[Halifax] The Maple | 72 m | 21 fl | Completed

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

My earlier comment was pretty terse but I was getting at the idea that concrete isn't bad per se, that the execution of just about any given architectural material can be either successful or unsuccessful. The balconies look interesting in that photo above. They might not look so good up close; I'm not sure. There was a whole architectural movement (brutalism) that explored the use of bare concrete.

I know what you're getting at, and I agree that concrete in itself doesn't necessarily have to look bad (though admittedly I was never a huge fan of brutalism). If executed properly some really interesting things can be done with concrete-finished buildings - I have not been able to reconcile how bad concrete looks once it becomes old and stained without some kind of maintenance, though.

I guess when it comes down to it, having the building mostly cladded gives it a clean, finished look which appears incongruous (to me) with the stained-appearing concrete on the balconies. That's it in a nutshell, really, either finish it or not - a strange mix of finished and unfinished just looks, well, strange to me...

[mr.wheels]

Concrete=Ugly=Cheap. there is no way around it.

[yal]

Modernism/Brutalism is cancer. It helped create the soul-crushing, bland and ugly cities/neighbourhoods all around the world.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by yal

Modernism/Brutalism is cancer. It helped create the soul-crushing, bland and ugly cities/neighbourhoods all around the world.

I absolutely love Brutalist Architecture. It just means "raw". I love the purity of material and form as opposed to (often) cheap veneers.

[worldlyhaligonian]

They could just paint the undersides. Duh.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by worldlyhaligonian

They could just paint the undersides. Duh.

Yup, they could.

But I will say the concrete tilt-up that my office is in is now on its third paint job in 10 years. Your mileage may vary.

[teddifax]

Painting concrete is NEVER a good idea.

[counterfactual]

Originally Posted by Takeo

I absolutely love Brutalist Architecture. It just means "raw". I love the purity of material and form as opposed to (often) cheap veneers.

I don't. I find Brutalism ugly, cold, and also impractical for users and not at all environmentally friendly (few windows and natural light, and usually dark and thus not energy efficient). As an aesthetic, it seems to me to embody notions of fascism and authoritarian dogma.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I don't. I find Brutalism ugly, cold, and also impractical for users and not at all environmentally friendly (few windows and natural light, and usually dark and thus not energy efficient). As an aesthetic, it seems to me to embody notions of fascism and authoritarian dogma.

I can see people liking it, as it's all about personal taste and perception of meaning to oneself IMHO.

But, yeah, I agree - I never was able to warm up to it, even when it was de rigueur.

[DT Hfx]

When raw concrete buildings started popping up during the inflationary 1970's I assumed ( since the look was so offensively unappealing) that it was nothing more than a contrivance to save on material and labour.

[Phalanx]

Not all brutalist architecture is created equal. Some of it could be very plain and ugly, but there were a lot of interesting buildings built int he period, too.

There are some nice examples here, for instance:
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-...t-architecture

That said, I think they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. But they do exist.

[Takeo]

Originally Posted by Phalanx

Not all brutalist architecture is created equal. Some of it could be very plain and ugly, but there were a lot of interesting buildings built int he period, too.

There are some nice examples here, for instance:
https://www.artsy.net/article/artsy-...t-architecture

That said, I think they tend to be the exception rather than the rule. But they do exist.

It's the sculptural aspect that I love.

[Jonovision]

Originally Posted by counterfactual

I don't. I find Brutalism ugly, cold, and also impractical for users and not at all environmentally friendly (few windows and natural light, and usually dark and thus not energy efficient). As an aesthetic, it seems to me to embody notions of fascism and authoritarian dogma.

It is somewhat about personal taste. But it can certainly be highly functioning and incredibly successful if done right.
I was in London last month and had the opportunity to explore The Barbican, the most beautiful brutalism you will ever see. And it works incredibly well, full of people who are proud to live and work there.

20170626_120543 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170626_115821 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170626_120024 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170626_120236 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170626_121052 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170626_121517 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

20170626_121433 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jonovision]

20170804_143540 by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[TheGreenBastard]

The Maple was hit by its first act of vandelism. Squiggly line spray painted on Sackville side.

[beyeas]

Originally Posted by TheGreenBastard

The Maple was hit by its first act of vandelism. Squiggly line spray painted on Sackville side.

Saw on the weekend that the corner of the building was damaged as well, as someone clearly hit it coming around the corner to turn into the parking garage.

[Jonovision]

20170926_071839_HDR by Jonovision23, on Flickr

[Jringe01]

Originally Posted by jonovision

20170804_143540 by jonovision23, on flickr

love it!!!!!!!

[someone123]

Source

[Jonovision]

2018-01-26_06-08-41 by Jonovision23, on Flickr