[thomasfl]

Some brutalist architecture may be preserved, as a warning for future generations about the danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.

I am the founder of the architectural uprising non-profit in Norway. The primary goal of architecture is in my view to increase peoples quality of life and to ensure social, economic and environmentally sustainability for future generations. Both the Southbank center and the Barbican center in London fails in my view. Innovation in architecture is a good thing. Now lets face the fact that most brutalists experiments over the last 80 years has failed miserably. Intensions in architecture is good. But not this buildings intentions of eradicating history and ignoring peoples feelings.

[627467]

> danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.

Like there's architecture that doesn't mix politics and/ideology? I sense conservatism in your comment which is a perspective/ideology (which i share btw). Ultimately I feel that taste drives a lot of these takes, not ideology or politics.

I've enjoyed the public areas of the barbican many many times - my only complain (its been many years I haven't been) is it doesn't have a lot of people sharing that space. You'll see that as argument that many people dont share my taste or the actual ideology/politics that led to that style is rejected by the public. I say: the barbican sits in the middle of one of the most depopulated (as in residents not office workers) of London. The areas around it are among the most expensive real estate in London. We all know how many European capitals and London in particular have become a piggy bank for the wealthy so I'd argue most people just cant afford to experience the barbican as well and as often for being pushed out

[keiferski]

Have you been to the barbican? I haven’t been in an apartment myself, but I have been in the outdoor areas multiple times.

It’s very cool, and feels very well designed. It’s also consistently in demand as a place to live. So I’m not sure why you think it hasn’t increased the residents’ quality of life.

[the_other]

I've visited a flat/appartment in one of the Barbican towers. It was comfy, pleasant. The lifts and hallways were well maintained, well lit, generous dimensions (compared with many London apartment blocks I've seen). It felt like a "good" tower block, rather than a "bad" one.

The arts complex is amazing (slightly confusing, but very functional and fairly pleasant to be inside). The outside spaces create a buzzy calm.

I think it's an excellent complex.

[cbeach]

I used to work next door to the Barbican and occasionally visit the site on my lunch breaks.

The old decaying concrete, monolithic construction, dark alleys, stagnant algae-filled lakes, dirty windows around a tropical plant space, pretentious art installations - it was all quite interesting to my morbid curiosity. But I always left the Barbican feeling lonely and bleak.

I cannot imagine the misery of living in that environment and having it seep into your soul.

I moved out of London, and live in the countryside now. There is something transcendent about being surrounded by natural beauty, and being far, far away from urban over-development.

[davidivadavid]

Looking at Youtube videos of Barbican apartment visits for 15 minutes will tell you this poster is projecting quite a bit.

[the_other]

Your two opening paragraphs seem opposed to one another.

> Some brutalist architecture may be preserved, as a warning for future generations about the danger of mixing politics, ideology and architecture.

> I am the founder of the architectural uprising non-profit in Norway. The primary goal of architecture is in my view to increase peoples quality of life and to ensure social, economic and environmentally sustainability for future generations.

Can you expand on the "dangers" expressed in the buildings, and how your foundation attempts to mitigate those dangers?

Also:

> Now lets face the fact that most brutalists experiments over the last 80 years has failed miserably.

Yeah, there are a lot of failures, but you've picked on two structures which are broadly successful which is diminishing your point somewhat.