Comments on: At Robin Hood Gardens

By: Peter Bavington

Peter Bavington — Wed, 21 Sep 2016 07:25:41 +0000

Well, I have visited Robin Hood Gardens several times and I had a chance to look around the interior during London Open House weekend. Clearly the architecture of Robin Hood Gardens has the power to stir strong emotions, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I am not crazy, but I actually loved the place, particularly the way the two curving arms of the buildings enclose a large and (once) beautiful garden, protecting it from the effect of traffic noise on both sides. The effect is like the quadrangle of one of the larger Oxford or Cambridge colleges. The ribs of varying length – defying any attempt to find a pattern in them – enliven the ‘inner’ facade, and even the blemishes in the concrete remind me of the time-worn surfaces found in an old country church. It is fair to say that the flats – though designed to Parker Morris standards of space, which are now thought to be too generous – do not appear spacious, and that an opportunity was lost to provide true balconies rather than narrow fire-escapes on the inner walls. The lifts are dismal: but no different from 100s of others fitted in local authority estates. The clue to encouraging people to respect the lifts is to make them less like narrow prison cells – as we have now learnt, with glass sided lifts. The true reason for the failure of RHG, I think, is lack of maintenance and security over many years.

By: rosemary ind

rosemary ind — Mon, 22 Aug 2016 11:28:33 +0000

Call a building ‘Brutalist’ and demolish it. It is an ignorant style name that comes from the French, meaning reinforced concrete that is not faced with, eg brick (adds to the cost) or painted, which needs regular maintenance (adds to the cost) but is left ‘raw’- ‘brut’.
Concrete is a sort of re-formed rock or stone. Those who don’t like it would probably not like stone buildings such as the Welsh stone-built terrace house that I live in.
People whose idea of ‘beautiful’ is clean and well-kept will dislike any building that falls into disrepair.
The woman who describes the good points of her flat ( that she still visits) so well recognised in it exactly the qualities that the Smithsons , and Christopher Woodward, worked with such good will to provide for her.

By: pep

pep — Sat, 20 Aug 2016 13:19:09 +0000

This is a story about people, not architectural styles. And as such it’s illuminating: It shows (again) what what governments stand for and facilitate: Social cleansing.

By: nick pollicott

nick pollicott — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 18:22:05 +0000

These hideous concrete blocks are yet another example of buildings designed by architects who never have to live in them.
They should never have been built in the fist place.

By: pauline taylor

pauline taylor — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 17:58:26 +0000

I agree with comments made here, there is nothing but nothing that excuses the protection of Brutalism, but decent people will always try to make the best of a bad thing, and they will have happy memories of their lives here. Nevertheless the sooner this appalling architecture is destroyed the better in my view, it is responsible for many social problems so good riddance to it. Perhaps a lesson has been learnt as to how their surroundings can have a very negative on vulnerable people so that we will provide them with affordable pleasant homes in the future. We can but hope!!

By: Leana Pooley

Leana Pooley — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 14:06:45 +0000

The architects of Robin Hood Gardens, the Smithsons, lived in an attractive Victorian house with a garden in a leafy street and they also had their country place, a small glass and concrete cube set within an old walled garden in Wiltshire. When I look at these very good photos of Robin Hood Gardens I see barracks for worker-ants. I would find it hard to think of Home Sweet Home. I feel so angry that many people had no choice but to live there and the lack of maintenance would have meant that all the common parts – staircases, lifts, passages, the landscape outside – would have become run-down, litter-strewn, and places of danger. I hope that the inhabitants are moved to places where they can feel safe and comfortable, that they can be proud of and in pleasant, friendly neighbourhoods. The sorts of places, in fact, that the Smithsons lived in.

By: Franco

Franco — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 11:03:33 +0000

Robert Green (above) may “HATE” Robin Hood Gardens, but from what the writer says, people who live there now and in the past have other, more nuanced and complicated things to say about their lives there.

It seems that the rich and powerful are socially cleansing the area to make the space available for themselves. It doesn’t matter what you call it, class war or otherwise.

By: Annette Keith

Annette Keith — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 10:24:41 +0000

Good Morning, In the St Louis, MO-USA, there was a housing project called D’ARCE WEB HOUSING PROJECT -1975 . The project was built many years ago to give low or free housing to those who were declared disadvantaged. The children and young adult attended an aged school nearby where the front entrance to the administrator’s office, the floor was sloping where so many had walked through. The housing for these young people and their families was several stories high, the residents were-the Wrestling Micheal Spinks’ grandmother and often several of her grandchildren. The top floor looked sky high, not too different from this Robin Hood Gardens. The same social issues and governmental Fed. programs required that the US housing projects were not in livable shape, too many crammed together-so in 1979 or so our Government built 2-4 bedroom attachable housing (the FED Govt. forgot one issue that plagued all of the other social concepts) OCCUPENCY LAWS. WITHIN A few years this idea faltered-people still like large families and the whole concept of better living conditions was a disaster. Feds. moved everyone out, rebuilt the project, wrote the laws to keep the number of people down contract and rental agreements. THIS IS IN LAFAYETTE SQUARE.
Our Countries, Britain and the USA have governments with big pocket and social cleansing on the bill. Our Dear USA is a big mess of a melting pot-I don’t mind-but the issues of sharing equally with others, lowers standards, does not stop the drug issue, and the people the governments redesign of housing, well, it is a disaster.

By: Joan

Joan — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:35:43 +0000

decant
dɪˈkant
verb
gradually pour (wine, port, or another liquid) from one container into another, typically in order to separate out sediment.
“he decanted the rich red liquid into some glasses”
synonyms: pour out, pour off, draw off, siphon off, drain, tap, tip, discharge, transfer
“the wine was decanted into a clean flask”
BRITISH
temporarily transfer (people) to another place.
“tour coaches decant eager customers directly into the store.”
Google

I have to admit, I have never come across this second usage before.

A history of neglect, plus today’s austerity and a lack of commitment since the 1980s to local authority housing has probably left the council little option but to get in bed with developers – though there is probably profit in it for them too, easing their budget – but this makes it hard to condem them outright. Yet the use of the verb ‘decant’ as a synonym for forced eviction/rehousing, despite its documented use as a term for moving people from one place to another, reeks of Newspeak.

Whilst some are moved happily or unhappily to nearby ‘boxes’, albeit in smaller scale less brutal developments, some are moved out of London together. For those with roots in London this must be very difficult. The decanting of those on benefits to other parts of the country saves on the housing benefits bill but at what cost?

As the developers and council chiefs decant their fine wines and even the lowly housing officers pour out the Shiraz and let it breath, I wonder if any of them reflect on language use and the impact of the move on those they have ‘decanted’ on a permanent basis?

By: Graham Moss

Graham Moss — Fri, 19 Aug 2016 09:27:49 +0000

When blocks of flats used to house regular working people are being demolished to make now places for the wealthy to live in, there is nothing ‘phony’ about calling it ‘class war’. In fact, I don’t know what else you could call it, except of course ‘social cleansing’, which is equally as true and honestly descriptive.

Regardless of what anyone might think of the style of the buildings, take it or leave it myself, these were good homes to people who are being shunted about so the Council can work with property developers to make profit. Just doesn’t seem right, and the local councillors should be ashamed that they have fallen prey to the property companies.

Robin Hood and his merry band had, and have, a good point.