←back to thread

The Barbican

(arslan.io)
723 points farslan | 3 comments | 12 May 25 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
mjamil ◴[12 May 25 20:38 UTC] No.43967211[source]▶
It is utterly weird to me that so many commenters here appreciate the Barbican's aesthetics. To me, it is an ugly eyesore that's a legacy of the brutalist wave of the mid-20th century. I lived close to it (in Islington) for many months, and avoided walking through it to get to the City (where I worked).
replies(5): >>43967422 #>>43967429 #>>43967794 #>>43971619 #>>43972111 #
1. eszed ◴[12 May 25 21:01 UTC] No.43967422[source]▶
Like - at least in my opinion - many brutalist buildings, it's ugly from the outside and gorgeous on the inside. I've explored it many times, and agree with everything in this article and in the positive comments in the thread. And... I kinda agree with you, too. What experience - interior or exterior - architects should prioritize is an interesting conundrum.
replies(1): >>43967663 #
2. xixixao ◴[12 May 25 21:33 UTC] No.43967663[source]▶
I agree the interior is nicer than the exterior.

But it’s still dreary, in person, on a cloudy day. This style looks good in drawings, well lit and edited photos, but I think it’s a false/failed direction in living reality (specifically the facade, the building shape, “tunnels” etc).

replies(1): >>43969944 #
3. eszed ◴[13 May 25 05:56 UTC] No.43969944[source]▶
> dreary, in person, on a cloudy day

I mean, what isn't? :-)

The tunnels are kinda ick, and there are other bits I don't like, also. There's a walkway I've ended up on a time or two that's just bare and windswept, and badly needs... Something to break it up.

Still, though: I think I'd be pretty happy living there (even if it mightn't be my top choice). The (both design and amenity) positives outweigh the negatives, which I cannot say about many, many other parts of London. Do you disagree with that?