Preston Bus Station, Lancashire, UK.
Gilette headquarters
this post was submitted on 17 Feb 2025
122 points (98.4% liked)
pics
21928 readers
529 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I actually think this is an above-average implementation of brutalist architecture. It is at least visually interesting.
Would this really be considered brutalist? I mean, there's not enough undecorated walls of concrete
It actually has protected status in part because it is an example of brutalism. To quote its listing:
"Architectural innovation: the building displays an unusual blend of New Brutalist architecture (influenced by late Le Corbusier) that is mellowed by an inspired application of upturned curves to the main elevations, sweeping car park ramps and the curved ends of the former taxi rank."
Concrete wasn't necessarily a defining feature of brutalist architecture, it was just the thing that was really cheap and available in abundance when Europe was attempting to rebuild itself in the wake of WWII. Since brutalism does avoid the decoration or adornment of materials, in practice this resulted in a lot of visible concrete, but it's not like designers were going "let's use concrete only because it's the fashion"
"let's use concrete only because it's the fashion"
This is a paradoxical sentence in this context. Raw material was used because it was practical and functional, but at the same time it was fashionable too.
It's precisely what fashion is, a trend in design in a certain art school. However the lack of an aesthetic ideology does make it anti-fashion too.
One could say that the embellishments that mellow out the raw/harshness of the brutalist style is antithetical to it, though. It's think that Corbusier would take offense with his name associated with this.
This is a paradoxical sentence in this context. Raw material was used because it was practical and functional, but at the same time it was fashionable too.
Perhaps I phrased it badly. All I meant to say is that "not using concrete" does not equal "not brutalist". I agree with the rest of what.you said, I think that I've just failed to communicate what I intended to beforehand
It's think that Corbusier would take offense with his name associated with this.
I don't know enough about Le Corbusier to agree or disagree with you - I did study some of his design, but it was a long time ago - but he would hardly be alone as an artist that wasn't so keen on what his work influenced. I don't think that would make it any less true
Perhaps I phrased it badly.
No, not at all. My comment wasn't dismissive of your post at all. I just was intrigued by the paradox of fashion and brutalism.
If there was any critique in my comment is more directed at the source you quoted. It's really forcing the Corbusier angle a bit too much, in my honest opinion. It's late brutalism, with a bit too much beatification going on to be true to the style.
I do like the building a lot and it's intriguing to see the headway they made with concrete casting to archieve the rounder shapes.
Ahh, I see what you mean now. Thank you for explaining!
No worries!
it has the monumental size and far too large unwelcoming open spaces but yeah it could be uglier
Reminds me a bit of a tollbooth.
In typical brutalist fashion, there appears to be very little natural lighting on the upper floors.
You are entirely correct.
It annoys me that they didn't build this right by the train station. Instead it's likely literally at the other end of town.
When reality itself is brutal AF, architecture horning in is a tiresome and formerly-clever exercise. 🤷🏼♂️
I'm fairly sure you're just making a joke about the name here, but brutalist architecture was actually a pretty genuine attempt to improve the circumstances of the public. The thinking was basically to put function over form and then embrace the raw appearance of materials and make it a feature. It didn't always succeed at this, but th ethinking was pretty good
Yes, it was a half-baked joke at best, but at least I didn't exhale?
Brutalist architecture follows function through form about as well as modern big box warehouses. Slather a bunch of concrete or other rock together, make sure it’s dimly lit with recessed or tiny windows, then make sure none of these windows open to let in fresh air.
Remember how prior to 1970 you had these cool grocery stores with curved rooflines and all glass fronts? Now you have square boxes with flat rooflines that leak, stained drop ceilings, and garish fluorescent lighting. Same concept.
brutalism was actually a monumentally optimistic vision of the future
Thank you for the summary of the preceding comment, citizen. Your veracity has been noted. Carry on.
with your comedic instincts i would keep your day job brother
High praise, anon. You're battin' a thousand.
for nonsense humour (to generously interpret your babble) I highly recommend Spike Milligan. best of luck on your, no doubt arduous, journey
Aww, you really do get so rustled, dontcha? ^suchacuuutie
obiwanmeme.gif