Finding Brutalism in the Architecture of John Andrews

Abstract

The architecture of John Andrews has often been described as Brutalist. However, there is no direct link between Andrews’ architecture and the British scene of the 1950s, out of which Brutalism and the architecture of Team 10 emerged. Rather, his work develops from the late Congres Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne (CIAM) focus on monumentality and the “heart of the city”. The architect himself has often expressed the view that his work is better understood not as Brutalist (or having any other theoretical agenda), but rather as developing from a common sense approach to program, site and constructional means. Despite this, whether or not it is historiographically accurate to call Andrews’ work Brutalist, to propose such a connection raises the question of his work's place in the broad architectural context of the 1960s and 1970s. To investigate aspects of the relationship between Andrews’ architecture and the wider design culture in which it proceeded, this article examines links between Andrews and two other architects. Both had similarly tangential relationships to Brutalism. The first was his teacher and mentor, José Luis Sert; the other, was an architect who was, like Andrews, identified as a key member of “the third generation” – James Stirling. In both cases, the investigation leads to the late work of Le Corbusier, its poetic engagement with ordinary building practices and its ambitions for the (re)establishment of a humanist culture.