When Lord Rogers launched a campaign to save one of London’s most notorious housing estates from demolition, he was adamant that it was a desirable place to live. [...]
It is a claim he may regret. Unhappy residents of the estate have challenged the peer to be true to his word and swap his £12 million Chelsea townhouse for a few nights in one of their blighted flats.
— telegraph.co.uk
Previously: Robin Hood Gardens Set For Demolition
61 Comments
Thayer-d
I think you have misunderstood my argument. I'm not saying Robin Hood Gardens is great, but none of its defects warrant demolition.
Volunteer and Eke
The mound between the two buildings is from the rubble of the buildings that were previously on the site. It was grassed over with the intention that the hill would discourage ball games close to the two new slab blocks. An area at the south of the site was made for ball games further away from the buildings, however this area has not been maintained well, has been covered in tarmac by the council and is full of graffiti. I believe its a better solution than the 'no ball games' signs you get on other council projects, but at the same time there is no sense of ownership to these spaces, which is partly why they have gone into decline.
Why would ANY housing project have a 'no ball games' sign? How about "Have at it, equipment available for checkout at the office". How much damage can a soccer ball do to a Brutalist building?
This is the design drawing by the Smithsons I was referring to:
The reality is that many using the slab typology do. Its a product of so many people sharing these spaces that they inevitably end up with no clear function. The main issue in this instance was the noise. The site is flanked on both the east and west by large roads and there is the city airport nearby to the south. Every effort was taken by the designers to reduce its impact on the residents and create a quiet space between the two blocks.
It seems that the Smithsons weren't too keen on the ball-playing either. All that human stuff, you know, it's so messy.
After taking a more in depth look at the images of the project online, it really is very dirty. They probably should just tear it down and start over -
- or power wash it.
I'm not sure which would be easier or more cost effective - I'm just one of those folks who DIDN'T drop out of art school.
And those window units probably cannot be unbolted from the structure and taken away to a factory or something to be refurbished with more insulation and better glass panels. You probably can't anodize them or paint them to spruce 'em up a bit, and then bolt them back into place.
It probably is just quicker and easier to displace umpteen many people and demolish the whole thing and start a whole new thing - ground up.
It's a shame really too, that in that prison-like fascist regime that is Great Britain, that all of those people are forced to live there. It's pretty much like east Berlin used to be, right? It's a crime really that they get mowed down by machine guns if they try to leave.
Pity too about the lack of a proper football field. English soccer is really pretty dreadful. I can't name a single famous British soccer player. Those folks should come to America. It's flat a pancake from western PA to Colorado. Plenty of space there. I mean that's where all the worlds great footballers come from - yes? Of course if yo're poor and sick in America, you don't get to go to the Doctor.
Wow. It doesn't have a soccer field? Tear it Down? Oh boy.
That's what happened to Pruitt-Igoe too. Nary a soccer field in sight.
Basically had you rather have the kids outside on a nice green playing soccer or sitting alone in their room in front of a plastic box with a glass plate pretending to play soccer?
As far as restoring this building it just isn't worth it; it is too far out of human scale. Saying you have to preserve and restore a Brutalist building because it is a Brutalist building is like saying you need to keep a pickled rat on your mantle to remind you of the Black Death. Take your architects to Bath to se what is possible.
well, shit, why dont we just plaster some ionic columns on the front, kick enough people out to make 30 town houses, and move the fucking highway for a nice football field, eh? easy peasy. perhaps you should look beyond the fucking 1700s. or the 1300s for your medical metaphors.
Well you could drop a regulation youth soccer pitch (100 yards by 50 yards) or even an American football field (120 yards by 53.5 yards) in the 90,000 square foot trapezoidal space and have plenty of room left over. But I have a better idea! Why not tear down Bath - all of it - and replace it with replicas of Robin Hood Gardens?
hey, if you want to be an idiot, go ahead and be an idiot. can you give me the precise dimensions of your idiocy?
I'm sure you can use google earth as well as I can. Oh, and you would not be plastering columns on the structure; you would be plastering pilasters.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.