←back to thread

The Barbican

(arslan.io)
723 points farslan | 4 comments | 12 May 25 15:28 UTC | HN request time: 0.753s | source
Show context
rriley ◴[12 May 25 21:51 UTC] No.43967815[source]▶
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.

Arcosanti (USA): Paolo Soleri’s desert experiment in “arcology”, architecture + ecology—exploring sustainable living in a compact footprint.

Unité d'Habitation (France): Le Corbusier’s "vertical garden city" combining apartments, shops, and communal spaces into one concrete megastructure.

Habitat 67 (Canada): Modular housing units stacked like Lego, Moshe Safdie’s vision for dense yet humane urban living.

Auroville (India): Founded in the 1960s as an experimental township aiming for human unity beyond politics and religion.

replies(1): >>43968090 #
tweetle_beetle ◴[12 May 25 22:35 UTC] No.43968090[source]▶
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-economic ladder - effectively turning them into gated community without the residents needing to feel the guilt of living behind physical gates.

The buildings are still there, and they have inhabitants, but the investment potential has long outlived any philosophy. I guess you could argue there are some secondary effects from their influence, but I wonder how the architects would feel today.

See also Park Hill https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_Hill%2C_Sheffield

replies(3): >>43970181 #>>43970856 #>>43971055 #
1. eru ◴[13 May 25 06:47 UTC] No.43970181[source]▶
For a more positive example, you might look at what the 'Housing and Development Board' managed to put up in Singapore. See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pinnacle@Duxton and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Housing_and_Development_Board in general.

However, I feel like HDB should declare victory and go home.

replies(1): >>43971506 #
2. lmz ◴[13 May 25 10:41 UTC] No.43971506[source]▶
I don't think that Pinnacle project in particular is one to use against "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-economic ladder".

It's not gated but it definitely is not affordable now. The first owners probably felt like they won the lottery.

replies(2): >>43974040 #>>43979401 #
3. zhivota ◴[13 May 25 15:30 UTC] No.43974040[source]▶
Agreed, stuff like Punggol town is IMO much more accessible and interesting. It's truly an awesome place, affordable, well connected with transit as part of its design, etc.
4. eru ◴[14 May 25 00:23 UTC] No.43979401[source]▶
I don't think its value 'has increased faster than an average dwelling in the vicinity': the Pinnacle is very close to the city centre. I live in a shop house around the corner. These are even more expensive. And so are the condos nearby, too.

But in any case, I brought up the Pinnacle as a short-hand for a nice looking HDB, not to say that it's affordable. The city centre is very much not affordable.

You are right that further out, you can get much cheaper flats. Like in almost any city on the planet.