Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Barbican

arslan.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 263 posts

Re: The Barbican

#191

Post by pjc50 »

munificent wrote: post #25
tetris11 wrote: post #9

When people point to examples of bad brutalist architecture, I point them to the Barbican as a beautiful counter-example.

My appreciation of Brutalist architecture seems to be in direct proportion to the number of plants it incorporates. A Brutalist building with zero plants looks like a totalitarian prison hellscape designed to destroy your soul before it destroys your body. A Brutalist building surrounded by trees with every nook containing greenery and vines dangling down looks like some kind of idyllic Star Wars planet populated by…

Unfortunately without careful continuous maintenance the plants destroy the concrete. Whenever I see plants on one of these buildings that's usually a sign it's been abandoned. It has a post-apocalyptic HZD feel. Like the RBS Dundas Street "ziggurat". https://x.com/sallymiranda/status/1400883551751610381

> Perhaps because flat gray concrete is aesthetically ambiguous. When paired with greenery, it looks like stone. In it's absence, it looks like industrial mechanism.

Yes, this is the fundamental error of modernism/brutalism - the belief that flatness and the lack of ornamentation is beautiful. It can be .. but only under optimal conditions, like the concept art. "Material design" for buildings. As soon as it gets a bit weathered and dirty it becomes merely drab. Plants provide some organic variation over the surface, breaking up the now-dirty "clean" lines.

Re: The Barbican

#192

Post by pjc50 »

chilmers wrote: post #50
munificent wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My appreciation of Brutalist architecture seems to be in direct proportion to the number of plants it incorporates. A Brutalist building with zero plants looks like a totalitarian prison hellscape designed to destroy your soul before it destroys your body. A Brutalist building surrounded by trees with every nook containing greenery and vines dangling down looks like some kind of idyllic Star Wars planet populated by…

Agreed. I think greenery and water enhances most architectural styles, but Brutalism is the only one that absolutely _requires_ it. I wonder how differently the perception of the style would be if the Brutalist estates in the UK that became a byword for grimness and ugliness had been embowered and properly maintained by their housing groups and local councils.

For many modern buildings, the concept art used to sell it to the planners has a lot more plants in than actually get planted, or survive the first year.

> embowered

I think this is a typo for "empowered", but it's also a great word for covering something with trees.

Re: The Barbican

#193

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

tweetle_beetle wrote: post #134
rriley wrote: post #127

The Barbican is such a striking example of an architectural utopia, built not just as housing, but as a statement about how people could live, work, and engage with culture in one integrated space. Few others worth exploring... Walden 7 (Spain): A labyrinthine, colorful complex by Ricardo Bofill with inner courtyards and skybridges, aiming for a more social urban life based on B.F. Skinner's Walden Two philosophy. Ar…

I'm not sure how to feel about most of those these days. They are iconic and I'm glad that experimental ideas actually made it to completion, but ultimately they have failed at reimagining life for ordinary people. In the cases of the buildings, over time their value has increased faster than an average dwelling in the vicinity, making them more exclusive and restricting access to those higher and higher up the socio…

That hardly seems like a slight to the proyects but the lack of systemic larger changes no?

The barbican was created as a council proyect for middle class people. Nowadays council houses are considered only for destitute families. So of course the priorities, prices, and accesibility of thsoe houses is very limited compared to what you could do with a proyect like the barbican.

I think with inflation on mind the average salary would be like 70k, which is way above UK average, but certainly very accesible to a large number of working professionals in the UK. There simply is not something half as good for that money being built nowadays in the UK. So obvs Barbican increases in price when there is no analagous purchase possible.

Re: The Barbican

#195

Post by pjc50 »

eru wrote: post #170
devnullbrain wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inaccesibility for mere mortals ruins any claim it has to being a representative of brutalism, IMO. Of course it looks nice, it was made by the City of London at eyewatering cost with absurd levels of craftmanship. The movement wouldn't have such a bad image if other buildings had that kind of budget for upkeep and gardening. But they don't: they're rotten and barren.

It doesn't actually look nice in person, and the craftsmanship ain't anything to write home about. (However I can believe the claims of eyewatering cost.) The shoddy windows are particularly easy to spot, even in the pictures in the article. I'm not even sure these would be legal in Germany.

Hmm, I can't make out the windows. I did used to know someone who lived in City of London flats with single glazing on the thirteenth floor. Nice view but you could feel the heat leaking out and the wind battering them if the weather got up. UK is desperately unserious about windows.

Re: The Barbican

#197

Post by fennecfoxy »

petercooper wrote: post #4

It's one of my favorite places to spend time when in London. It's comfortable, clean, quiet, aesthetically striking, easy to loaf around at, and there's high brow art in numerous forms to enjoy – it's kinda like BBC Radio 3 if it were a neighborhood. It's also five minutes from the Elizabeth Line and the parking is good which is unusual for the City. It's strikingly non-commercial - there are no chains or even conven…

Idk I find the area dirty & busy/litter everywhere, etc. But then many parts of London are like that compared to NZ (where we generally take care of the place better).

It's not so bad once you head out into the counties either I suppose.

Re: The Barbican

#199

Post by pledg »

freyfogle wrote: post #185
talldan wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There was not only no dishwasher, there was literally no space for a dishwasher. This is quite common for older places in the UK. Some places might have been updated to allow for a dishwasher, but there are probably rules against that in the Barbican.

To my knowledge there are no rules against it, it is just a major and expensive plumbing project requiring redoing the whole kitchen. And so as a landlord why bother, you will always find someone willing to rent, no matter how unlivable the place. This dynamic was hardly unique to the Barbican, it was the reality of being a tenant in London, and ultimately one of the reasons I left. London's housing stock is just ter…

I’ve lived in 4 different flats in the Barbican and they all had a dishwasher. I think only the studios you’d have a problem finding space for one. Of course in the others it is a preference whether you want to lose space for other things or not. It is not a lot of extra plumbing. It is usually when they want to preserve the original kitchen (or a cheap landlord as you suggest - although all the ones I had there were great)

Re: The Barbican

#200

Post by fennecfoxy »

eru wrote: post #170
devnullbrain wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inaccesibility for mere mortals ruins any claim it has to being a representative of brutalism, IMO. Of course it looks nice, it was made by the City of London at eyewatering cost with absurd levels of craftmanship. The movement wouldn't have such a bad image if other buildings had that kind of budget for upkeep and gardening. But they don't: they're rotten and barren.

It doesn't actually look nice in person, and the craftsmanship ain't anything to write home about. (However I can believe the claims of eyewatering cost.) The shoddy windows are particularly easy to spot, even in the pictures in the article. I'm not even sure these would be legal in Germany.

You're being downvoted for calling the Barbican a rotting piece of shit that's slowly falling apart.

I think it's a cool building for sure, but like many buildings in the UK (including people's houses) it isn't well taken care of and you can see how grotty the surfaces are on the facade, how things need to be repaired & fixed.

I'm looking to buy a house here and walking down streets of so many areas it's just crazy how people don't take pride in water blasting their driveway or the facade of their house, even things like fixing broken/cracked windows.

And then stupid fucking trends like extending your house with an open conservatory and treating it like another normal room...a single layer of brick in a country that gets cold & wet in Winter! What the hell!

Post reply on HN