One of my all-time favorite Zweig Letter articles was written by no less than Mark Zweig himself, titled, “Frank Wouldn’t Be Happy.” The “Frank” in this case was Frank Lloyd Wright, and the article described Mark’s family vacation visit to Taliesin West, Wright’s winter home and architectural school in Arizona. Taliesin West was in state of relative disrepair at the time, and it inspired Mark to recall an anecdote about how a client – the CEO of Johnson Wax – had once complained about a leaky roof dripping upon his table at a dinner party, and Wright arrogantly suggested to him simply to “move his chair” to avoid the leak dripping down on him. But overall and with insightful reflections on the disrepair at Taliesin West and other aspects of Wright’s career, Mark’s point however was that even great architects aren’t necessarily good at creating great companies that outlast their own creative legacies.
Frank Lloyd Wright’s practice of architecture was not in the brutalist style, but in the vein of architectural commentary, architecture seems to have recently resurfaced again to prominence in our culture, the popular media, and our public discussions. Brutalist architecture is having its moment – or more like it’s second moment in a second century – our 21st century. Most prominent is the 2025 Academy-Award-winning movie for Best Actor Adrien Brody, for “The Brutalist,” the story of a post-World War II fictional architect László Tóth who struggles but eventually rises to fame and renown later in life, and with his work finally being honored and showcased at the Venice Biennale of Architecture. The movie’s title however leaves ambiguous, as to who exactly was the actual brutalist or brutal character in this story – the fictional architect László Tóth – or his client – the equally-fictional wealthy industrialist and railroad baron, Harrison Lee Van Buren (played by actor Guy Pierce).
There have always been those who loved brutalist architecture and those who hated it, and would want to tear it all down. As a confluence of events, the Real Estate Section of the Sunday New York Times on the same day as the Academy Awards Ceremony on March 2, 2025, commented on the possibility of the federal government not being supportive of brutalist architecture in the form of the numerous buildings built in the 1960’s and early 1970’s, such as the FBI’s J. Edgar Hoover Building and the Federal Education Department in Washington, D.C. In Massachusetts, however, there have recently been projects coming to the fore to renovate and update brutalist buildings at several state colleges and universities, whose campuses are dominated by this style of architecture, which occurred during the expansion of educational institutions during the same period. There are likely similar campuses in numerous others of our United States. Entire university and college campuses were built in the 1960s and 1970s, and may need to undergo extensive renovations and upgrading to present day usages and aesthetics. That these campuses are now half a century old speaks to this need as part of the natural life cycle of asset management.
Some brutalist-style buildings probably deserve to be torn down, as opposed to undergoing renovation – not because of the architectural style being out of fashion – but because the style and function no longer fits a client’s needs and the building can’t be renovated within a reasonable price. I think – though I am not sure – that I personally would not enjoy living in a home built in the brutalist architectural style. Wireless mobile phone signals and Wi-Fi often cannot penetrate through thick concrete walls without interior repeaters throughout. I also imagine the daunting task of simply putting up a painting or artwork upon a wall, and having to get out a concrete drill and installing anchor bolts into the concrete.
For institutional entities and buildings for conducting government business, educational endeavors, and private commerce, however, I am often impressed by the spaces enclosed and the simple aesthetic of form following function. It’s beautiful as nature surely informs us with the structure of a blade of grass, or the intricate nature of a spider’s web. There are harsh and imposing exteriors and interiors in brutalist buildings to be sure, but by judicious and creative designs, and incorporating natural wood and glass, one can renovate and soften the otherwise rigid and daunting institutional nature of both interiors and exteriors. And artwork can be incorporated to further enhance the buildings. All these renovations can enhance the buildings and help to preserve the legacy of the brutalist style.
But in my opinion, the most magnificent example of brutalism is the architecture of the stations of the Washington, D.C. Metro subway system, as designed by architect Harry Weese. Almost all of the underground stations in the system follow a unified motif of high vaulted arched waffle ceilings – structural coffers, simultaneously providing structural strength, integrity, and aesthetic richness. Especially impressive, however, are the main interchange stations, Metro Center and L’Enfant Plaza, where two subway lines meet, and two perpendicular high arches intersect to form a majestic dome and spatial ambiance. Adding to that are the lighting and the acoustics, and the subdued echoey silence when there are no trains in the station. You are in a public space but it feels like you are within the timeless grandeur of a cathedral – the Cathedral of our American Democracy.
But getting back to why “Frank Wouldn’t Be Happy,” and Mark Zweig’s point that architects (and engineers and construction professionals too!) should be creating companies that outlast their own creativity, this revived focus of awareness of brutalist architecture in this our new century presents an opportunity to reflect as follows. To grow and maintain the business of being an architect, an engineer, a designer or construction professional, we should first not lose sight of serving our clients well. But also, to think of the long-term of designing and building a legacy of safety, maintainability, operational ease, long term functionality, and kindness to the environment. And also, to create a sustainable and sustaining business model, nurture the professionalism of your colleagues and staff who may become your successors in business, don’t be arrogant or brutal, and create an entity that will outlive your own personal creativity and endeavors.
Lastly, it is of interest to note that “brutalism” was the result of a mistranslation of the word “brut” from the French to the English. “Brutalist” and “brutalism” provide an unconscious connotation in our minds of harshness. Maybe it wouldn’t hurt to correct the mistranslation of “brut” to the actual meaning and connotation of “brut” to “raw”, but raw in the good sense of meaning a purity unprocessed, pure, unalloyed, free of unnecessary and additive adorning architectural elements. Perhaps we can call it “Architecture au Naturel.” Wouldn’t that make brutalism less brutal – and possibly even sexy?
Sam Liao , Ph.D., MBA, PE is principal consultant at Strategics, LLC, and adjunct faculty member at the University of New Hampshire. Contact him at sam.s.c.liao@gmail.com.