u/stammerton

I’ve been thinking about something and would genuinely like to hear the views of people who know this subject better than I do.

Has Brutalism become too closely associated with raw concrete?

Whenever Brutalism comes up online, the conversation quickly seems to become about whether a building looks Brutalist rather than whether it actually belongs to the architectural movement known as Brutalism or New Brutalism.

I wonder whether we’ve gradually replaced a historical definition with an aesthetic one.
To illustrate the point, consider the following buildings:

Villa Göth (1950, Sweden)
Architects: Bengt Edman and Lennart Holm
Often cited as the origin of the term nybrutalism. Its significance lies not in concrete monumentality but in the honest expression of structure, materials and services.

2 Willow Road (1939, London)
Architect: Ernő Goldfinger
Predating Brutalism itself, yet frequently discussed as part of its intellectual lineage. Direct expression of structure, functional planning and a rejection of unnecessary ornament foreshadow many later Brutalist concerns.

Maisons Jaoul (1954-56, Paris)
Architect: Le Corbusier
Rough brickwork, exposed concrete vaults and visible construction. A hugely influential project for the generation that followed, particularly Alison and Peter Smithson.

Hunstanton School (1954, Norfolk)
Architects: Alison and Peter Smithson
Frequently regarded as the first fully realised New Brutalist building. Steel, brick, glazing, structure and services are all openly displayed. Despite its importance to the movement, it lacks almost every visual stereotype now associated with Brutalism.

Sugden House (1956, Hertfordshire)
Architects: Alison and Peter Smithson
A domestic application of New Brutalist ideas. Honest materials, straightforward planning and visible construction are prioritised over monumentality.

Unité d’Habitation (1952, Marseille)
Architect: Le Corbusier
One of the most influential housing projects of the twentieth century. Here we begin to see the concrete forms commonly associated with Brutalism, but equally important are the ideas of collective living, structural expression and social ambition.

Robin Hood Gardens (1972, London)
Architects: Alison and Peter Smithson
Perhaps the most debated housing scheme in Britain. Whatever one’s opinion of its success, it embodied the Smithsons’ belief that architecture should create a framework for community and social interaction.

Balfron Tower (1967, London)
Architect: Ernő Goldfinger
A powerful demonstration of structural legibility. The separation of circulation and services into a distinct tower makes the organisation of the building immediately understandable.

Alexandra Road Estate (1972-78, London)
Architect: Neave Brown
One of Britain’s most celebrated housing schemes. Monumental concrete forms coexist with carefully designed streets, terraces, gardens and public space, demonstrating that Brutalism was not necessarily anti-human.

National Theatre (1976, London)
Architect: Denys Lasdun
Frequently held up as the quintessential Brutalist public building. Yet its significance lies not merely in exposed concrete, but in the clarity with which structure, circulation and mass are expressed.

Looking at these buildings together, something interesting happens.

Some are concrete.
Some are brick.
Some expose structure.
Some expose services.
Some are monumental.
Some are domestic.

Yet all are regularly discussed within the history of Brutalism.

This is where Reyner Banham’s writing remains useful. In The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?, Banham was not simply describing a visual style. He was attempting to define a movement.

The qualities he identified included:
Formal legibility
Clear expression of structure
Material honesty
Memorability as an image

In other words, Brutalism was not originally “big concrete blocks”.

Concrete became strongly associated with Brutalism because many architects found it to be the most direct way of expressing structure and construction. But concrete itself was never the defining characteristic.

Hunstanton School is perhaps the clearest example. It remains a foundational New Brutalist building despite lacking the monumental béton brut forms that many people now treat as essential. What it possesses instead is a radical honesty about how the building is made and how it works.

By contrast, if we define Brutalism simply as “blocky geometric forms made from exposed materials”, the category becomes so broad that it begins to lose meaning. Contemporary houses, galleries, offices and luxury developments suddenly become Brutalist merely because they use exposed concrete, brick, steel or rammed earth.

At that point, are we still talking about Brutalism as an architectural movement, or are we talking about a visual aesthetic that emerged from it?

I’m genuinely interested in where people draw that line.

Has Brutalism become a style?

Or should we still understand it, as Banham attempted to, as a specific historical movement with its own intellectual lineage?

And if you disagree, which building above would you exclude, and why?

First attempt. Not sure it’s meant to look like this. Tastes great though. Please be kind.