While some were delighted that at least a small part of the architectural heritage of Robin Hood Gardens was being preserved for posterity, others were furious that the V&A – a so-called ‘arms-length’ body, governed by a Board of Trustees appointed by the Prime Minister – considered the estate valuable enough to collect, but not valuable enough to help save from demolition in the first instance. — frieze.com
The story behind London's brutalist Robin Hood Gardens reveals issues pertinent to our current housing crisis. Crystal Bennes unpacks the V&A's decision to preserve and display a section of demolished housing in this year's Venice Architecture Biennale, revealing condemnation of the building before it was even completed.
1 Comment
"there were signs that the Smithsons’s ideas about new modes of living
may not have been popular with the communities they were intended to
house...Whatever the architectural faults or merits of the estate, the anger of its residents"
Contra what Crystal Bennes seems to accept/suggest, it was my understanding that the residents felt a bit differently
"Of course, it had its problems, but people loved their time there."
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.