I happen to love brutalist architecture, but in the uk it can sometimes not work (grey rainy days don’t bring out the best of the concrete). However, I think in this case it really works.

It would look better with more maintenance, less graffiti, the absence of litter, and more uncluttered space around it.

I lived locally for 10 years and visited only a handful of times. Mostly it was just an obstacle in itself: it creates a lot of level changes (read: steps) and moving around it on foot or by bike is annoying.

Annoyingly, if you search for Anglia Square, most of the pictures are actually of adjacent Sovereign House. This is what I'm talking about: https://www.edp24.co.uk/resources/images/19194299.jpg/

Concrete is strong and imposing and emotional. It feels authoritative and cold. A warm building feels like it has deliberately undermined its own status to feel welcoming and feels fake. A brutalist building doesn't lie. It is a massive concrete edifice containing a large space within.

It also weathers in distinctive ways. The water stains are like seniority, telling me the building has and will last forever. A big glass skyscraper feels replaceable and new, like it's disposable and will be replaced in a few years.

I get a lot of hate for this but one of the benefits of a concrete house is the ability to throw stones.

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.

Be prepared for every little bit of building work to take twice as long and cost twice as much now. The hands of future users are firmly bound.

That whole stretch of the south bank really benefits from the ban on advertising.

https://shop.barbican.org.uk/products/pod1049390

edit: misread the title, thought we were talking about the barbican again

So all we get to hear are the opinions of architectural contrarians and certain left wingers who align with the political side of brutalism (i.e. a reactionary movement against Britain’s beautiful Victorian architecture, which is associated with monied elites and colonialism).

And there's also the notion that a lot of brutalist architecture that isn't all that beautiful. There are some counter examples of course. But there are also plenty of really nasty urban areas that aren't exactly attracting hordes of tourists because it makes people feel miserable rather than amazed. Cheap construction, a vision that never panned out, etc.

I'm a big fan of the Bauhaus movement because it combines elements of what later became the brutalist movement but with a human perspective. There's something very optimistic about it and they thought hard about the human scale of things and how people would live in these buildings. A lot of that design still feels modern and progressive even a century later. Brutalism lost that human perspective.

1. They go really well with greenery. There is a book and social media account that covers this called Brutalist Plants. The contrast works exceptionally well and reminds me of nature-integrated architecture. I’d almost even say that brutalist buildings without the exterior greenery are incomplete.

2. They are buildings created with a visually coherent philosophy, even if we might disagree with it. That makes them more interesting than most contemporary buildings, which are basically just generic shells made for the smallest budget possible.

The kind of future where it always rains, it’s always nighttime, and people hide themselves away in fear.

What sometimes happens when people say they dislike brutalism, and what is does to people living in the buildings, is they focus on the architecture and not the horrible property mismanagement. The UK has a number of hated brutalist towers and the misery of those living in the building are ascribed to the architecture, not the fact that the buildings are not properly maintained, or that the cities stuffed the flats with the people who are incredibly poor, addicts, in need of mental care, education, support or a mix of all of those things. Now it is also true that many of these buildings are old, typically from the 60s and 70s, and their design no longer suites modern living, but that's true almost all types of architecture. A 1950s brick house barely fits a modern family.

The problem might be exactly that: A brutalist building doesn't lie. If you don't take care of it, and its surroundings, the building will let you know. Nothing is hidden, all of your societal problems are on full public display with a brutalist building.

On a happy note, the incredibly ugly Argyle House in Edinburgh is going to be demolished soon - how anyone thought it was a good idea to build such a thing in that location is a mystery (its evil twin in the form of New St Andrews House having been demolished years ago).

The concert hall is good too.

Barbican is particularly interesting since its part of the city of London, and whereas the city mostly contains bad neoclassical designs that feel dystopian and inhuman Barbican feels like a fresh breath of air.

It has a human centric design and it uses water and greenery to temper the concrete.

Its interesting that crowds in connection to or within the southbank center also always feel lively. I'm uncertain of why, perhaps the concrete makes a counterpoint to humanness and makes us focus on the people in the vicinity.

Perhaps its the cultural programming. But the end result for me was that whenever I was around these blocks of concrete I was almost always in a good mood.

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

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.

> 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.