For government buildings it actually looks good. Compare that to Boston's government center abomination, this is refreshing. I'm glad Google is refreshing it and at least doing something to maintain it.
Brutalism started in the UK (usually attributed to Alison and Peter Smithson). I suppose you could argue that Le Corbusier invented most of its characteristics earlier. But in any case, USSR had nothing to do with it.
No reason a government building should be anything but functional. Expensive, hard-to-build, difficult-to-maintain design is tax money spent for no benefit.
I can't answer that, but I think governments should use standard office buildings like everyone else. No need to spend extra money on appearances.
In many cases they do. The local IRS office, Social Security office, state governent offices etc. are located here in standard office park type buildings. It's fine.
The city offices on the other hand are in some historic rehabbed 19th century space that was expensive to refit as it was never meant to be an office building, it's terrible from a heating/cooling efficiency standpoint because it wasn't built with that in mind, it has a much larger footprint than necessary because it's a two-story, sprawling complex, and it's on land that would otherwise be very valuable for other business or residential properties, so there is a tremendous opportunity cost in terms of property tax that could be collected from that location. But it looks nice.
Wait they bought and are hyping up the State of Illinois building, that everyone use to call a giant glass toilet? Now I've seen everything.
That building was a laughingstock of design when I was a kid, I had family members that worked there. If I recall correctly it also had a habit of popping glass panes out of the upper levels and having them rain down terror on unsuspecting pedestrians in the atrium.
> That building was a laughingstock of design when I was a kid, I had family members that worked there.
What did they think about working in that building?
I'll admit it's not the prettiest thing I've seen (and I can appreciate even brutalist buildings) but I don't see what's wrong with it. I imagine there'd be a lot more natural light
Completely unworkable climate control and wild temperature swings. Blinding light at certain times of day that made it impossible to work. And of course the previously mentioned glass issue. I think it killed a couple people while under construction as well. It's got quite the history.
I am genuinely curious - what is it that you do for a living that lets you have this judgement?
EG, I've been a non-advertising customer of Google for literally decades and from Search to Chrome to Gmail to Maps to Docs to Android it's given me great value.
I don't think that's even necessary. Most of us are forced to survive under conditions we have almost no control over, so it's natural to not admire/celebrate those who do have the control and prioritize shareholder profits instead of everyone's quality of life.
That sounds like a double standard - you feel entitled to judge the work of other people according to your morality but you're not willing to expose to us why your own labor is virtuous.
Parent poster didn't submit a link talking about their work like it should be the focus of the entire world.
Release your work for scrutiny and then it will be scrutinized. If you're publicizing it then you've asked for scrutiny, and the people doing the scrutiny aren't required to be scrutinized in return.
https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2023/12/08/thompson-cent...
https://www.reddit.com/r/architecture/comments/17ahso9/demol...