering, architecture and restoration of decrepit buildings got themselves a nice Thanksgiving week consulting check.

    And in the end, not a word of their purported expertise may matter. Tregoning appeared to be sympathetic to the church's predicament, focusing many of her questions on the extremely high cost of making the building usable and sustainable. But she didn't seem terribly impressed by or interested in the religious freedom issue, which no representative of an elected official in the District is likely to want to wade into.

    That will be left to the courts, which is where the church will head directly if Tregoning doesn't let them tear down their home and build a new one.

    For now, the main issue is money, and it's clear that the church doesn't have much of it left. (They've blown more than $100,000 just fighting this battle through the D.C. bureaucracy, their leaders said.)

    But that's a message the preservationists don't want to hear. When Richard Wagner, an architect from Baltimore, suggested that the Third Church should rent out its space to all manner of outside groups and get itself a whole lot of new members so it could afford to stay in its building, Tregoning had had enough.

    "You're kind of suggesting that it would be great for the church to quintuple its congregation," she said. "Are you buying GM stock right now?"

    "No," said the puzzled witness.

    "But you think [another] church would want to join a congregation that has this $7 million in needs?"

    Bringing in another church to rent space is "different from buying GM stock," Wagner insisted.

    "It's like buying a GM car," Tregoning offered.

    "Possibly," the witness said.

    A decision isn't expected for some weeks.


    I'm starting the unfounded rumor that the government wants the church demolished and replaced with a less "defensible" structure (not under government control) for "security reasons" and has infiltrated the congregation.

  4. #4
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    NYC - Downtown

    Default Beautiful Brutes

    Beautiful Brutes


    Begin Slide Show »

    Every architectural style falls out of fashion — Art Deco was dated by the 1950s, mid-century Modernism looked shabby by the 1980s — but after spending a generation in exile, it’s usually welcomed back. Twenty years ago a weekend house by Richard Neutra might have been dismissed as too expensive to heat; now it’s almost as sacred as a Palladian villa.

    A similar reconsideration is under way for Brutalism, that brawny mix of concrete walls and soaring cantilevers that first appeared in postwar Europe.

    The name comes from the “béton brut,” or raw concrete, of Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation in Marseille, completed in 1952, though the coinage is attributed to British architects Alison and Peter Smithson. The heavy forms defy gravity — balconies float in space, turning buildings into sculptures. But as even the best Brutalist buildings aged, water stains and crumbling walls made them look dilapidated.

    Some recent restorations have revealed Brutalism’s beauty. In 2008, Yale reopened its Art and Architecture Building, designed by Paul Rudolph in the 1960s, after a loving renovation. The corduroy concrete never looked better. Brutalism never took hold in New York — the skyline here favors brick and glass. Still, there are a few concrete masterpieces worth a second look, by passersby and preservationists alike.

    Begin Slide Show »

    (It seems odd that the slide show is of imagistic renders of specific buildings, rather than photos. It's almost as if the Times doesn't want people to see the real thing, just a sketchy image.)

  5. #5


    Not only is Brutalism being reconsidered by the NYTimes, but apparently so is the craft of wood-block printing.

  6. #6


    wood- block printing is not a craft...but it can be brutally hard

  7. #7


    I love the way the craft of the architectural photographer is pushed to its limits to try to protray brutalist structures in a positive way.

    I agree that a few choice brutalist buildings should be retained as mementi dementia .

    Maybe the unbendingly pro-'modernist' NYT architectural critic(s) could select one in every major city... and then we cna tear down all the rest. Yay.

  8. #8
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    East Midtown


    Many Brutalist buildings are a guilty pleasure for me. I'm told not to like them, but I just do. Maybe I watched too many episodes of Buck Rogers as a child.

  9. #9
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Nairobi Hilton


    I especially like FIT.

  10. #10


    on the origin of brutalism, the idea of brutal honesty in architecture begins here:
    "see if it looks as if it had been built by strong men; if it has the sort of roughness, and largeness, and nonchalance, mixed in places with the exquisite tenderness which seems always to be the sign-manual of the broad vision, and the massy power of men who can see past the work they are doing, and betray here and there something like disdain for it. If the building has this character, it is much already in its favour; it will go hard but it proves a noble one",

    john ruskin, "the nature of gothic" in "stones of venice", 1851-1853

Similar Threads

  1. Why do 1-story buildings exist in midtown Manhattan?
    By normaldude in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: April 9th, 2013, 03:58 PM
  2. The Fuller Building renovation - 42-story Art Deco trophy - by Walker & Gillette
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 25th, 2010, 11:37 PM
  3. New 51-story tower Downtown
    By NYguy in forum New York Real Estate
    Replies: 41
    Last Post: January 17th, 2006, 10:20 PM
  4. A 50-Story Office Tower in Queens?
    By matt3303 in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2005, 10:24 PM
  5. Skyscraper Heights - Skyscrapers' Height-per-Story
    By LF22 in forum World Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: August 29th, 2003, 12:33 PM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software