Brutalism has once again become hot and booming. What has reignited the flame of this controversial building style for it to suddenly appear abundantly in pop-culture? Social media, films, perfume, or even Brutalist web design are just a few of the examples that Brutalism is not confined to architectural publications, the Dutch climate being no exception.

The research investigates the history of Brutalism and looks at explanations of academics on this Brutalist comeback. These theories are taken into account when investigating and analysing three Dutch concrete icons: the TU Delft auditorium by Van den Broek & Bakema (1966), the provinciehuis Noord-Brabant by Hugh Maaskant (1971), and the town hall of Terneuzen, also by Van den Broek & Bakema (1972). The reception history of the trio is compared by first looking at newspapers and architectural journals published shortly after their completion, before taking a look at current opinions on the Brutalist designs. Furthermore, this research analyses the phenomenological qualities of the exposed concrete, investigating whether or not this plays an important role in the architectural assessment and possible revaluation.

The research found that the public opinion on the architecture did not alter drastically. The TU Delft auditorium has consistently been regarded as ‘good architecture’. The provinciehuis is a special case, since most biting commentaries of the seventies can be explained by the political and social tensions, which now seem a thing of the past. Here the public opinion seems to have shifted, but the complicated context makes it hard to objectively assess if the building would have met the same resilience, had it not been built many years after its planned construction. A questionnaire on the Terneuzen town hall indicates the phenomenological qualities of concrete can work repellent, yet when confronted with the architecture for a longer period, people recognise its architectural value. This is something of the past and the present. Nowadays, people do regard the building worthy of monument status, but ‘ugly’ is still the common denominator.

Although there is a revaluation going on, one must keep in mind that revaluation just means there is a regained interest and people start to assess the value of something again, be it positive or negative. There are multiple motives for this revaluation. In architecture and literature, it is common for outdated styles from fifty years ago to regain interest. Controversial styles also become subject of academic studies, hoping to shed new light on why they were valued that way. Brutalist architecture now also reaches a point that for many a decision needs to be made whether or not the expensive maintenance costs are worthwhile. With demolition as the alternative, a discussion on heritage listing is inevitable. Social media sees the debate reach the public, stimulating also the non-experts to join the conversation and give their opinion on the architectural values of the built environment.