Helen Barrett

Abstract and concrete: the beauty of brutalism

Our modernist architecture is increasingly at risk, and we should cherish it more than we do, say Owen Hatherley and Nicholas Kenyon

Modernism for the wealthy: ‘The Barbican operates alongside the existing city, not as part of it.’ Looking up at the corner of one of the low-level residential blocks. [Getty Images] 
issue 05 February 2022

Nothing divides the British like modernist architecture. Traditionalists are suspicious of its utopian ambitions and dismiss it as ugly; proponents romanticise it, yearn for the civic principles that built it and gloss over its failings; the young see period charm in flat roofs and straight lines, while the old associate them with deprivation; the wealthy mostly avoid it — and many people have no choice but to live in it. Nearly 100 years after Le Corbusier set out his five points of modern architecture the British are still arguing about its merits, partly because we still live with so much of it: housing, offices and civic and industrial buildings.

Two new books may change our perspective — or at least convince us that neither side is entirely right. The first, by the cultural journalist Owen Hatherley, is a weighty, glossy gazetteer of the most significant British modernist buildings. The second is a celebration of the Barbican Centre, London’s cherished late-modernist arts and housing complex, written to mark its 40th anniversary.

Comments

Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months

Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.

Already a subscriber? Log in