Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

hrmjustin

(71,265 posts)
Thu Mar 13, 2014, 03:31 PM Mar 2014

After long fight, Washington’s ‘ugliest church’ meets the wrecking ball

Amanda Murphy

WASHINGTON (RNS) So long, ugly church. Very few people will miss you.

After years of protracted legal battles, a small band of Christian Scientists within a stone’s throw of the White House have something to cheer about: The church they called home for nearly 40 years, often mistaken for a bunker, will soon be no more.

Members of the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, have tried for years to tear down their windowless building, built in 1971 at the height of “brutalist” architecture. In Washington, as in most cities, there’s not much appetite for brutalism anymore.

Except among some preservationists who, perhaps seeing the writing on the church’s octagon-shaped concrete walls, in 1991 applied for historic landmark status for the building without the church’s knowledge.

http://www.religionnews.com/2014/03/13/long-fight-washingtons-ugliest-church-meets-wrecking-ball/

7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
After long fight, Washington’s ‘ugliest church’ meets the wrecking ball (Original Post) hrmjustin Mar 2014 OP
Here's a picture. Jim__ Mar 2014 #1
I can see why people think it is ugly. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #2
Not that long ago it was thought to convey an image of strength. Jim__ Mar 2014 #3
Not my taste in architecture. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #4
And since 9/11 it is surrounded by huge concrete barriers, making it even worse. cbayer Mar 2014 #5
Ugh. The worst of Socialist Realism okasha Mar 2014 #6
Lol! that is true. hrmjustin Mar 2014 #7

Jim__

(14,077 posts)
1. Here's a picture.
Thu Mar 13, 2014, 03:47 PM
Mar 2014

It looks like it's already in the process of being torn down. Brutalist architecture?

[center][/center]

Jim__

(14,077 posts)
3. Not that long ago it was thought to convey an image of strength.
Thu Mar 13, 2014, 04:31 PM
Mar 2014

It's strange how our tastes change over relatively short time frames. From wikipedia:



[center][/center]

[center]Hubert H. Humphrey Building, headquarters of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D. C.[/center]

[hr]

Brutalist architecture is a style of architecture that flourished from the 1950s to the mid-1970s, spawned from the modernist architectural movement. Brutalism rapidly became popular with governments and institutions around the world, with numerous high style examples located in Britain, France, Germany, Japan, United States, and Brazil. Examples are typically large buildings, massive in character, fortresslike, with a predominance of exposed concrete construction. The style was often selected for socialist government sponsored projects for public structures, high-rise multi-family housing, and shopping centres to create an architectural image that communicated strength, functionality, and frugal construction. Its popularity spread to include other uses such as college buildings, but was rarely applied to corporate projects, whose leaders were concerned about the association with socialism. It was typical for post-war government projects to be selected by public building committees through competitions.

The English architects Alison and Peter Smithson coined the term in 1953, from the French béton brut, (beton for concrete, brut for rough, unrefined, raw), a phrase used by Le Corbusier to describe the exposed concrete walls with which he constructed many of his post-World War II buildings. The term gained wide currency when the British architectural historian Reyner Banham cleverly adjusted it with spin in the title of his 1966 book, The New Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic?, to characterise a somewhat recently established cluster of architectural approaches, particularly in Europe.[1] \
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»After long fight, Washing...