Robin Hood Gardens

[Sean_A]

A recent story in the UK press about the growing concern over demolition of 60's & 70's inner city housing estates struck my fancy as to how similar the debate is with golf architecture.  The latest building due to be blown to bits is Robin Hood Gardens in East London. 








Granted, these pix don't offer many clues as to the nuances or details of the building that some archies claim exist, but on the other hand it is very difficult to look past the surface of the matter and ask the obvious question: Would I want or choose to live there? 

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=426&storycode=3107659&featurecode=12177&c=1

This story is very reminiscent of the many golf clubs who choose to update tired looking, outdated and perhaps poorly designed holes not entirely fit for their purpose.  Sometimes the "experts" in golf want courses to be saved (as is the case with many experts in the Robin Hood case) despite the membership not being happy with the course - at Robin Hood 80% of the residents would like the building demolished.  Sometimes experts believe that aspects of gca should be preserved if only because they are representative of a period or an archie - just as in the case of Robin Hood Gardens. 

Of course the danger with this sort of thing is that buildings from the 60s & 70s aren't that old (same for golf courses) and so it is hard to judge them definitively.  Styles change, people change.  At the moment, much post war architecture (golf & buildings) is not so much in vogue, but does that mean they have failed in their design or purpose?  If we continually eliminate what is not popular at the moment do we run the risk of creating a homogenized look which doesn't tolerate much outside the box? 

Ciao

 

[Andrew Mitchell]

I saw the name of this thread and expected that Sean had discovered some hidden gem deep in the heart of Sherwood Forest. 

How did they come up with that name for a concrete jungle in East London?

[Bruce Katona]

Sean: In the last 10-15 years here in the States, we have also been imploding many of the large massive housing projects created in the 60's and replacing them with lower, smaller scale buildings......the studies found these high rise concrete jungle complexes were not very livable and user frieindly....smaller scale buildings, with smaller massing were much more habitable for the tenants/owners.

[PThomas]

that building is quite ugly

[Ben Stephens]

As a qualified UK architect, I have the utmost respect for the post war architects who had to counteract a serious post war housing shortage. They had to develop quickly new ways of housing/living using a limited palette of materials. Concrete was the cheapest and quickest way of constructing large scale buildings at the time. The design of the building is functional first then aesthetic second.

The architects for Robin Hood Gardens was Alison and Peter Smithson who came up with a number of innovative designs - RHG is 'stacked houses' with 'pavements in the sky' with walkways outside the flats, whose areas are bigger than the current government's recommended flat sizes. The building blocks actually 'curve around the landscape' to reduce its 'massing'. The Smithsons also came up with Hunstanton School which set the standard for many post war schools, Park Hill Estate in Sheffield and the Economist building in London.

I believe Robin Hood Gardens is architecture of the highest order and it is our reponsibility to preserve the ideas of previous generations. A building by the Smithsons of this scale is rare. The Smithsons won the Royal Gold Medal - the highest accolade for an architect in the UK which was won recently by Ted Cullinan. Other concrete buildings which have been pulled down is unlikely to be anywhere near the quality of what RHG is.

Sean - I believe that there is much much more variation in architectural buildings than golf courses. There are much more different types of styles, colour and massive number of different choices of materials to choose from in buildings.

There are continual massive discussions about various different types and style of architecture. As with GCA it is the 'minimalism' period we are going through a 'rococo' architecture period - decorative + textural modern buildings - Herzog de Meuron and Foreign Office Architects to name a few.

I don't think golf course architecture has advanced very much over the past 100 years in comparision to the huge advances in architecture building design and technology.

The most modern design of a golf course I can think of its Robert Cupp's Palmetto Hall in Hilton Head which had a lot of landscaped diagonals which reminds me of 'Cubism' art. This is against the principles of many past and present golf course architects. The other is Desmond Muirhead's radical shaped courses. I would love to see what a Zaha Hadid golf course would be like if it ever happens!!!

[Sean_A]

While I find the building terribly ugly and not at all something I would want to live in, I still find the debate highly interesting and germane to gca. 

Ben - I agree that building architecture has advanced much further than gca technologically and in terms of what is acceptable to the populace.  However, that isn't an indictment of gca as far as I am concerned.  I would be very interesting to have a tour of one of these modern concrete jobbies with an archie.  I suspect that many (including myself) can't get past the aesthetics of the design where an archie may see a lot more beauty in the function than I might.  However, one has to ask, if folks don't want to live in these buildings, how successful is the form?  In a way its an unfair question because for most the reputation of these projects cannot be separated from building itself.   

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

This thread reminds of Byker Wall a concrete development less than a mile from my office and one of the most deprived, crime stricken areas of Newcastle.  The council want to demolish Byker Wall and build something in its place.  Byker Wall achieved national notoriety a few years ago when home to "Ratboy" a delinquent juvenile who hid from police in the heating shafts. 

Byker Wall is on UNESCO's list of outstanding 20th century buildings and has Grade II listed status.

[Ben Stephens]

Sean,

RHG was on BBC national news today, Maxwell Hutchinson an architect (former president of RIBA) and TV presenter was asked the question why do most people do not want to live there? he said it is more to do with the management of the building than the shape or form of it.

RHG like Byker in Newcastle was left to deprive and was poorly managed by whoever was in charge of the maintenance of it. Byker has an amazing external textured brick wall to give it an identity as well as breaking down the mass. Most of the residents of Trellick Tower by Erno Goldfinger love living in it. 

The Smithsons had many new housing theories. I have a quote from the book Modern Architecture since 1900 by William J R Curtis -

'Robin Hood Gardens (1966-72) stands in Poplar, not far from the docklands of the East End, a traditional Smithson stamping ground. They arranged the housing in what amounted to yet another reaction against the free standing slab; two serpentine spines marked off a green precinct sheltered from the traffic and complete with an artifical hillock. The individual dwellings were made legible in the facades through attached concrete fins, while the triple level access system was articulated by larger piers. In theory these devices were supposed to be modern equivalents to the standardized yet variable usages of classical orders in such eighteeth century prototypes as Bath; in fact they appeared as thin descendents of the texturing devices employed in the Unite d'Habitation (in Marseille by Le Corbusier). The street decks themselves fell short of their symbolic intention of expressing and embodying the ideal community. Indeed Robin Hood Gardens as a whole seems propelled by a stark vision of working class life more in tune with the realities of the 1950's than the consumerism of later years.'

That is Curtis' opinion of RHG, I would not say it was a failiure but an experiment with pros and cons. The future is a mystery who knows what we will have in our houses in 20 to 30 years time? The same goes for golf courses.

From first impression I understand most will say it is ugly but when you are studying architecture you start to learn to appreciate why is it like this. I did not really like the National Theatre and Lloyds Building in London before I did my long architecture course now I am fascinated by them and love the design of these buildings.
 
 

[Marty Bonnar]

Ben,
why don't you and Maxwell club together and buy one of those delightful flats and go live there for a few weeks.

No, I thought not.

As I recall, Maxwell lives in a nice Georgian townhouse in the West End. You?

That building is an affront to all that is decent. I can't wait to see it blown to smith(son)ereens...

best,
FBD.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

RHG was on BBC national news today, Maxwell Hutchinson an architect (former president of RIBA) and TV presenter was asked the question why do most people do not want to live there? he said it is more to do with the management of the building than the shape or form of it.

RHG like Byker in Newcastle was left to deprive and was poorly managed by whoever was in charge of the maintenance of it. Byker has an amazing external textured brick wall to give it an identity as well as breaking down the mass. Most of the residents of Trellick Tower by Erno Goldfinger love living in it. 

The Smithsons had many new housing theories. I have a quote from the book Modern Architecture since 1900 by William J R Curtis -

'Robin Hood Gardens (1966-72) stands in Poplar, not far from the docklands of the East End, a traditional Smithson stamping ground. They arranged the housing in what amounted to yet another reaction against the free standing slab; two serpentine spines marked off a green precinct sheltered from the traffic and complete with an artifical hillock. The individual dwellings were made legible in the facades through attached concrete fins, while the triple level access system was articulated by larger piers. In theory these devices were supposed to be modern equivalents to the standardized yet variable usages of classical orders in such eighteeth century prototypes as Bath; in fact they appeared as thin descendents of the texturing devices employed in the Unite d'Habitation (in Marseille by Le Corbusier). The street decks themselves fell short of their symbolic intention of expressing and embodying the ideal community. Indeed Robin Hood Gardens as a whole seems propelled by a stark vision of working class life more in tune with the realities of the 1950's than the consumerism of later years.'

That is Curtis' opinion of RHG, I would not say it was a failiure but an experiment with pros and cons. The future is a mystery who knows what we will have in our houses in 20 to 30 years time? The same goes for golf courses.

From first impression I understand most will say it is ugly but when you are studying architecture you start to learn to appreciate why is it like this. I did not really like the National Theatre and Lloyds Building in London before I did my long architecture course now I am fascinated by them and love the design of these buildings.
 
 

Ben

I don't think we are saying anything different - are we?  Granted, I don't know the building per se, but the facade isn't in the least bit encouraging for me to get to know it - so I guess in this case the aesthetic of the building is so hideous that I can't look past it - that is often the case when I look at golf courses as well.  Even so, I am questioning the desire to destroy architecture it based on 2008 aesthetics which has as much to do with pop culture as anytime in history.  That is to say, buildings like this may prove to be popular in 20 years time.  The one stickler for me is that the punters don't want to live in the building (and I can't blame them, but I understand the socio-economic factors at play).  At least on some level that means the building is failing to fulfill its brief.  That isn't to say that if the building were to survive 20 more years that 80% of the residents would hate to see the building destroyed.  The bottom line for gca and architecture is the question of who has the final say.  Golf courses are continually changed due to membership demand and buildings are continuously altered/rebuilt because of resident demand.  Should so called experts have a say in the fate of buildings and courses? 

Ciao 

[Tony_Muldoon]

RHG was on BBC national news today, Maxwell Hutchinson an architect (former president of RIBA) and TV presenter was asked the question why do most people do not want to live there? he said it is more to do with the management of the building than the shape or form of it.
 

Ben, this is the standard line whenever people say they don’t like living in a place.  Could we not relate this to GCA?    How long did Desmond Muirhead think his green with the bunkers and water all mixed up would last?  Was this building an academic exercise or a case of the Architect being misled as to how it would be maintained?  I think most of the 60's state housing was in love with itself and the designers really didn't consider the realities of living there.

I drive within 150 yards of it most days and would happily see it pulled down.  The Economist Building however is a fine and elegant piece of work and should be preserved.  Today it faces similar problems in that it's far too small for its original client but there is no shortage of demand for space in it.   Somewhat ironically, when the then leviathans of world architecture arrived in London in the 1980’s to work on Broadgate and Canary Wharf, Skidmore Owings Merrill chose to take space there.

[Bill_McBride]

Do those photos remind anyone else of Helen Mirren's incredible BBC series, "Prime Suspect?"

Most of the episodes in the series seem to wind up in council housing at one time or another, pretty sad circumstances, but great dramatic setting.

[Ben Stephens]

I just find it incredible that we are also talking about architecture on GCA. I understand by popular opinion that this building is disliked. But the background and principles in the design of this building is fascinating.

I actually like concrete buildings - you can do so many things with concrete for example the timber texture at the National Theatre makes it feel 'warm' rather than cold even though the building is perceived to be brutal. I dislike 'pastiche' buildings - there are too many mock tudor houses in the UK!

I would be interested how this would come out if it was private housing such as the Barbican. I have information regarding Park Hill Estate in Sheffield by the same architects (the Smithsons) which is bigger and similar to Robin Hood Gardens.

http://www.open2.net/modernity/3_12.htm

Urban Splash an UK developer is redeveloping the Park Hill Estate - bringing a 1960's social housing up to 21st century private housing standards - I would be interested how this experiment will work.

http://www.urbansplash.co.uk/Default.aspx?id=144&area=25&detailID=568


What happens if a client wanted to build a golf course out of scratch (maybe a rubbish dump) and wants it to be in play in 4 months time to host a Ryder Cup. That is exactly what happened to the government - they had to build a large number of social housing very quickly. Georgian townhouses take ages to build in comparison.

Designers then were pressurised to come up with new ideas and prefabrication techniques to reduce time on site. Can we do this with golf courses? Could we prefab golf greens and then transport it on site they have done this with cricket squares in Australia and New Zealand.


Bill - yes it does remind me of Prime Suspect, there also a couple in Life in Mars / Ashes to Ashes. Have you seen A Clockwork Orange - there are load of concrete brutalism buildings which made fantastic background scenery of Kubrick's vision of the future back in the early 70's


Martyn - I have met and discussed architecture with Maxwell while I was at university - I would be willing to take up this experiment of living at RHG for 2 weeks or more if Maxwell is also up for it! By the way I live in a cosy David Wilson home in which I am in the process of extending + modernising it with a low level textured concrete wall for the landscaping!


Tony - Desmond M definitely put aesthetics first and practicality second on some of his golf courses with exception of Muirfield Village. The Economist building is a class act. My worry is that if RHG is pulled down it will be replaced by sub standard architecture as what is happening to John Bancroft's Pimlico School. This has already happed to Euston Station whose much more impressive classic architectural building was replaced by substandard 70s station that now they are planning to rebuild the Euston Arches again in the newly redeveloped station to replace the 70's version is this a case of going round in circles!


Sean - the so called experts are architects of the highest order - Richard Rogers, Zaha Hadid and Harry Gugger (Herzog de Meuron) as well as Maxwell to name a few. Some would have studied this building in their student days and the Smithsons was one of their 'architectural ancestors' and have influenced their work. I would want to keep it from an architectural point of view so that lessons can be learned from it - the positives and negatives. I have and still am studying their current buildings with interest.

   

[Ben Stephens]

Building Design article 6 Mar 2008

http://www.bdonline.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=725&storycode=3108257&c=1&encCode=0000000001474e3f

[Mike Sweeney]

That building is an affront to all that is decent. I can't wait to see it blown to smith(son)ereens...

best,
FBD.

I am with FBD on this one.

Downtown Stamford, CT has a pair of towers that is now prime office building land. The town is a micro-New York with ethnic diversity and the good and bad problems that come with it. These towers were built as low income housing and are slowing down a huge revitalization of downtown. The problem of course is you have to move the people. So for now they stay:

[Mark Bourgeois]

I am 100 percent with Ben on this one and can't believe so many are unsupportive and unappreciative of the need to preserve historically significant *anything* - even if, perhaps especially if, it is hated.

Personally I am no fan of beton brut. That's not the same thing as saying it deserves to come down. No one has a monopoly on taste - is it acceptable for this generation to remove from this earth something it does not hold dear but which future genestipbs may value?

I accept we may not be wise enough to know always what's worth saving; are we wise enough to know what should be destroyed? And should majority rule should determine the fate of art?

Tony do you not like Lever House?

And Ben how bout a Hadid clubhouse - or even better halfway house?

Mark

PS Mike S didn't former generations of Stamfordians set up the current "opportunity" for revitalization when they chose to plant a mall on their common?

[Jeff_Brauer]

Sean, love the discussion and the whole idea.  It is germain to gca and the thought processes are similar. I disagree that golf design hasn't evolved. It has, due to the game changing, construction technology, etc.  I do think that our view of 60-70's gca are similar to our view of the same era in architecture - in general a down period based on ease of construction, cost of maintenance, etc. rather than ornamentation and design value.  I also think that while every one wants to talk about the very best, about 99% of all built environment is based on the same thoughts.

So, do failed ideas merit preservation?  Or are our current views just to stringent, influenced by the great economic run we have had the last decades that allow better architecture to flourish?  I guess we ought to be preserving some examples of all eras, but not obsess about it and think we have to save everything.  Time goes on, and museums only have samples of signifigant things from the past.  Do we need every type of golf course represented in droves?

The Brits must not have much patience in wanting to tear those low cost housing units down.  Here in America, if we wait long enough, the residents do that for us!

Where does that noted architecture critic Prince Charles stand on all of this?

Lastly, will anyone ever build a template/replica of Robin Hood Gardens?

[Ben Stephens]

Jeff,

Prince Charles is actually not very popular person with many UK architects. He is trying to build a house himself that is sustainable and carbon neutral !?!! could be a tough challenge as his preferred materials would be expensive to make and has large carbon footprint! Also he is anti-golf!!!

There have been so many similar buildings of Robin Hood Gardens in terms of plans, sections and elevations. Today we are still doing similar designs but the main changes is the materiality on the external envelope as we are using more variations such as glass, metal, timber, brick rather than just concrete.


Mark,

a Zaha Hadid half way house would be very interesting but there is a massive list of World Class Architects to choose from! The most interesting fact regarding Hadid she has never built in the UK but is still based in London.   

[Mike Sweeney]

PS Mike S didn't former generations of Stamfordians set up the current "opportunity" for revitalization when they chose to plant a mall on their common?

Well we can blame Mr and Mrs Doak as Tom grew up there.  It appears that he did not retain any design ideas from downtown Stamford.

Reality is that design is driven by economics in both golf and buildings. If Robin Hood generated or saved dollars/pounds, the building stays and so does the architecture.

I remember driving around Silicon Valley one day with a host, and he commented how all the office buidings were pretty much built to be torn down every 20 years. Not sure if it was true but the architecture certainly was nothing more than basic suburban office park.

It is my understandig that the Wynn golf course in Vegas was basically seen as disposible before it even opened.

[Mark Bourgeois]

Mike S

Frank Lloyd Wright's Pope Leighey and Usonian houses were built on the cheap; does that mean we shouldn't bother with the expense of keeping them?

And what about the modern Post-WW2 buildings down the Park Ave corridor? A number are showing their age and maintenance grows more expensive.

Should we tear them down?

Cost and intent IMHO don't have so much to do with it as architectural or historical significance.

I do agree the Doaks should be charged with one count of destruction o the green. This looks like a job for the WWE.

Mark

[Sean_A]

Sean, love the discussion and the whole idea.  It is germain to gca and the thought processes are similar. I disagree that golf design hasn't evolved. It has, due to the game changing, construction technology, etc.  I do think that our view of 60-70's gca are similar to our view of the same era in architecture - in general a down period based on ease of construction, cost of maintenance, etc. rather than ornamentation and design value.  I also think that while every one wants to talk about the very best, about 99% of all built environment is based on the same thoughts.

So, do failed ideas merit preservation?  Or are our current views just to stringent, influenced by the great economic run we have had the last decades that allow better architecture to flourish?  I guess we ought to be preserving some examples of all eras, but not obsess about it and think we have to save everything.  Time goes on, and museums only have samples of signifigant things from the past.  Do we need every type of golf course represented in droves?

The Brits must not have much patience in wanting to tear those low cost housing units down.  Here in America, if we wait long enough, the residents do that for us!

Where does that noted architecture critic Prince Charles stand on all of this?

Lastly, will anyone ever build a template/replica of Robin Hood Gardens?

Jeff

I said that I believe building architecture has moved at a much greater pace in terms of innovation and the acceptance of design than gca.  I liken gca to cars.  There are a hell of a lot of bells and whistles which are neat, but the combustion engine has been running the show for 100 years.  I also said that the relative stagnation in course design may be a very good thing.

This thread has gotten hung up a bit on buildings, I had hoped it would transition more toward gca.

Ciao

[Mike Sweeney]

This thread has gotten hung up a bit on buildings, I had hoped it would transition more toward gca.

I have very little creativity, but I believe they are similar. Golf courses and buildings have all sort of market and environmental limitations that may hold back the architect. The artist has very few limitations. So who is more creative the artist or the architect?

PS. Here is some bad architecture that needs to be preserved:



http://gothamist.com/2007/08/06/survivors_stair.php

[Tony_Muldoon]

I think this is an excellent thread and one that hints at all sorts of other questions.
What disappoints me are the Architects like Rogers praising the aesthetics and ignoring the views of the user. No one is suggesting it would be cheaper to learn lessons and adapt the building than to demolish and meet the needs of the people who have to live there.
Meanwhile Maxwell has moved to Shoreditch (not sure of the age of the building but it’s an old part of town.)  Rogers lives in two beautiful fine old houses in Chelsea knocked together.  And I met Denys Lasdun circa 1980, at his offices in a 1700’s terrace just off Manchester Square.
Ben, it seems to me the National Theatre is used as the divider. If you love all modern architecture you love it.
Q
Where is the best view of the River in London?
A
The terrace on the National Theatre because it’s the only place you don’t see it from.

(I wish that was my bon mot)

I’m sorry arguing that the wooden impressions into concrete improves it, is the same argument Trump uses for putting waterfalls and fountains behind greens i.e. false.
We need to be very careful what we conserve if we want to continue to improve our built environment.
Mark I was aware SOM had created the first glass curtain building., but I didn’t know much about it.  By the time they arrived in London they were a mega firm and the most political place I’ve ever known. Even as a contractor you could feel the tensions. Within 10years they went bust.

The lever Building does throw our debates about restoration into some sort of context.  Built in 1951-2 this is what I found on Wikipedia.
[edit] Decline
In 1982, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission designated Lever House as an official landmark. By that time, however, much of Lever House's original brilliance had been dimmed by time. The building's blue-green glass facade deteriorated due to harsh weather conditions and the limitations of the original fabrication and materials. Water seeped behind the stainless steel mullions causing the carbon steel within (and around) the glazing pockets to rust and expand. This corrosion bowed the horizontal mullions and broke most of the spandrel glass panels. By the mid-1990s, only one percent of the original glass remained leaving the once glimmering curtain wall a patchwork of mismatched greenish glass.
In September of 1997, Unilever, Lever Brother's parent, announced it was moving its Lever Brothers division to Greenwich, CT. Following the announcement, Lever Brothers slowly began vacating the building, eventually leaving only Unilever on the top four floors.
[edit] Restoration
In 1998 the property was acquired from Unilever by German-American real estate magnates Aby Rosen and Michael Fuchs. Rosen's firm, RFR Holding LLC, negotiated a lease-back deal allowing Unilever to remain on the top four floors. Immediately following the acquisition, RFR Holding announced a $25 million capital improvement program including a restoration of the building's curtain wall and public spaces as well as repositioning it as a multi-tenant property.
The deteriorated steel subframe was replaced with concealed aluminum glazing channels, a state-of-the-art solution in modern curtain wall technology, which is identical to the original in appearance. All rusted mullions and caps were replaced with new and identical stainless steel mullions and caps. All glass was removed for new panes that are nearly identical to the original, yet meet today's energy codes.
If a Golf Course cost that mush to maintain it would surely cease to exist and another use would be found for it.  However it certainly puts into perspective those purists who argue against greens being flattened and tees moved to keep the course relevant

Is it still the Lever Building? Of course. Lessons have been learned and it’s been improved.