(HIGHLY RECOMMENDED BY rab)
What is Brutalist architecture?
Brutalist architecture is an architectural style that emerged in the 1950s, characterized by its use of raw, exposed materials, most notably concrete, minimal ornamentation, geometric forms, on a monumental scale.
The ‘social ambition” of Brutalist architecture refers to its primary goal of using architecture to promote socialism and communism for people of all social classes. Whereby, everyone are forced to live in the same structures – in the name of equity and inclusion. Hence, social equity becomes the driving force for “public” housing. Housing for which all are expected to dwell.
In fact, Brutalist architecture is a socialist and communist construct, especially during the mid-20th century. While Brutalism originated in the postwar West (notably the UK), it soon became the dominant style across the communist Eastern Bloc from the 1960s through the 1980s, including in the USSR, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Bulgaria, and Yugoslavia. Socialist and communist governments, in particular, promoted them with purpose.
While Brutalist architecture does not include explicit surveillance features like cameras or monitoring systems – as those systems were not available at the time, in its style – the design elements, such as minimal external windows, centralized layouts, and controlled entry points, facilitate restricting public access and controlling environments. These all align well with government security goals. Furthermore, the association between Brutalism and government bureaucracy, authority, and secrecy has made these structures symbolic of surveillance for the public and in popular media.
Let’s turn to 15-minute cities. They are supposed to provide:
Sustainability – By keeping people within a 15-minute walking distance from where they live and work.
Community and Social Cohesion:
Economic Resilience:
Equity and Inclusion:
Sound familiar?
The truth about 15-minute cities is that they allow governments to conduct massive and routine surveillance of their populace, as well as impose permanent restrictions on the daily activities of large groups of people. These cities work to exclude car ownership from ordinary citizens by making it too expensive through the permitting process and via road restrictions (such as limited traffic zones in residential areas). In the name of social equity, the rights of citizens to move freely are being restricted.
What happens when one gets a better job elsewhere, but other family members are forced to stay within their zone for work or educational purposes? Where one can’t afford to commute or own a car? Will this cause the extended and even nuclear family to break down further?
During any sort of public emergency, the government can limit who can move in and out of these zones. For instance, if one doesn’t have an updated vaccine green pass, their ability to leave their enforcement zone can be easily disabled.
We witnessed this on a massive scale during the COVIDcrisis in Europe. Similarly, in Canada, people were not allowed to board a train or take an airplane for almost a full year, even for medical care, work, or a funeral. Just think if being able to leave the 15-minute zone of your residence was tied to your ability to take public transportation.
In places where 15-minute cities have actually been implemented for any length of time, such as London, most people are resentful and not happy living under these conditions.
Whereas government security goals were once associated with brutalist architecture, in London, there are over a million CCTV cameras, and 15-minute cities have also become associated with the security state. Under these conditions, the right to privacy disappears… when centralized planning becomes the law.
But it gets worse: Brussels is now actively pursuing the 10-minute city model, not only for “climate and sustainability reasons”, but also to explicitly promote equity across its neighborhoods.
The architectural style of a 15-minute city may not be “brutalist,” but the goals don’t seem much different.
