Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

How could CPB have got it so terribly wrong?

  • Comment
Letters

In his review of the exhibition at Chamberlin Powell & Bon's (CPB) Barbican about the Barbican, John McLean, as a resident, concentrates on the housing aspects of the Barbican, as does the exhibition (AJ 28.2.02). It is salutary to be reminded that the Barbican is primarily a housing scheme - an attempt by the City to legitimise itself as a real place where people lived, not just a machine for manipulating money. It was a bold and remarkably successful attempt to create an urban housing scheme, conceived when the urban Lord Rogers was barely out of short trousers. But the public face of the Barbican, the gilt on the gingerbread and, for most people, the only reason for fighting our way across the high-level walkways, is the Arts Centre, about which the exhibition is much less informative.

What I want to know is what went wrong. Why, given that the Barbican was designed for pedestrian circulation at podium level is the entrance from the podium so mean? Why was the original plan for the Arts Centre to share its entrance with the Guildhall School of Music abandoned so that the GSM is now entered by its intended back door?

How did it come about that a Grand Staircase descends through the art gallery and library and is predictably closed for security reasons, and vertical circulation is via the escape stairs? Why does the only welcoming side of the building open onto the lakeside, an area inaccessible from the surrounding streets? Why, when the concert hall was designed for the LSO, is its platform barely big enough for a full-size symphony orchestra, never mind a choir as well?

It is difficult to believe that CPB got so much wrong. Was the brief changed? It would make a fascinating Post-Latham study of how the building procurement process can fall apart.

I don't suppose the City will ever let us know.

Alan Kennedy, London

  • Comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.