Some brutalist architecture may be preserved, as a warning for future generations about the danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.
I am the founder of the architectural uprising non-profit in Norway. The primary goal of architecture is in my view to increase peoples quality of life and to ensure social, economic and environmentally sustainability for future generations. Both the Southbank center and the Barbican center in London fails in my view. Innovation in architecture is a good thing. Now lets face the fact that most brutalists experiments over the last 80 years has failed miserably. Intensions in architecture is good. But not this buildings intentions of eradicating history and ignoring peoples feelings.
> danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.
Like there's architecture that doesn't mix politics and/ideology? I sense conservatism in your comment which is a perspective/ideology (which i share btw). Ultimately I feel that taste drives a lot of these takes, not ideology or politics.
I've enjoyed the public areas of the barbican many many times - my only complain (its been many years I haven't been) is it doesn't have a lot of people sharing that space. You'll see that as argument that many people dont share my taste or the actual ideology/politics that led to that style is rejected by the public. I say: the barbican sits in the middle of one of the most depopulated (as in residents not office workers) of London. The areas around it are among the most expensive real estate in London. We all know how many European capitals and London in particular have become a piggy bank for the wealthy so I'd argue most people just cant afford to experience the barbican as well and as often for being pushed out
Your two opening paragraphs seem opposed to one another.
> Some brutalist architecture may be preserved, as a warning for future generations about the danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.
> I am the founder of the architectural uprising non-profit in Norway. The primary goal of architecture is in my view to increase peoples quality of life and to ensure social, economic and environmentally sustainability for future generations.
Can you expand on the "dangers" expressed in the buildings, and how your foundation attempts to mitigate those dangers?
Also:
> Now lets face the fact that most brutalists experiments over the last 80 years has failed miserably.
Yeah, there are a lot of failures, but you've picked on two structures which are broadly successful which is diminishing your point somewhat.
Have you been to the barbican? I haven’t been in an apartment myself, but I have been in the outdoor areas multiple times.
It’s very cool, and feels very well designed. It’s also consistently in demand as a place to live. So I’m not sure why you think it hasn’t increased the residents’ quality of life.
I've visited a flat/appartment in one of the Barbican towers. It was comfy, pleasant. The lifts and hallways were well maintained, well lit, generous dimensions (compared with many London apartment blocks I've seen). It felt like a "good" tower block, rather than a "bad" one.
The arts complex is amazing (slightly confusing, but very functional and fairly pleasant to be inside). The outside spaces create a buzzy calm.
I used to work next door to the Barbican and occasionally visit the site on my lunch breaks.
The old decaying concrete, monolithic construction, dark alleys, stagnant algae-filled lakes, dirty windows around a tropical plant space, pretentious art installations - it was all quite interesting to my morbid curiosity. But I always left the Barbican feeling lonely and bleak.
I cannot imagine the misery of living in that environment and having it seep into your soul.
I moved out of London, and live in the countryside now. There is something transcendent about being surrounded by natural beauty, and being far, far away from urban over-development.
It’s a magnificent space. If you just judge it purely on the concrete you may have a different opinion, but if you’re there to consume the various forms of art performed on the Southbank, then the space really comes alive. I’m glad it’s listed.
I happen to love brutalist architecture, but in the uk it can sometimes not work (grey rainy days don’t bring out the best of the concrete). However, I think in this case it really works.
I'm afraid brutalist architecture has been inseparably associated with urban decay and dystopia in the public opinion. For instance, I recently played "Ghost Town" on Meta Quest, and the protagonist lives in a (extremely dilapidated, to the point that I thought "were UK council flats really this bad in the 1980s?!") tower that looks suspiciously like one of Ernő Goldfinger's tower blocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trellick_Tower, or maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfron_Tower) - and is (of course, to add insult to injury) also haunted.
I mean it works as intended. It’s an art centre that succeeds in hosting art extremely well. Therefore, its functionally good architecture (if not visually appealing to everyone).
I'm startled by people who say they love brutalism as an architecture. I'm able to enjoy the aesthetic, but _actually_ being for it as a viable way of housing human activity seems irresponsible. It's similar to saying "I love Beksinski paintings and wish people lived in them". What's even worse with brutalism is that the lack of form usually follows the lack of function: dark water streaks and humidity issues because gutters are for the weak, car-centric design, etc. People associate brutalism with urban decay because it's pretty much purpose built for that.
It's an odd thing, brutalism is almost universally hated by the general public but there's a seemingly endless stream of people who are willing to wax lyrical about why stained concrete blocks are actually the pinnacle of architecture.
It sometimes feels like a psy-op to read through all these gushingly positive comments, when you know how the average person feels about it.
I get that it's not actually something nefarious, but it really does suck that the people who like this garbage are so loud about it that it gets shoved down the rest of the public's throats.
I think the extremely public, visible, every-dat nature of architecture gives it certainly responsibilities that are different from other visual art forms.
The modern trend of trying to make art that's repulsive to people with "common", "uneducated" sensibilities is one thing when it's constrained to the inside of a museum, but it's awful when it takes up this much space in public.
> dark water streaks and humidity issues because gutters are for the weak
One of the things that really drove it home was when around 20ish years ago I worked on a project to fit microwave links to provide broadband around Glasgow (ADSL2 was a ways off and only 8Mbps, and we could do 155Mbps with microwave).
Many of the Brutalist tower blocks had - at some considerable expense, in the 1990s or so - had been retrofitted with a steel-framed pitched roof over the existing flat roof. The space in between was lovely and dry, and we often fitted open network racks right there on the roof, where previously it would have been exposed to the elements.
Evidently no matter how hard you try, that squared-off flat roof aesthetic is just incompatible with West Coast Weather.
A shame. It's a huge complex of fairly sparse buildings right in the centre of the capital city. Listing it just puts big obstacles in front of changing it, which I really wish we could do. People just like how it looks but actually it's not a very useful space for society and I wish it could be changed.
I lived locally for 10 years and visited only a handful of times. Mostly it was just an obstacle in itself: it creates a lot of level changes (read: steps) and moving around it on foot or by bike is annoying.
Take your point but I'd err on the side of caution. Anything like that un-listed is ripe for one day getting completely ruined, and it is iconic and culturally very valuable.
I can think of 1000 other spaces in London that could be changed first before going anywhere near Southbank Centre.
I'm just happy the skatepark is now protected. Others may differ.
Although Brutalism is not my favourite architectural style, I still appreciate it done well. This particular building is <20 minutes from where I sit. "Decaying" as it is sometimes described, can be attributed to lack or complete absence of maintenance. This style was sold to government for their civic buildings partly because it was low maintenance, but low is not no.
It would look better with more maintenance, less graffiti, the absence of litter, and more uncluttered space around it.
Is there something wrong with me that I love Brutalist buildings? The Barbican in London is my favourite building and it feels so futuristic to me for some reason.
Some buildings can be nice. But the real crime with brutalism was the stuff that got demolished to make room for it. Also, a lot of brutalist buildings have not aged well. Concrete gets ugly after a few decades.
And there's also the notion that a lot of brutalist architecture that isn't all that beautiful. There are some counter examples of course. But there are also plenty of really nasty urban areas that aren't exactly attracting hordes of tourists because it makes people feel miserable rather than amazed. Cheap construction, a vision that never panned out, etc.
I'm a big fan of the Bauhaus movement because it combines elements of what later became the brutalist movement but with a human perspective. There's something very optimistic about it and they thought hard about the human scale of things and how people would live in these buildings. A lot of that design still feels modern and progressive even a century later. Brutalism lost that human perspective.
1. They go really well with greenery. There is a book and social media account that covers this called Brutalist Plants. The contrast works exceptionally well and reminds me of nature-integrated architecture. I’d almost even say that brutalist buildings without the exterior greenery are incomplete.
2. They are buildings created with a visually coherent philosophy, even if we might disagree with it. That makes them more interesting than most contemporary buildings, which are basically just generic shells made for the smallest budget possible.
The word you're looking for is dystopia (Star Trek being mostly utopia, at least in the original timeline and as far as Earth/the Federation is concerned).
I don't care what people say. I love brutalist architecture. I love the exposed concrete forms. I love the giant concrete turkey in Toronto and plan to one day visit the UK to see the Barbican.
Concrete is strong and imposing and emotional. It feels authoritative and cold. A warm building feels like it has deliberately undermined its own status to feel welcoming and feels fake. A brutalist building doesn't lie. It is a massive concrete edifice containing a large space within.
It also weathers in distinctive ways. The water stains are like seniority, telling me the building has and will last forever. A big glass skyscraper feels replaceable and new, like it's disposable and will be replaced in a few years.
I get a lot of hate for this but one of the benefits of a concrete house is the ability to throw stones.
No I'm with you. There's an honest and an intent to it which I've always loved - plus an intent to do more with less in terms of form. No finicky detail to hide tricky areas, no taking of advantage of material to distract the eye - it stands or falls on form and function alone. I get why some may not like it, but for me it's a pure form of architecture. It's the building equivalent of a Dieter Rams, or a mid-period Olivetti. Beautiful.
There's not really any brutalist buildings around my location, but I absolutely love them. They are some of the most interesting building, both in terms of visual appearance and the thoughts that has gone into their design. To me they don't instill horror, but a sense of calm and safety.
What sometimes happens when people say they dislike brutalism, and what is does to people living in the buildings, is they focus on the architecture and not the horrible property mismanagement. The UK has a number of hated brutalist towers and the misery of those living in the building are ascribed to the architecture, not the fact that the buildings are not properly maintained, or that the cities stuffed the flats with the people who are incredibly poor, addicts, in need of mental care, education, support or a mix of all of those things. Now it is also true that many of these buildings are old, typically from the 60s and 70s, and their design no longer suites modern living, but that's true almost all types of architecture. A 1950s brick house barely fits a modern family.
The problem might be exactly that: A brutalist building doesn't lie. If you don't take care of it, and its surroundings, the building will let you know. Nothing is hidden, all of your societal problems are on full public display with a brutalist building.
Brutalist architecture certainly has an emotional impact for me - mostly horror.
On a happy note, the incredibly ugly Argyle House in Edinburgh is going to be demolished soon - how anyone thought it was a good idea to build such a thing in that location is a mystery (its evil twin in the form of New St Andrews House having been demolished years ago).
It's a great shame to me that the museum of London left the barbican. It made visiting the site and the building work well contextually. Roman London wall. History on tap, and a brutalist vision.
I lived in London for 15 years. Southbank and the Barbican were some of my favourite places there.
Barbican is particularly interesting since its part of the city of London, and whereas the city mostly contains bad neoclassical designs that feel dystopian and inhuman Barbican feels like a fresh breath of air.
It has a human centric design and it uses water and greenery to temper the concrete.
Its interesting that crowds in connection to or within the southbank center also always feel lively. I'm uncertain of why, perhaps the concrete makes a counterpoint to humanness and makes us focus on the people in the vicinity.
Perhaps its the cultural programming. But the end result for me was that whenever I was around these blocks of concrete I was almost always in a good mood.
The Barbican is similar in many ways: a place that people either like or dislike depending on subjective personal preference but objectively has never actually worked very well.
cf this programme from the BBC Archive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvXpvH99tic It was clearly badly designed and problematic right from the start with little in the way of shops or services for the residents. But that's the thing about monumentalist architecture: looks singular but function is an afterthought. The south bank centre is similar.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that every day of the year, from maybe noon to midnight, these buildings are surrounded by people enjoying the city - walking along the river, going to arts events, eating out, walking between offices. It’s a hugely popular free public resource that is a massive good for Londoners. Previously (not here but at other points on the river) the water front was private - accessible only to people inside buildings - or derelict, like the areas around Tate Modern and Tower Bridge. This is one of the most human and whatever the opposite of alienating spaces in London today.
The Southbank Centre is one of the cultural gems of London and, I'd argue, the world ... you can have your opinion on what it looks like from the outside, but what goes on inside and around it make it incredibly valuable ... so what I assume is your off-the-cuff remark is way off.
I was talking about the architecture, which is the topic of this thread. Of course it's the home to great art, but that does not make it a *building* worthy of architectural distinction or historical protection.
That's fair, but arguable. At this stage I think the architecture and it's reason to be are now so deeply intertwined that you cannot separate them (or would ruin it with the attempt).
I've seen instances where a building is all about what takes place there, demolished, re-built, and lose their soul and former purpose.
I can easily see that happening with the Southbank. It's iconic and embedded so deeply at this stage, despite the the various opinions on its looks.
The flyover is the real reason the area went to shit. I doubt the Anglia Square gentri^H^H^H^H^H^Hregeneration will make much difference. In London I can't think of any "nice" road flyovers. Railway bridges don't seem to have the same effect.
The majority opinion (“it’s ugly, monolithic, oppressive, decaying” etc) is such an obvious take that people don’t bother expressing it, especially on forums like HN where people are trying to be insightful as opposed to negative.
So all we get to hear are the opinions of architectural contrarians and certain left wingers who align with the political side of brutalism (i.e. a reactionary movement against Britain’s beautiful Victorian architecture, which is associated with monied elites and colonialism).
The thing about most art, architecture, etc is that it’s incredibly subjective, so contrasting your own views with “certain left wingers” is pretty much pointless.
I personally think the entire south bank is pretty ugly, but my views on this, my political views or my views on other styles of architecture don’t matter one jot.
If there’s a building a bunch of people care very much about, then let them protect it.
Some brutalist architecture may be preserved, as a warning for future generations about the danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.
I am the founder of the architectural uprising non-profit in Norway. The primary goal of architecture is in my view to increase peoples quality of life and to ensure social, economic and environmentally sustainability for future generations. Both the Southbank center and the Barbican center in London fails in my view. Innovation in architecture is a good thing. Now lets face the fact that most brutalists experiments over the last 80 years has failed miserably. Intensions in architecture is good. But not this buildings intentions of eradicating history and ignoring peoples feelings.
> danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.
Like there's architecture that doesn't mix politics and/ideology? I sense conservatism in your comment which is a perspective/ideology (which i share btw). Ultimately I feel that taste drives a lot of these takes, not ideology or politics.
I've enjoyed the public areas of the barbican many many times - my only complain (its been many years I haven't been) is it doesn't have a lot of people sharing that space. You'll see that as argument that many people dont share my taste or the actual ideology/politics that led to that style is rejected by the public. I say: the barbican sits in the middle of one of the most depopulated (as in residents not office workers) of London. The areas around it are among the most expensive real estate in London. We all know how many European capitals and London in particular have become a piggy bank for the wealthy so I'd argue most people just cant afford to experience the barbican as well and as often for being pushed out
Your two opening paragraphs seem opposed to one another.
> Some brutalist architecture may be preserved, as a warning for future generations about the danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.
> I am the founder of the architectural uprising non-profit in Norway. The primary goal of architecture is in my view to increase peoples quality of life and to ensure social, economic and environmentally sustainability for future generations.
Can you expand on the "dangers" expressed in the buildings, and how your foundation attempts to mitigate those dangers?
Also:
> Now lets face the fact that most brutalists experiments over the last 80 years has failed miserably.
Yeah, there are a lot of failures, but you've picked on two structures which are broadly successful which is diminishing your point somewhat.
Have you been to the barbican? I haven’t been in an apartment myself, but I have been in the outdoor areas multiple times.
It’s very cool, and feels very well designed. It’s also consistently in demand as a place to live. So I’m not sure why you think it hasn’t increased the residents’ quality of life.
I've visited a flat/appartment in one of the Barbican towers. It was comfy, pleasant. The lifts and hallways were well maintained, well lit, generous dimensions (compared with many London apartment blocks I've seen). It felt like a "good" tower block, rather than a "bad" one.
The arts complex is amazing (slightly confusing, but very functional and fairly pleasant to be inside). The outside spaces create a buzzy calm.
I think it's an excellent complex.
I used to work next door to the Barbican and occasionally visit the site on my lunch breaks.
The old decaying concrete, monolithic construction, dark alleys, stagnant algae-filled lakes, dirty windows around a tropical plant space, pretentious art installations - it was all quite interesting to my morbid curiosity. But I always left the Barbican feeling lonely and bleak.
I cannot imagine the misery of living in that environment and having it seep into your soul.
I moved out of London, and live in the countryside now. There is something transcendent about being surrounded by natural beauty, and being far, far away from urban over-development.
[dead]
It’s a magnificent space. If you just judge it purely on the concrete you may have a different opinion, but if you’re there to consume the various forms of art performed on the Southbank, then the space really comes alive. I’m glad it’s listed.
I happen to love brutalist architecture, but in the uk it can sometimes not work (grey rainy days don’t bring out the best of the concrete). However, I think in this case it really works.
I'm afraid brutalist architecture has been inseparably associated with urban decay and dystopia in the public opinion. For instance, I recently played "Ghost Town" on Meta Quest, and the protagonist lives in a (extremely dilapidated, to the point that I thought "were UK council flats really this bad in the 1980s?!") tower that looks suspiciously like one of Ernő Goldfinger's tower blocks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trellick_Tower, or maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfron_Tower) - and is (of course, to add insult to injury) also haunted.
But it's the concrete that has been listed and not the various forms of art performed there.
I mean it works as intended. It’s an art centre that succeeds in hosting art extremely well. Therefore, its functionally good architecture (if not visually appealing to everyone).
I'm startled by people who say they love brutalism as an architecture. I'm able to enjoy the aesthetic, but _actually_ being for it as a viable way of housing human activity seems irresponsible. It's similar to saying "I love Beksinski paintings and wish people lived in them". What's even worse with brutalism is that the lack of form usually follows the lack of function: dark water streaks and humidity issues because gutters are for the weak, car-centric design, etc. People associate brutalism with urban decay because it's pretty much purpose built for that.
It's an odd thing, brutalism is almost universally hated by the general public but there's a seemingly endless stream of people who are willing to wax lyrical about why stained concrete blocks are actually the pinnacle of architecture.
It sometimes feels like a psy-op to read through all these gushingly positive comments, when you know how the average person feels about it.
I get that it's not actually something nefarious, but it really does suck that the people who like this garbage are so loud about it that it gets shoved down the rest of the public's throats.
I think the extremely public, visible, every-dat nature of architecture gives it certainly responsibilities that are different from other visual art forms.
The modern trend of trying to make art that's repulsive to people with "common", "uneducated" sensibilities is one thing when it's constrained to the inside of a museum, but it's awful when it takes up this much space in public.
> dark water streaks and humidity issues because gutters are for the weak
One of the things that really drove it home was when around 20ish years ago I worked on a project to fit microwave links to provide broadband around Glasgow (ADSL2 was a ways off and only 8Mbps, and we could do 155Mbps with microwave).
Many of the Brutalist tower blocks had - at some considerable expense, in the 1990s or so - had been retrofitted with a steel-framed pitched roof over the existing flat roof. The space in between was lovely and dry, and we often fitted open network racks right there on the roof, where previously it would have been exposed to the elements.
Evidently no matter how hard you try, that squared-off flat roof aesthetic is just incompatible with West Coast Weather.
A shame. It's a huge complex of fairly sparse buildings right in the centre of the capital city. Listing it just puts big obstacles in front of changing it, which I really wish we could do. People just like how it looks but actually it's not a very useful space for society and I wish it could be changed.
I lived locally for 10 years and visited only a handful of times. Mostly it was just an obstacle in itself: it creates a lot of level changes (read: steps) and moving around it on foot or by bike is annoying.
> lived locally for 10 years and visited only a handful of times
That was a mistake
Take your point but I'd err on the side of caution. Anything like that un-listed is ripe for one day getting completely ruined, and it is iconic and culturally very valuable.
I can think of 1000 other spaces in London that could be changed first before going anywhere near Southbank Centre.
I'm just happy the skatepark is now protected. Others may differ.
Although Brutalism is not my favourite architectural style, I still appreciate it done well. This particular building is <20 minutes from where I sit. "Decaying" as it is sometimes described, can be attributed to lack or complete absence of maintenance. This style was sold to government for their civic buildings partly because it was low maintenance, but low is not no.
It would look better with more maintenance, less graffiti, the absence of litter, and more uncluttered space around it.
The Southbank Centre isn't remotely decaying, though - in fact, it had a major refurb in the late 2010s: https://fcbstudios.com/projects/southbank-centre
Is there something wrong with me that I love Brutalist buildings? The Barbican in London is my favourite building and it feels so futuristic to me for some reason.
Some buildings can be nice. But the real crime with brutalism was the stuff that got demolished to make room for it. Also, a lot of brutalist buildings have not aged well. Concrete gets ugly after a few decades.
And there's also the notion that a lot of brutalist architecture that isn't all that beautiful. There are some counter examples of course. But there are also plenty of really nasty urban areas that aren't exactly attracting hordes of tourists because it makes people feel miserable rather than amazed. Cheap construction, a vision that never panned out, etc.
I'm a big fan of the Bauhaus movement because it combines elements of what later became the brutalist movement but with a human perspective. There's something very optimistic about it and they thought hard about the human scale of things and how people would live in these buildings. A lot of that design still feels modern and progressive even a century later. Brutalism lost that human perspective.
> But the real crime with brutalism was the stuff that got demolished to make room for it
The Barbican was a literal bomb site after the war [1]. Blame Hitler, not urban planning.
[1] https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/archive/collecti...
I like them for two reasons:
1. They go really well with greenery. There is a book and social media account that covers this called Brutalist Plants. The contrast works exceptionally well and reminds me of nature-integrated architecture. I’d almost even say that brutalist buildings without the exterior greenery are incomplete.
2. They are buildings created with a visually coherent philosophy, even if we might disagree with it. That makes them more interesting than most contemporary buildings, which are basically just generic shells made for the smallest budget possible.
To illustrate your first point, it's worth having a look at the Southbank Centre's roof garden: https://thenudge.com/london-bars/queen-elizabeth-hall-roof-g...
The people in this thread complaining about how grim and grey it is have clearly never ventured up the yellow staircase!
Not just futuristic, they’re designed with intention. That’s what I miss most of all about the current buildings.
Futuristic in a Bladerunner way, not a Star Trek way.
The kind of future where it always rains, it’s always nighttime, and people hide themselves away in fear.
The word you're looking for is dystopia (Star Trek being mostly utopia, at least in the original timeline and as far as Earth/the Federation is concerned).
I’m sure it would rain all the time in Star Trek were it not for the fact that it’s set on a space ship.
I don't care what people say. I love brutalist architecture. I love the exposed concrete forms. I love the giant concrete turkey in Toronto and plan to one day visit the UK to see the Barbican.
Concrete is strong and imposing and emotional. It feels authoritative and cold. A warm building feels like it has deliberately undermined its own status to feel welcoming and feels fake. A brutalist building doesn't lie. It is a massive concrete edifice containing a large space within.
It also weathers in distinctive ways. The water stains are like seniority, telling me the building has and will last forever. A big glass skyscraper feels replaceable and new, like it's disposable and will be replaced in a few years.
I get a lot of hate for this but one of the benefits of a concrete house is the ability to throw stones.
No I'm with you. There's an honest and an intent to it which I've always loved - plus an intent to do more with less in terms of form. No finicky detail to hide tricky areas, no taking of advantage of material to distract the eye - it stands or falls on form and function alone. I get why some may not like it, but for me it's a pure form of architecture. It's the building equivalent of a Dieter Rams, or a mid-period Olivetti. Beautiful.
There's not really any brutalist buildings around my location, but I absolutely love them. They are some of the most interesting building, both in terms of visual appearance and the thoughts that has gone into their design. To me they don't instill horror, but a sense of calm and safety.
What sometimes happens when people say they dislike brutalism, and what is does to people living in the buildings, is they focus on the architecture and not the horrible property mismanagement. The UK has a number of hated brutalist towers and the misery of those living in the building are ascribed to the architecture, not the fact that the buildings are not properly maintained, or that the cities stuffed the flats with the people who are incredibly poor, addicts, in need of mental care, education, support or a mix of all of those things. Now it is also true that many of these buildings are old, typically from the 60s and 70s, and their design no longer suites modern living, but that's true almost all types of architecture. A 1950s brick house barely fits a modern family.
The problem might be exactly that: A brutalist building doesn't lie. If you don't take care of it, and its surroundings, the building will let you know. Nothing is hidden, all of your societal problems are on full public display with a brutalist building.
Brutalist architecture certainly has an emotional impact for me - mostly horror.
On a happy note, the incredibly ugly Argyle House in Edinburgh is going to be demolished soon - how anyone thought it was a good idea to build such a thing in that location is a mystery (its evil twin in the form of New St Andrews House having been demolished years ago).
It's a great shame to me that the museum of London left the barbican. It made visiting the site and the building work well contextually. Roman London wall. History on tap, and a brutalist vision.
The concert hall is good too.
I lived in London for 15 years. Southbank and the Barbican were some of my favourite places there.
Barbican is particularly interesting since its part of the city of London, and whereas the city mostly contains bad neoclassical designs that feel dystopian and inhuman Barbican feels like a fresh breath of air.
It has a human centric design and it uses water and greenery to temper the concrete.
Its interesting that crowds in connection to or within the southbank center also always feel lively. I'm uncertain of why, perhaps the concrete makes a counterpoint to humanness and makes us focus on the people in the vicinity.
Perhaps its the cultural programming. But the end result for me was that whenever I was around these blocks of concrete I was almost always in a good mood.
I was sorely tempted to downvote this for egregious wrongheadedness, but that last line is pure gold. Kudos.
Good god, that You belong here seems more like an insult than inviting to me…
Perhaps it was ... to you.
Love it or loath it, was listing it necessary? Was it in danger of being knocked down?
Be prepared for every little bit of building work to take twice as long and cost twice as much now. The hands of future users are firmly bound.
> Was it in danger of being knocked down?
Abolishing the listings mechanism in favor of an ad-hoc protection mechanism (when destruction is imminent) seems worse.
Before the listing mechanism was introduced, several buildings where demolished overnight preventing any public outcry from saving them.
You also seem to be implying this is new, but the current listing legislation has existed since 1990.
Always loved the Royal Festival Hall, nice views and things to do.
That whole stretch of the south bank really benefits from the ban on advertising.
hand drawn architectural cross section from the 1960s
https://shop.barbican.org.uk/products/pod1049390
edit: misread the title, thought we were talking about the barbican again
The Barbican is similar in many ways: a place that people either like or dislike depending on subjective personal preference but objectively has never actually worked very well.
cf this programme from the BBC Archive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvXpvH99tic It was clearly badly designed and problematic right from the start with little in the way of shops or services for the residents. But that's the thing about monumentalist architecture: looks singular but function is an afterthought. The south bank centre is similar.
That’s of the Barbican, not the Southbank Centre. Still an amazing building, but not the right amazing building!
more context here https://c20society.org.uk/news/if-not-now-when-c20-renews-34...
Absolutely hideous, alienating, and inhuman. Not everything in cities needs to very preserved.
It’s not an exaggeration to say that every day of the year, from maybe noon to midnight, these buildings are surrounded by people enjoying the city - walking along the river, going to arts events, eating out, walking between offices. It’s a hugely popular free public resource that is a massive good for Londoners. Previously (not here but at other points on the river) the water front was private - accessible only to people inside buildings - or derelict, like the areas around Tate Modern and Tower Bridge. This is one of the most human and whatever the opposite of alienating spaces in London today.
Your username is very similar to mine.
It is actually one of the most alive and welcoming spaces in London.
It is beautiful. Please don't be so bigotedly anti-concrete.
Concrete is great, but that thing is still quite ugly.
The Southbank Centre is one of the cultural gems of London and, I'd argue, the world ... you can have your opinion on what it looks like from the outside, but what goes on inside and around it make it incredibly valuable ... so what I assume is your off-the-cuff remark is way off.
I was talking about the architecture, which is the topic of this thread. Of course it's the home to great art, but that does not make it a *building* worthy of architectural distinction or historical protection.
That's fair, but arguable. At this stage I think the architecture and it's reason to be are now so deeply intertwined that you cannot separate them (or would ruin it with the attempt).
I've seen instances where a building is all about what takes place there, demolished, re-built, and lose their soul and former purpose.
I can easily see that happening with the Southbank. It's iconic and embedded so deeply at this stage, despite the the various opinions on its looks.
Great news, surprised it's taken this long
Meanwhile, Anglia Square in Norwich, which looks basically the same, is being demolished.
Annoyingly, if you search for Anglia Square, most of the pictures are actually of adjacent Sovereign House. This is what I'm talking about: https://www.edp24.co.uk/resources/images/19194299.jpg/
The car park there has been falling down on it's own for years and the office spaces vacant for decades.
If they could knock the flyover down too it would be a boon in my opinion.
The flyover is the real reason the area went to shit. I doubt the Anglia Square gentri^H^H^H^H^H^Hregeneration will make much difference. In London I can't think of any "nice" road flyovers. Railway bridges don't seem to have the same effect.
The majority opinion (“it’s ugly, monolithic, oppressive, decaying” etc) is such an obvious take that people don’t bother expressing it, especially on forums like HN where people are trying to be insightful as opposed to negative.
So all we get to hear are the opinions of architectural contrarians and certain left wingers who align with the political side of brutalism (i.e. a reactionary movement against Britain’s beautiful Victorian architecture, which is associated with monied elites and colonialism).
The thing about most art, architecture, etc is that it’s incredibly subjective, so contrasting your own views with “certain left wingers” is pretty much pointless.
I personally think the entire south bank is pretty ugly, but my views on this, my political views or my views on other styles of architecture don’t matter one jot.
If there’s a building a bunch of people care very much about, then let them protect it.
[dead]
[flagged]
If you have a cogent critique of our policy on preserving old buildings, you should articulate it. As things stand you just sound unhinged
[flagged]
Actually many people in the UK appreciate the beauty of concrete architecture. This listing is for us, not random foreigners.