Good god, that You belong here seems more like an insult than inviting to me…
Perhaps it was ... to you.
Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
51–60 of 70 posts
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#52[dead]
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#53I'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…
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.
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#54Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#55I'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…
> 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.
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#56Although Brutalism is not my favourite architectural style, I still appreciate it done well. This particular building is 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
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#57Is 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.
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 disagre…
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!
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#58Absolutely hideous, alienating, and inhuman. Not everything in cities needs to very preserved.
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.
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#59I'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…
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.
Re: Brutalist Southbank Centre Listed
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.