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 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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
19 comments
[ 5.6 ms ] story [ 46.0 ms ] threadAnnoyingly, 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/
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.
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.
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.
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).
https://shop.barbican.org.uk/products/pod1049390
edit: misread the title, thought we were talking about the barbican again
It would look better with more maintenance, less graffiti, the absence of litter, and more uncluttered space around it.
That whole stretch of the south bank really benefits from the ban on advertising.
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.
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.