Now approaching nearly fifty, sixty years of use, many structures of the post-war building boom are currently struggling to meet contemporary standards of performance and aesthetics, and have found themselves subject to the conflicting imperatives of demolition and preservation. Buildings associated with the Brutalist style find themselves today squarely in the middle of these debates, with many disappearing every year as cities across the globe update and rework their urban landscapes. While the term Brutalism was initially coined by Peter and Alison Smithson (as New Brutalism) in 1953 and then later elaborated on by Reyner Banham, today it has come to loosely describe heavy, monumental, typically concrete buildings built between the 1950s and 1970s. Many of these structures have fallen into disrepair, many more have fallen out of favor, and so the Brutalist label has come to be a rather pejorative one. Currently, many of those buildings identified as Brutalist, whether by their own designers or more frequently by the public, are at risk of demolition or have even already been lost.

Concrete is often cited for the challenges in working within or adapting these buildings. As a monolithic, non-cavity, non-component construction system, concrete can be difficult to alter, yet by no means impossible.

Beyond this, the sparse detailing and lack of ornamentation makes these structures anything but precious. There is no delicate filigree to preserve, no relief to reconstruct which would all suggest a potential for more aggressive methods of reworking that embrace the rugged nature of these buildings.

Are these buildings as resistant to change as might have been suggested? 

What opportunities does their rugged nature offer in terms of more aggressive methods of reworking?