Once dismissed as one of London’s ugliest developments, the Barbican has gradually become one of the city’s most important pieces of architectural heritage. Now, however, its nearly 4,000 residents are fighting a proposed 20-storey office building next door, arguing that it would block daylight from their homes and disrupt the complex’s distinctive skyline.
Built in central London on land largely destroyed by German bombing during the Second World War, the Barbican was considered an architectural experiment when it was first conceived.
Designed in the mid-1950s, the 40-acre complex became one of the most striking examples of modernist and Brutalist architecture, with its vast concrete structures, elevated walkways, triangular towers and sharply projecting balconies.
Its reputation in those early years, however, was very different from today.
In a 2003 survey, the Barbican was voted Britain’s “ugliest building”.
Today, the picture could hardly be more different.
With around 2,000 apartments, a theatre, an art gallery and an artificial lake, the Barbican was granted protected status in 2001 in recognition of its architectural significance. Its central London location and cultural importance are reflected in property prices, with a three-bedroom apartment of around 102 square metres sometimes listed for approximately $2 million.
Residents now oppose a new office building
At the centre of the Barbican community’s latest battle is One Silk Street, a proposed office development on the edge of the complex.
The 20-storey building is planned to include offices as well as shops and cafés. Opponents argue that it would cast shadows over their homes, reduce natural light and have a negative impact on London’s skyline.
Jan-Marc Petroschka, an architect and chairman of the Barbican Association, has described the proposal as a building that would “steal light”, dominate its surroundings and look down on the Barbican.
Petroschka, who has lived at the Barbican for more than two decades, says he has no fundamental objection to redeveloping the existing 1980s office building.
His concern is that the new project has been driven more by the pursuit of maximum floor space and profit than by architectural quality.
Stuart Lipton, a partner at developer Lipton Rogers Developments, disagrees.
Lipton, who previously chaired the UK’s government body responsible for architectural design oversight, defended the project by saying he had not spent his life interested in architecture “to produce a bad building”.
In his view, putting a timid building next to something as distinctive as the Barbican would be the wrong approach. Instead, he argues, the new structure should be bold and contemporary.
“You have to build something that respects the scale of the Barbican, the seriousness of its materials and its public role, but contrasts with it,” he said.
Approved despite 1,800 objections
The dispute is part of a broader debate over why building new developments in London can be so difficult.
The western section of the original proposal was reduced from 20 to 16 storeys following objections. Even after the changes, around 1,800 objections were submitted.
The revised plans were approved in May by the City of London’s planning committee following a contentious meeting. Opponents are now considering legal action.
Among those campaigning against the development is British sculptor and artist Antony Gormley.
“Losing light is disastrous for an artist”
Some current residents of the Barbican still remember how controversial the complex itself was when it was first built.
Film and theatre actress Siân Phillips was among those who initially disliked it.
“I didn’t like it when it was built. When I saw the three towers going up, I thought, ‘What idiot is doing this to London?'” the 93-year-old recalled.
Phillips moved to the Barbican around six years ago and says her view has completely changed since then.
Now, however, she fears that the proposed office building will cast part of her home into shadow. She describes the project as “a monster being built here”.
Trevor Kavanagh, the former political editor of The Sun who also lives in the complex, is concerned that the new building will “completely wipe out” the daylight entering his bedroom.
Despite his opposition to the development, Kavanagh says he loves the Barbican for its location, cultural facilities and gardens.
Textile artist Myra Stimson is also determined to continue campaigning against the project.
Stimson moved to the Barbican around four years ago and says the loss of natural light would be particularly damaging to her work.
“As an artist, losing your light is disastrous,” she said.
Once criticised, the Barbican is now a London icon
The attention the Barbican receives today is a striking contrast to the hostility it faced in its early years.
The complex was built on a site that had once contained a Roman fort and a medieval Jewish cemetery, as part of the post-war effort to regenerate central London.
Designed by Peter Chamberlin, Geoffry Powell and Christof Bon, the Barbican was heavily influenced by the modernist ideas of French architect Le Corbusier.
The architects sought to create a system that would separate pedestrians from traffic at a time when car ownership was rapidly expanding.
Construction began in 1963 and was completed in 1982. Queen Elizabeth II officially opened the complex, describing it as “one of the wonders of the modern world”.
The criticism continued for years.
Broadcaster Alistair Cooke famously described it as a combination of “a medieval fortress and the worst of Le Corbusier”.
Today, however, the Barbican is widely regarded as an important part of London’s architectural and cultural heritage.
Its distinctive exterior has featured in television productions including Andor and Slow Horses, as well as numerous music videos, including Harry Styles’ As It Was.
Now the once-maligned complex finds itself questioning the architectural and urban value of a new building proposed on its doorstep.
At the heart of the dispute is a much broader question: how much room should a growing London make for new development, and how much of its architectural heritage can it preserve while continuing to expand?
As developer Lipton puts it: “In a growing city, buildings get bigger.”
The Barbican’s residents, however, argue that London’s growth should not come at the cost of the light reaching their homes.
Be First to Comment