• 2 Posts
  • 1.07K Comments
Joined 11 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 17th, 2024

help-circle

  • 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




  • 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”















    • France and Germany weren’t even signatories to the treaties save for as members of the OSCE. Their only responsibilities in the treaty were to, as part of OSCE, monitor and verify the ceasefire.
    • Nothing about either treaty says that Ukraine can’t re-arm during the ceasefire, and literally the only thing Merkel said is that Ukraine used the time to re-arm.
    • Minsk I collapsed because nobody even implemented the ceasefire and then Russia launched a new offensive to take Donetsk airport. That is an explicit violation of the treaty, unlike Ukraine re-arming.
    • Minsk II collapsed when Russia launched its 2022 invasion.

    Ukraine preparing for a Russian invasion is not a ceasefire violation. The leader of a country that’s not even a party to the conflict saying that “it’s good that Ukraine prepared” is even more thoroughly not a violation. You know what is a violation? An invasion.