←back to thread

The Barbican

(arslan.io)
723 points farslan | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.762s | source
Show context
tetris11 ◴[] No.43964795[source]
When people point to examples of bad brutalist architecture, I point them to the Barbican as a beautiful counter-example.
replies(2): >>43964903 #>>43965276 #
munificent ◴[] No.43965276[source]
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 fuzzy hobbit-like creatures.

I'm not sure why I find this effect so strong. 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.

replies(3): >>43965918 #>>43966670 #>>43970834 #
1. pjc50 ◴[] No.43970834[source]
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.