Building in concrete and steel...

... is not the sexiest thing to do at the moment. But it was different in, say, the 1970s, with Brutalism as the ultimate expression to use concrete and steel to create a very physical and at the time (for enthusiasts) also sexy architecture. We have not been building like this for a long time now, and many brutalist buildings have already been demolished or neglected to such an extent that there is little left to enjoy. What is striking, however, is that the younger generation is appreciating brutalism again. 

Tired of all the design fiddling and quasi-responsible durability, this generation apparently longs for the brash 1970s. So I recently (at his request) went to London with my 23-year-old son Jorn to check out Brutalist bangers - as he calls them. Turns out there is a "brutalist map" of London, so we were soon done with the program! The highlight was without a doubt Barbican Estate; a big spot on the brutalist map and made entirely of concrete and steel. And how! Strangely, I had completely missed this complex during my studies in Delft, brutalism was very common there then with the auditorium of TU Delft (Van den Broek and Bakema), which we cycled past daily. I was totally unprepared for the spectacle of the Barbican Estate, which seemed to have just been completed. We stepped right into the 1970s; the best version!

I think one of the secrets of this project lies in the fact that all concrete surfaces are bush hammered in situ (who dares even think of this, let alone have it done?). This gives the buildings a softness that is often far away from concrete facades. Go see it! But really, these buildings are as relevant as the temples in Egypt. Beautiful, but we don't build like this now. Too much macho and too much CO2. Now everything has to be in wood, right? 

Next to another brutalist stunner, the National Theatre, Jorn and I discovered a huge concrete shell that was beginning a second life. Not a problem at all in London! That got me thinking. Why everything made of wood? Why do we often shoot so much into extremes, all concrete, all glass, all wood, green everywhere? Sure, it's cool and sometimes sexy such an outspoken choice. And I too am full of fire about building in wood. But is it really going to help the world? I sometimes wonder.

I like to share the following dream here: suppose from now on we make the shells of buildings from steel/concrete structures that are 100% modular and demountable. A strong and stackable frame that can be filled with wood, among other things. Preferably in a limited number of variants. A Building World Standard, just like containers. These structures can be reused endlessly and remain the property of the producer who leases them to the building owner. This makes them directly competitive with airframes that are demolished after 50 years. The modular shells are filled in with walls and technical installations and dressed with contemporary architecture that comes and goes, like a slow ebb and flow of economy, use and style. All homes and offices anywhere in the world can be made with them.

Nothing new of course, just the idea of carrier and built-in conceived in 1961 by John Habraken, but all over the world, in Building World Standard. And... also an extreme, of course, but that's why it's a dream....