...if charlotte's article in shift 2.1 just left you wanting more fallingwater... i didn't want to keep this to myself. "Fall View at the South Front | Félix de la Concha"

--sarah

Concrete?

Came across an interesting article in The Star a couple days ago:
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/268847

It discusses the current dislike for concrete and structures of the 1950's-1970's.

Here are some high-lights from the article:

McClelland and co-editor Graeme Stewart have assembled Concrete Toronto, a tome of writing, interviews and photographs about concrete architecture here, with a mind to reclaiming its good name – or, at least, start that conversation,

"We're interested in why people appreciate certain buildings, and look at others and say `Oh, I hate that,'" says McClelland, a principal at ERA Architects, who specialize in historic restorations.

"We found that if they like it, it's because they understand it. And if they don't, it's because of a prejudice."

...

In the late modern rush for democratic structures and space, concrete was not oppressive, but liberating – an inexpensive form so malleable as to lend almost sculptural possibility to the built environment. It was solid, permanent and ideal-embodying – a material that allowed an architect to believe he or she was building something that would last forever.

It was also the catalyst for a nationwide building boom, and a technological revolution in the field that wouldn't be seen again for decades, until advanced computer rendering made such things as Frank Gehry's titanium-sheathed Bilbao Guggenheim possible in 1995.

So, what do you guys think? Have we surpassed "Brutalist" concrete slab architecture? Or are we neglecting this material in favor of glass and steel?

-mj