ROBIN HOOD

'An exemplar – a demonstration of a more enjoyable way of living in an old industrial part of a city. It is a model of a new mode of urban organisation where you will be able to smell, feel and experience the new life that is beeing offered through your full range of sences.
One of the men on site said that this, what we were trying to do, was too good for the people that were going to live in it. We find this unacceptable to say that it is too good.'

Alison and Peter Smithson, 1970

While studying architecture, I became interested in Brutalism, so on my trip to London I had to visit the iconic Robin Hood Gardens in Poplar.

For many of those just passing through the neighborhood Robin Hood is just another example of concrete building, pretty much as all the other slab blocks built all over London during the post-war years. But in fact you would hardly find a single architecture textbook without mentioning not only this unique residential complex, but also without praised texts about the creators – Peter and Alison Smithson, who were the first representatives, I would even say, leaders of English brutalism and main ideologists of socially-orientated architecture. 

Along with certain themes recurring in the Smithsons’ writings—concerning the relationship between the scales of design, from the home to the city, and the need to study the past to find models for emulation—the viewpoint of the pedestrian became central to their understanding of cities and landscapes. Their main approach was that contemporary residential housing should be built in a cheap industrial way and should reproduce the habitual model of the living environment. Especially that after the war England did not have enough means for recovery, but had an ambitious desire to rebuild the nation, so the idea of affordable buildings was more than appealing. The main intention of the architects was to give to everyone access to the decent housing, regardless of the level of income, to give sunlight to all apartments and to transform the urban environment itself, some kind of a radical alternative to the historical city, but with the familiar context.

Familiarity in England meant a street of terraced houses or locked single-family houses with private back gardens where all communication between residents take place on this street. And so the Smithsons tried to reproduce in new forms what all were used to: neighbours help each other and form a neighborhood community, children play in the street and they can be looked after, and all that within a single complex which includes internal streets of a human scale that should isolate families from external noise and facilitate communication. As a kind of human environment that brings a much larger number of people into contact: a social generator, as they supposed.

Peter and Alison first presented those ideas at CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d'Architecture Moderne, the most influential architectural organization of that time) in 1953, stating that "'Belonging' is a basic emotional need - its associations are of the simplest order. From 'belonging'—identity—comes the enriching sense of neighbourliness. The short narrow street of the slum succeeds where spacious redevelopment frequently fails."

At that time the leading figure of CIAM for more than two decades was Le Corbusier, who remains one of the biggest names of architecture and one of the most influential architects to this day. So when young Peter and Alison declared their principals of urban planning which contradicted main modernist work of Le Corbusier (Athen's Charter, 1933) and offered ideas towards humanizing cold and minimalistic modernism, not only it split the CIAM itself, but also divided the modernist movement leading to some of the main architects of that time following Smithsons’ beliefs and forming new organizations, like Team 10.

However, besides writing lots of theoretical texts the ambitious couple was also trying to manifest their ideas in real construction, unfortunately unsuccessfully for a long time. They participated in many competitions like Golden Lane Estate in London, the urban plan of Hauptstadt, and even won the project for the British Embassy in Brazil, but were again out of luck as this project was closed due to financial issues. They did manage to implement some of the ideas in the Hunstanton Secondary Modern School (established in 1955) and were widely praised in architectural circles and is now a Grade II listed building, but still they were desperately hoping to try themselves in proper social housing, for which most of their research was directed.
 

 

Alison and Peter Smithsons

drawing of "Streets in the Sky"

So when they finally got an opportunity to put all their ideas into real life and were commissioned to design Robin Hood Gardens estate (construction from 1968 untill 1972, more than fifteen years after their speech at CIAM) they embodied it all:

Spacious apartments and large maisonettes with three or four bedrooms on two levels connected by internal, interlocking stairs, with big windows facing both sides to provide lots of light in every apartment.

Separate kitchens and dining rooms for accommodation of additional goods.

Streets in the sky—wide access balconies running the full length of each building—a place of social interaction, so that the residents of such a large apartment complex did not lose contact with each other.

The expressiveness of concrete with a complex rhythm of vertical racks. A masterplan form with two blocks for noise insulation, but at the same time with full glare. Closed yard in between with a hill in the middle that softens the environment and contrasts with the rigid geometric lines of the concrete structure and improves acoustics, all the conditions for socialization without a completely visible territory. 

They thought it all through, even the size of individual rooms and specifics such as the amount of storage space.

But unfortunately, by the 1970s the wider deficiencies of Modernism, first noted by the couple almost twenty years previously, were becoming apparent to the general public as well. And although the architectural community considered Robin Hood Gardens a breakthrough and a masterpiece of

Brutalism, for many people it became associated with social instability only several decades after its completion. It is hard to say whether that happened because of general attitude to Brutalism, which in minds of many suggested hard times and shortages, as well as anti-social or even criminal behaviour, or because of lack of financial support for lower classes and for social housing, or maybe it was just a stereotype that the environment itself had a detrimental impact on its residents, but nevertheless in the beginning of 2000s, Tower Hamlets Council voted for demolition.

I should mention here that this particular estate had a lot of influence and many admirers. Some of the ideas of Robin Hood Gardens were repeated in such projects as Milton Keynes and Park Hill estate in Sheffield, which realized those innovative ideas in different versions. Even in Moscow an entire district was built based on the principals of Robin Hood and called “Model-Perspective Residential District of Severnoe Chertanovo”.

Famous Zaha Hadid was teaching architectural values concepts on the example of this estate and claimed it as one of her favorite projects, which contributed to her work and her understanding of architecture. Richard Rogers, architect of Pompidou Centre and Lloyd’s Building, stated that “it is the most important social housing development from the post-war era in Britain" and started a high-profile preservation campaign which included

But for those who were not familiar with rather narrow architectural world, Robin Hood Gardens appeared more like a black spot on a rather profitable site. So it was denied in listing and was finally approved for pulling down in 2012.

Alison and Peter Smithsons

sketch on Robin Hood Gardens

Five years after the official start of demolition I did find a lot of families still living there, with sometimes fascinating, sometimes sad or unexpected stories. I was even able to see with my own eyes those amazing apartment layouts that I studied in university.  It is a temporary housing for most of those residents, many of them foreign-born and working in relatively low-skilled sectors and occupations, but despite this and the fact that almost third of the apartments are neglected, it gives me hope that the attitudes to Brutalist architecture might change. (Not to mention that there are two other surviving samples of Brutalism in London, the Barbican and Balfron Tower, which have been experiencing a renaissance for already some time.)

There might be an understanding in society that it is not the architecture that was to blame, but rather social circumstances and the management system of the residential estates. That the main reason why building is in such condition is simply because nobody repairs what is broken, as the revenues to the city budget decreasing and there is no one to pay utility bills, not because the Smithsons were fond of the tough concrete exterior. I suppose, that in times of acute housing crisis, when proper dwelling is so expensive that it is almost inaccessible to most people, even for the middle class,  the former social housing of Brutalism suddenly can seem very attractive. As in fact it is well built, well planned, well-lit and very spacious for nowadays. I would even say that it might be the best there is affordable and has potential for implementation of repairs, cultural function, and mixing of the layers of the population for living.

One of the main ideas of Peter and Alison Smithsons was that the proper architecture might work only if there is a high degree of respect for others’ property and could not exist unless there is a considerable social cohesion on the estate. And the future about which they were debating in late 50’s and 60’s on all the architectural events and congresses is probably implied today, as we are in fact much closer to those people who were supposed to live in those projects, rather than those very first tenants, who at that time could not fully experience and appreciate all the advantages of unique architectural environment.

APARTMENTS

105.     Save the building! - no name

106.     It is lovely - Mary, England

107.     We are in a rush, sorry.

108.     Repair - Tanvira, Bangladesh

109.

110.

111.     Save it - no name

112.

113.     It needs refurbishment urgently - Doris

114.     empty

115.     

116.     It’s ok - Taman, Italy

117.

118.

119.     Repair and get rid of the pigeons! - John, England

120.     empty

 121.

122.

123.     Repair - Hamida, Bangladesh

124.

125.     Repair, although we are moving on Wednesday - Nasmal,

            Tessnan, Sara, Bangladesh

126.     Destroy. Leaks near electricity - Mammidi, Guinea

127.

128.     I’ll call the police! - no name 

129.     Repair - Shahed, Ahmed, Bangladesh

130.     Destroy - Shama, Bangladesh

131.      Probably easier to destroy  - Muhit

132.

133.

134.     Water is rusted. Change the pipes - Hasha, Begun, Bangladesh

135.     Save it - Barlin, Somalia

136.     Save it, the apartments are nice - Dorrina, Ghana

137.     Destroy - Dapnived, Shalida, Bangladesh 

138.     Save the building - Forfun

139.     Repair - Shahin, Bangladesh

140.     Save it and repair - Shahida

141.

142.

143.

144.     Repair - Rhineata, Bangladesh

145.

146.

147.

148.

149.

150.

151.

152.     empty

153.

154.     Repair the leaks - Jasmil

155.

156.     Repair - Assiattar, Kmiah

157.

158.     Repair, it ’s nice - Kashem, Kniah

159.

160.

161.      Destroy - Tia, Natasha

162.     Repair - Siddique, Bangladesh

163.

164.

165.

166.

167.

168.     It’s already has been decided! - landlord

169.

170.

171.      There’s no point in saving it - Maria,

            tenant for 42 years, Spain

172.

173.

174.     Destroy - Salma

175.

176.     Repair - no name

177.

178.

179.

180.     Destroy - Kmode

181.

182.     50\50. Works both ways - Malcolm, half english

183.     I don’t know, sorry - Nosli, Bangladesh

184.     We want newer apartments - Asma, Bangladesh

185.     No problems, it is ok - Kamal, Nargis, Bangladesh

186.     empty

187.

188.

189.     I like it inside, but safety issues - Mashahid, Bangladesh

190.

191.

192.

193.

194.

195.

196.

197.

198.     Repair - Amam, Bangladesh

199.     It is too late for it - no name, tenant for 33 years, Ireland

200.    Destroy - Jasmine

201.     I love it - Mohmmed, tenant for 20 years, Bangladesh

202.

203.     empty

204.     empty

205.

206.

207.

208.     Too many leaks - Usman, Bangladesh

209.     Destroy - Khadida

210.

211.

212.     It is ok - Nguyen Pham, Vietnam

213.

214.

Although Robin Hood Gardens is of unusual design and has attracted much attention…only through the people who live here will it achieve any real life. For it is how the place is used that finally decides the quality of life that a family can live here….It is now your turn to try and make it a place you will be proud to live in.

Architectural Design, 1972

09.2017