The DC metro stations with this architecture (and several of the federal buildings downtown in a similar brutalist style) are some of my favorite places. Growing up in the area, the Metro was so exciting for field trips. It felt like being a grown up in a different underground world. The dramatic lighting, weird smell, and cave temperature of the underground ones feel so special to me. Even commuting as an adult it feels special, those senses come back every time. I'm glad they have the same dirty hexagonal tiles at every station too!
I'm surprised they didn't mention the Pentagon metro, which always stood out to me since instead of having side-by-side platforms, they're stacked vertically within the same vault.
Rode the metro for 7 years. Feel like an idiot that I never noticed the waffle and arch designs had so many variations. Looks like my typical stations were either Waffle or Arch 1. Never know Wheaton and Forest Glen had separate tubes.
Concrete heavy architecture enables far more interesting geometry due to how you can use various molds and modular construction.
In addition, brutalist(and adjacent) architecture also plays a lot with lighting and sight lines, which IMO makes fore incredibly visually interesting structures.
I think there's a weird cultural thing where the cold war attitudes towards the USSR then influenced opinions on concrete-heavy architecture and created canned "brutalism ugly" memes. This even swings back around with weird obsessions with "classical architecture", which means even less and often results in essential virtue signalling via shallow features glued onto facades.
I think this also extends to various modern/contemporary art. Many people write it off before they even try to absorb it. They'll see a classical oil painting(with mid technique to boot) and go "pretty picture" and see a more modern piece with a lot of technique using shapes, color, and texture to draw attention in different ways and say "i can do that" but they wouldn't know where to start.
Rothko and Rembrant both produced pieces with spectacular use of color and depth, but people write off the former to circle jerk on the latter, especially due to various "trad" virtue signal type behavior.
Anyway, when you're looking at a brutalist building, follow the lines, look closely how the lighting interacts with the shapes, look how the lines interact with the flow of the room. There's so much thought and creativity involved, it deserves better.
The DC metro stations with this architecture (and several of the federal buildings downtown in a similar brutalist style) are some of my favorite places. Growing up in the area, the Metro was so exciting for field trips. It felt like being a grown up in a different underground world. The dramatic lighting, weird smell, and cave temperature of the underground ones feel so special to me. Even commuting as an adult it feels special, those senses come back every time. I'm glad they have the same dirty hexagonal tiles at every station too!
I'm surprised they didn't mention the Pentagon metro, which always stood out to me since instead of having side-by-side platforms, they're stacked vertically within the same vault.
I guess it falls under "Waffle" style, though.
Rode the metro for 7 years. Feel like an idiot that I never noticed the waffle and arch designs had so many variations. Looks like my typical stations were either Waffle or Arch 1. Never know Wheaton and Forest Glen had separate tubes.
I love the article.
For my own reasons I went right away to search for the word "brutalist" which is what the older stations evoke when the cement ages around you.
Not pretty to look at it.
It reminds me of the Apple TV series Silo. It makes you want to escape to the surface to clean the camera.
The new stations on the Silver Line to IAD bring better feelings.
Brutalism is always a target for lazy critiques.
Concrete heavy architecture enables far more interesting geometry due to how you can use various molds and modular construction.
In addition, brutalist(and adjacent) architecture also plays a lot with lighting and sight lines, which IMO makes fore incredibly visually interesting structures.
I think there's a weird cultural thing where the cold war attitudes towards the USSR then influenced opinions on concrete-heavy architecture and created canned "brutalism ugly" memes. This even swings back around with weird obsessions with "classical architecture", which means even less and often results in essential virtue signalling via shallow features glued onto facades.
I think this also extends to various modern/contemporary art. Many people write it off before they even try to absorb it. They'll see a classical oil painting(with mid technique to boot) and go "pretty picture" and see a more modern piece with a lot of technique using shapes, color, and texture to draw attention in different ways and say "i can do that" but they wouldn't know where to start.
Rothko and Rembrant both produced pieces with spectacular use of color and depth, but people write off the former to circle jerk on the latter, especially due to various "trad" virtue signal type behavior.
Anyway, when you're looking at a brutalist building, follow the lines, look closely how the lighting interacts with the shapes, look how the lines interact with the flow of the room. There's so much thought and creativity involved, it deserves better.