The Barbican - I hate it!

[Janh]

I hate it, though I do visit regularly. Bits I like are:

Free covered motorcycle parking
The quirky wood tiled foyer
Nice place to waste some time is the reading area for periodicals and magazines in the library
Good comfortable concert venue and cinema

But mostly I agree the place is a carbuncle and the lift signange will outfox many. I'm always left feeling that the man who designed the place had the architects equivalent of dyslexia. Something the City of London is famed for, they continue the tradition of architecture by committee at Paternoster Square.

 

[dada]

i like the barbican.
i usually get lost leaving outside the building though.

 

[Reno]

The British never did understand modernism.

It's my favourite building in London, inside and out.

 

[d.a.s.h]

The Barbican is okay. The library there has a good music and DVD collection, worth joining if you can provide some evidence that you live or work in the City of London.

 

[teuchter]

Pretty much the only place in London you can't hear car traffic, either.

That's a very good observation. The central courtyard around the lake is a strangely peaceful place, especially on a Sunday evening.

The Barbican is brilliant.

Note that it's one of the few buildings of this style which actually has greenery hanging from the terraces and balconies exactly as per a 1960s architect's drawing.

 

[Brainaddict]

Yes, I love that courtyard too.

Reno, it's not that the British didn't understand modernism - only wanky elitist architects say things like that - it's that British architects/developers were shit at it The barbican is an exception.

 

[teuchter]

Reno, it's not that the British didn't understand modernism - only wanky elitist architects say things like that

Maybe it's fairer to say that the British don't really like modernism, for several reasons, including their rather conservative/sentimental taste in architecture compared to other European countries.

 

[Dr. Furface]

Hate going to gigs there though - great accoustics maybe, but the bars have been farmed out to some awful catering provider. Slow service, plastic cups, hugely expensive.

I like going to gigs there but I agree about the bar prices and the airport vibe - however there is a pub near the concert hall entrance which is so close you can nip round there even in intervals.

On the whole I like the place, even if it is labyrinthine, but that's part of its unique character. I grew to like it some years ago when I lived nearby and used to use the launderette in there... when I eventually found it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Maybe it's fairer to say that the British don't really like modernism, for several reasons, including their rather conservative/sentimental taste in architecture compared to other European countries.

More likely, after WWII, the British tried to do modernism on the cheap - there are tons of crap modernist tower blocks in the UK. Good modernist buildings aren't cheap.

 

[Brainaddict]

Maybe it's fairer to say that the British don't really like modernism, for several reasons, including their rather conservative/sentimental taste in architecture compared to other European countries.

Ah but you've got to ask, how much is the 'sentimental' (as people in the architecture business like to put it) taste in architecture due to the shitness of modern architecture in Britain. Thing is, for every Barbican in this country there are a hundred Euston Towers or Archway Towers. The only other places I've seen so much terrible architecture in Europe was in Eastern European ex-soviet countries. Most of north west Europe doesn't have as much of the train-crash architecture you see all over the place in Britain. I was amazed by the modern architecture in Copenhagen recently. But you don't see stuff that well designed here very often. So people here decide they prefer the older stuff. You can call it sentimentality if you like, or you can call it rejection of shit architecture. You pick your side of the fence, but I know which side has the larger group - and it's not the one with the architects

 

[Brainaddict]

More likely, after WWII, the British tried to do modernism on the cheap - there are tons of crap modernist tower blocks in the UK. Good modernist buildings aren't cheap.

That was particularly a problem with housing because it was social housing - but there was still no reason for the offices and so on to be so shit.

 

[teuchter]

Ah but you've got to ask, how much is the 'sentimental' (as people in the architecture business like to put it) taste in architecture due to the shitness of modern architecture in Britain. Thing is, for every Barbican in this country there are a hundred Euston Towers or Archway Towers. The only other places I've seen so much terrible architecture in Europe was in Eastern European ex-soviet countries. Most of north west Europe doesn't have as much of the train-crash architecture you see all over the place in Britain. I was amazed by the modern architecture in Copenhagen recently. But you don't see stuff that well designed here very often. So people here decide they prefer the older stuff. You can call it sentimentality if you like, or you can call it rejection of shit architecture. You pick your side of the fence, but I know which side has the larger group - and it's not the one with the architects

It is of course correct that the popular aversion to "modern" architecture is down at least in part to the really bad examples of cheaply built stuff thrown up after the war.

But I'm not sure it's entirely true to say that other countries didn't have the same thing at that time, though.

Sure, the quality of modern (I presume you mean modern - ie recently built - rather than modernist) architecture is generally higher in many other countries but I think this is due to it being more accepted. There are loads of examples of what could be good modern architecture here that don't get built because of conservative planning officers whose tastes reflect the "general public". So we end up with a lot of watered down schemes or olde-style plastic pastiche instead.

(The other thing is that british builders are a bit crap, compared to, say, German ones. And sharp modern detailing is less tolerant of this, so you do see more examples of shoddily constructed "modern" architecture here - which doesn't help.)

 

[Brainaddict]

I'm sure you have some good points, but what really gets my goat - as you can probably tell - is these architects who consider themselves 'artists' standing round slapping each other on the back for building these great buildings while most of the population hates them. It's fine for genuine artists to be that elitist because their artwork can be avoided. It is not fine for architects to behave like that. Ultimately if the public hates their buildings it is *them* who have failed, not the public. I try to explain this to architects when I meet them and they always disagree. No no, they say, eventually the tastes of the hoi polloi will catch up with us trailblazers.

No. No, I don't think they will.

If the public doesn't like your buildings, change them, instead of commiserating with each other about how fucking misunderstood you are. That's all I ask.




Right, I'm going to copy that to the little rant thread.

Back to the barbican...

 

[teuchter]

I'm sure you have some good points, but what really gets my goat - as you can probably tell - is these architects who consider themselves 'artists' standing round slapping each other on the back for building these great buildings while most of the population hates them. It's fine for genuine artists to be that elitist because their artwork can be avoided. It is not fine for architects to behave like that. Ultimately if the public hates their buildings it is *them* who have failed, not the public. I try to explain this to architects when I meet them and they always disagree. No no, they say, eventually the tastes of the hoi polloi will catch up with us trailblazers.

No. No, I don't think they will.

If the public doesn't like your buildings, change them, instead of commiserating with each other about how fucking misunderstood you are. That's all I ask.

Yes, much of what you say is absolutely true, but also it's not quite as simple as that. I'll try and respond more fully some time later when I've got more time....

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I'm sure you have some good points, but what really gets my goat - as you can probably tell - is these architects who consider themselves 'artists' standing round slapping each other on the back for building these great buildings while most of the population hates them. It's fine for genuine artists to be that elitist because their artwork can be avoided. It is not fine for architects to behave like that. Ultimately if the public hates their buildings it is *them* who have failed, not the public. I try to explain this to architects when I meet them and they always disagree. No no, they say, eventually the tastes of the hoi polloi will catch up with us trailblazers.

People who are visually trained and have spent years considering the question of architecture should lead public opinion not merely follow it.

Archtecture by focus group would lead to uniform mediocrity. Give me a heroic failure over mediocrity any day.

(or *shudder* a Prince Charles vision of the built landscape.)

 

[Brainaddict]

But I don't buy it just being about conservative planning officers either, or about having to do things cheaply. Look at the proliferation of glass boxes around London at the moment. Next to the (incidentally cocked-up) GLA building for example:

They're built on prime sites for businesses, so no reason for them to be done on the cheap. But there's nothing conservative about them either - they're clearly very new and different from older surrounding architecture. There is however something very fucking boring about them. Yet they seem to be in fashion with architects

 

[Reno]

Reno, it's not that the British didn't understand modernism - only wanky elitist architects say things like that - it's that British architects/developers were shit at it The barbican is an exception.

As the OP proves the great British public are mostly unable to tell good modernist architecture from bad. The are still calls to have the National Theatre pulled down now. There are plenty of great examples of modernist architecture in the UK, much of it is still met with a degree of hostility you wouldn't get anywhere else in Europe, where people don't mythologise the past to the degree they do here.

 

[teuchter]

But I don't buy it just being about conservative planning officers either, or about having to do things cheaply. Look at the proliferation of glass boxes around London at the moment. Next to the (incidentally cocked-up) GLA building for example:

They're built on prime sites for businesses, so no reason for them to be done on the cheap. But there's nothing conservative about them either - they're clearly very new and different from older surrounding architecture. There is however something very fucking boring about them. Yet they seem to be in fashion with architects

As a matter of interest can you give us a couple of examples of what you consider good modern architecture?

 

[Brainaddict]

As a matter of interest can you give us a couple of examples of what you consider good modern architecture?

For instance, the National Theatre is good (and plenty of people think so) while the Hayward Gallery has no redeeming features and should be dynamited as soon as possible.

Or if you want more recent buildings - this building, while not spectacular, has shape, colour, structure to it:

While the above buildings around the gla do not. Glass boxes to me are almost anti-architecture. There's nothing there - just an enormous mirror blocking the horizon.

 

[teuchter]

the Hayward Gallery has no redeeming features and should be dynamited as soon as possible.

Can't agree with you there! I can see why people don't like it but as a one-off it's great. It's such a badly-behaved building on the outside I can't help but like it.

And I think the gallery spaces once you're inside are pretty good.

 

[Rogue]

I Live in the Barbican


People do seem to have a lot of trouble finding my flat and I don't even live in a that complicated bit. Describing to people how to get to my flat is unbelievably complicated considering its only 2 minutes walk from the tube.

It pretty cool to live there although its a little bit sterile on a day to day basis and generally the residential bits are mostly ghost towns. I have to say that after 4 years of living there I hardly ever use any of the services on offer in the centre. Not really too sure why. I used to go to the cinema a lot there but I've kind of stopped going.

The communal bits are nice plus if you're a resident you get a key that lets you into all the private garden bits and in the summer they are pretty wonderful. There are these little island things that extend out into the central lake that you can access which I like.

Also the rubbish gets collected right from a little hatch inside your flat every morning. They even sort your recycling out for you. I think although the service charge is huge you do actually get services that are well above par compared to most apartment blocks.

I'm happy to answer any questions if you want.

I'm moving out next week which all and all I'll be a bit sad about.

 

[teuchter]

I Live in the Barbican


People do seem to have a lot of trouble finding my flat and I don't even live in a that complicated bit. Describing to people how to get to my flat is unbelievably complicated considering its only 2 minutes walk from the tube.

It pretty cool to live there although its a little bit sterile on a day to day basis and generally the residential bits are mostly ghost towns. I have to say that after 4 years of living there I hardly ever use any of the services on offer in the centre. Not really too sure why. I used to go to the cinema a lot there but I've kind of stopped going.

The communal bits are nice plus if you're a resident you get a key that lets you into all the private garden bits and in the summer they are pretty wonderful. There are these little island things that extend out into the central lake that you can access which I like.

Also the rubbish gets collected right from a little hatch inside your flat every morning. They even sort your recycling out for you. I think although the service charge is huge you do actually get services that are well above par compared to most apartment blocks.

I'm happy to answer any questions if you want.

I'm moving out next week which all and all I'll be a bit sad about.

Some friends of mine used to live in one of the top flats in the long blocks with the barrel roofs on them. They had a barbecue on the roof once (don't think they were really supposed to do that) which was pretty cool. Also they had the key to the little gardens by the lake you mention. Do you live in one of the towers? I've always wanted to see inside one of the flats near the top of those. The views must be quite something.

 

[Brainaddict]

It's such a badly-behaved building on the outside I can't help but like it.

Ah, nicely done. This sentence epitomises the gulf between architects and normal people. Normal people like their building based on usability (you can't even find the doors to get into the Hayward Gallery) and aesthetic appeal (*beep*, sorry, none available).
Architects think normal people are terrible simplistic for only being concerned with these things.
Normal people think architects are...

Well, let's not descend to that level. Not yet

 

[Rogue]

Some friends of mine used to live in one of the top flats in the long blocks with the barrel roofs on them. They had a barbecue on the roof once (don't think they were really supposed to do that) which was pretty cool. Also they had the key to the little gardens by the lake you mention. Do you live in one of the towers? I've always wanted to see inside one of the flats near the top of those. The views must be quite something.

I live on the 5th floor of one of the smaller blocks - the barrel roof ones are on the 6th floor. - I can see centre point and UCH hospital from my window so I can't complain. Could use a bit more room on the balcony though.

I believe that flats in the towers are 3 (2?) bedrooms or more so buying something in one of those is hard. Mine is a studio and even that costs stupid money.

 

[teuchter]

Ah, nicely done. This sentence epitomises the gulf between architects and normal people. Normal people like their building based on usability (you can't even find the doors to get into the Hayward Gallery) and aesthetic appeal (*beep*, sorry, none available).
Architects think normal people are terrible simplistic for only being concerned with these things.
Normal people think architects are...

Well, let's not descend to that level. Not yet

I think you're stereotyping both architects and "normal people" there.

Any decent architect is concerned with usability and aesthetics.

Finding the entrance to the Hayward was difficult. It is a fault with the building that has recently been partly remedied by the alterations to the foyer area. It's one of many faults with the building that makes it "badly behaved" (along with its deliberate ugliness by most peoples' standards) as I said. There's no way that I'd advocate a whole city being built in the same manner as the Hayward but as a one-off it's fine, especially somewhere like the south bank which is supposed to be a bit more challenging than, say, the O2 or the Trocadero.

Aesthetics is a subjective matter of course. You admitted to liking the National Theatre. Many "normal people" don't. Where's the architect/normal dividing line there? Have you fallen on the wrong side of it?

Anyway I think this discussion deserves a thread of its own which I might start some day soon....

 

[Brainaddict]

Course I'm stereotyping. Sometimes it's useful to make a point - the point here being that architecture as a profession is divorced from its users. And I feel about as much guilt stereotyping architects as I do stereotyping politicians

If you want my view, architects either seem to regard their profession as an art or regard it as a science - or some mixture of both. I think both ideas are very misguided. It should be seen a service. Much the same as a website designer provides a service to clients. In other words, I think architects should be taken down a peg or two, take a back seat, listen to what their users want and stop trying to wave their willies around

 

[Poi E]

In other words, I think architects should be taken down a peg or two, take a back seat, listen to what their users want and stop trying to wave their willies around

Most I know work to a budget on not very glamorous projects. Aren't you really thinking of people like Foster etc?

 

[teuchter]

Course I'm stereotyping. Sometimes it's useful to make a point - the point here being that architecture as a profession is divorced from its users. And I feel about as much guilt stereotyping architects as I do stereotyping politicians

If you want my view, architects either seem to regard their profession as an art or regard it as a science - or some mixture of both. I think both ideas are very misguided. It should be seen a service. Much the same as a website designer provides a service to clients. In other words, I think architects should be taken down a peg or two, take a back seat, listen to what their users want and stop trying to wave their willies around

The thing is that you will often find me arguing something along the lines of what you are saying against willy-waving architects, and there are certainly some of those knocking around.

But it's very unfair to say that "architecture as a profession is divorced from its users". Remember that clients and users are not always (in fact seldom) the same thing. As soon as architecture becomes no more than a "service" to clients the quality of the built environment will fade into banality and driven entirely by commercial pressures. This is already happening in fact, as many of the traditional roles of the architect are becoming taken over by project managers, quantity surveyors and design-and-build contractors. This produces at best mediocre buildings and it's not in the interest of the "user". (And of course it's the architectural profession continues to get the blame for the crap buildings this system produces).

Architecture is very definitely an art; the fact that there are so many bad buildings proves how difficult it is to make a good one. And it is to some extent a science. Most significantly it's a constant negotiation between a multitude of different pressures and constraints, be they aesthetic, practical, technical, political, regulatory, financial or geographical, that most end users aren't even faintly aware of.

Much as I am averse to architectural willy-waving in principle, there are some situations in which a little bit of it can be a good thing. The National Theatre is a prime example of the kind of building that would never in a million years have happened if its architect had "taken a back seat".

 

[Brainaddict]

Most I know work to a budget on not very glamorous projects. Aren't you really thinking of people like Foster etc?

Not entirely, no, though he is one of the worst offenders obviously. I feel like debates in architecture tend to happen between architects, or sometimes between architects and planners/other professionals, not between architects and the people who use their products. And that applies to the smaller projects as well as the bigger ones.

 

[teuchter]

Most I know work to a budget on not very glamorous projects. Aren't you really thinking of people like Foster etc?

He is probably thinking more of people like Will Alsop, Daniel Liebeskind and Zaha Hadid, to be fair.