[mjamil]

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).

[ljm]

Maybe because other brutalist estates in London aren’t nearly as well kept or, uh, wealthy, than the Barbican is. And perhaps it’s uncommon to wander through such estates when you don’t live in them.

The old Robin Hood Gardens before they were demolished were quite unwelcoming, looking from the outside. You wouldn’t go anywhere near those kind of estates unless you were a resident, and you’d have a very different impression as someone who saw what it was like internally.

[frutiger]

Heh, very strange to see someone mention this online. (I grew up in the non-Brutalist but nearby Aberfeldy Estate, and now live a few thousand miles away).

[eszed]

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.

[xixixao]

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).

[eszed]

> 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?

[IshKebab]

It's definitely one of the least bad brutalist constructions. It's also quite nice if you're walking around inside it on the walkways.

It's awful if you're walking along actual roads though. I would avoid it too.

[cbeach]

Brutalism was a reactionary movement against ornate Victorian and Georgian architecture, which was seen as elitist and emblematic of the "property owning class"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brutalist_architecture

> In the United Kingdom, brutalism was featured in the design of utilitarian, low-cost social housing influenced by socialist principles and soon spread to other regions around the world, while being echoed by similar styles like in Eastern Europe

So beware the vocal minority of English socialists that have a politically-tainted take on this architecture.

The rest of us agree with you. It's offensively ugly!

[BoxOfRain]

To me it's a totalitarian style, it tells people 'I'm unashamedly ugly and I couldn't care any less what you think about that'. It goes out of its way to be imposing and institutional as though it's designed not for humans but for entirely fungible economic resources who in time will be burned up and discarded.

It's ironic the style is so strongly associated with socialism I think because it's much more 'dark Satanic mills' than 'England's green and pleasant land'.

[gadders]

It's not beautiful, but it's nowhere near as ugly as the South Bank Centre. I would flatten that in an instant.