>>17990863 (OP) >Soviet brutalist architecture
Brutalism was mostly a Western style. Soviet architecture was mainly functionalist, which is also fuck ugly but in a different ways. Stalinist architecture was a bit different, it was kind of like Art Deco mixed with Neoclassicism.
>>17990873
Brutalism is a Soviet style. Constructivism was an earlier peri-modern style, whereas futurism filled the gap between brutalism and constructivism.
Functionalism doesn't exist, it's more often used by minimal post-modern deconstructionists to explain themselves so they can keep getting away with the "we're cheaper and quicker" arguments, which aren't even true.
>>17990863 (OP)
Brutalist architecture requires upkeep like any other, thing is it was created in an era where concrete was super cheap to buy and that upkeep budgeta would remian or increase. It also coincided in an era of infrastructure development where many people and statea comissioning buildings in general were being super cheap in their budgets to the detriment of everything else. So a ton of the buildings regardless of style were gimped
>>17990902 >Brutalism is a Soviet style.
Then why isn't there a single Soviet architect famous for Brutalist constructions? Because it's not soviet at all, you utter moron. It was invented by the British and copied mostly in western countries, with a few socialist countries copying the style after it had become popular in the west. It is a true international style, despite its British origins, with most of its famous architects coming from a variety of countries, but a single one from the Soviet Union.
>>17990902 >Brutalism is a Soviet style.
No its not, Eastern bloc were still producing Stalinist architecture into 1956 prior to Khruschev denoucing Stalinist excesses.
British and Swedes had already gone full brutalist by that point.