The architectural style that marked the second half of the 20th century—born out of the need for rapid urban reconstruction and characterized by the raw power of materials and simplicity of form—came to be known as Brutalism. The distinctive, rough expression of this movement often provokes divided opinions: while some perceive it as gray, harsh, and cold, others see it as a powerful and socially conscious architectural direction that defined an era. This raises the question—what is the state of the buildings from that period today, and does contemporary residential architecture have the potential to one day evoke similar debates and emotions? We discussed this topic with Dušan Ignjatović, Full Professor at the Faculty of Architecture, University of Belgrade.
Q: The Aesthetics of Brutalism Are Often Debated. How Would You Explain Its Ideological and Urban Principles?
A: The period following World War II was marked by intense reconstruction and the construction of new urban areas, and in some cases, entire cities. After the initial phase, during which buildings were erected using traditional techniques and materials, industrialization of the process soon followed, introducing modern methods and materials. Reinforced concrete proved to be particularly suitable for residential construction, while the aesthetics of béton brut, which can be compared to what became known as Brutalist architecture, named after the French term raw concrete—became its distinctive visual expression.
Based on the principles of Le Corbusier’s architecture, the buildings were designed as pure, cubic forms devoid of decoration, with concrete used not only as the primary structural material but also as the final façade finish. The idea of industrialization was associated with progress and modernization—values regarded as the foundation of an advanced socialist society—while the uniformity of architectural expression underscored the aspiration toward the desired equality of a classless community. In the former Yugoslavia, solutions for new residential areas and key public buildings emerged through a system of open competitions, resulting in authentic achievements recognized beyond the country’s borders. The introduction of new design elements, textures, and expressive forms distinguished these projects from the prevailing architectural practices of both the East and the West. Experiments in form and materialization produced works that became symbols of their era and an invaluable part of the region’s architectural heritage.
Q: What Are the Functional Advantages of the Old Yugoslav Residential Blocks, and Why Do They Remain Competitive Today?
A: The period of Brutalist architecture is inextricably linked with the vision of building new cities and transforming the concept of housing. The break from traditional urban patterns was based on the principles of modernism, where the open city block emerged as the fundamental spatial unit. Within such an urban structure—with an abundance of open and green areas—residential “cells” were formed, equipped with complementary facilities such as schools, kindergartens, community centers, as well as sports and recreational facilities. Although these blocks were initially perceived as empty and impersonal parts of the city—dormitory districts for the new socialist class —the perception gradually changed over time. Their undeniable urban quality, the abundance of open space, availability of parking, well-organized apartment layouts, and solid infrastructure made such neighborhoods desirable places to live. The increased population density in city centers, the changing demographic structure, and the rise in real estate prices have further contributed to the competitiveness of housing from the socialist era.
IN FOCUS:
- ABB Home Automation in the Service of Energy Efficiency
- Sustainability Certificates – Standards Shaping Modern Buildings Worldwide
- Veliko Gradište Awaits an Influx of Solar Energy
Q: How Do Brutalist Buildings Compare in Terms of Energy Efficiency, and Does New Construction Perform Better in This Regard?
A: Energy consumption in buildings depends directly on their form, materials, usage patterns—that is, the behavior of occupants—as well as the degree of maintenance over time. Conceptually, buildings from the socialist period often feature articulated, fragmented forms, which increase the surface area of the thermal envelope, meaning the elements of the building through which energy (heat) is exchanged with the environment.
Although this can be seen as an unfavorable characteristic in terms of energy efficiency, such forms typically allow for better natural lighting and more effective natural ventilation. This helps mitigate energy losses during the heating season, especially considering that today, nearly the same amount of energy is consumed for cooling in summer as was once used for heating in winter.
The design standards of that time are significantly below today’s requirements for energy efficiency, and the degradation of insulation materials used in that era further contributes to the problem. As a result, these buildings consume considerably more energy compared to contemporary structures. According to data from Beogradske elektrane (Belgrade Heating Plants), buildings from earlier periods use between 10 and 30 percent more energy than the average in Belgrade—almost twice as much as buildings constructed according to modern standards.
On the other hand, energy consumption for heating represents only one aspect of residential quality— and it is, in principle, an aspect that can be improved. However, other, often more important aspects—such as spatial organization, orientation, or the structural layout of living spaces—are far more challenging to change, even though they receive much less attention in contemporary residential design.
Q: Are There Specific Actions or Recommendations for Improving the Energy Efficiency of Old Buildings, and What Are the Main Challenges in That Process?
A: When it comes to recommendations for improving energy efficiency, a large number of studies have been conducted in Serbia, accompanied by extensive literature that thoroughly explores the principles and possibilities for enhancing the energy performance of buildings. The most comprehensive research was conducted between 2010 and 2013, during which approximately 22,000 buildings nationwide were surveyed. Based on this data, the National Typology of Residential Buildings of Serbia was developed, classifying buildings according to their age, urban characteristics, as well as volumetric and material properties.
In this way, a matrix of characteristic building types was established, for which energy performance calculations were made based on typical construction materials. For each type, models for performance improvement—at both standard and advanced levels—were proposed, including enhancements to the thermal envelope, optimization of heating systems, and domestic hot water preparation systems. The complete material was published in a monograph available to the public, as well as on the website of the Ministry of Construction, Transport, and Infrastructure (stanovanje.gov.rs).
Based on this research, a software tool was also developed, available at eekalkulator.mgsi.gov.rs, enabling users to simulate the effects of improvements on typical building models. By comparing their own buildings with those of similar characteristics, users can gain insight into the potential energy and economic benefits of planned interventions.
The process of performance improvement—defined as energy renovation—brings numerous challenges. Some are related to technical characteristics, which are particularly important for buildings of Brutalist architecture. Namely, the question of how to adequately improve buildings constructed in béton brut while preserving their authentic appearance represents a serious challenge—both in terms of technical solutions and implementation costs. Moreover, many of these buildings are large and high-rise structures, which further complicates the process of energy renovation.
Interview by Milica Vučković
The interview was published in Energy portal Magazine GREEN ARCHITECTURE
