Robin Hood Gardens demolition is an "act of vandalism" says Simon Smithson

Jessica Mairs

Simon Smithson, the son of the architects behind the soon-to-be-demolished Robin Hood Gardens, has attacked politicians for tampering with the heritage-listing system, to erase prime examples of the UK's post-war architecture.

An architect at Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, Smithson was a key figure in the campaign to save the brutalist landmark designed by Alison and Peter Smithson. Despite nationwide press coverage and support from architects including Zaha Hadid and Richard Rogers, the effort failed and the site is now being redeveloped.

Smithson claimed politicians "leaned" on listing body Historic England to choose not to list the estate, and described the buildings' imminent demolition as an "act of vandalism".

"That this act of vandalism should come to pass, after years of an unprecedented campaign to save the buildings by the architectural profession both at home and abroad, is a failure on the part of all those charged with protecting the nation's architectural heritage," said Smithson, in a statement sent to Dezeen.

Simon Smithson was a key figure in the campaign to save the brutalist landmark designed by his parents, Alison and Peter Smithson

In the piece, titled The Brutal Truth about the Destruction of Robin Hood Lane, Smithson suggests that Historic England's report was doctored.

"The report does not read right – you have an overwhelming sense that it was tampered with. Re-reading it some nine years later, it seems blindingly obvious that it has been cut-and-pasted," he said.

"Politicians leaned on those responsible for deciding the worth of our built inheritance, and history tells us their judgements are inevitably conditioned by the convenience of the moment rather than thought for the future."

"In the weeks up to the decision, it was rumoured that there was an unusual level of interest by the minister," he continued. "No sooner was the decision made public than we began to hear noises that a recommendation to list the building has been overruled at the instruction of the politicians, and that Historic England's initial report had been hastily rewritten to justify a 'no, do not list' outcome."

Smithson also questioned the organisation's decision to list just 13 housing estates built in London during the capital's huge post-war building drive, including Alton Estate in Roehampton and Park Hill in Sheffield, pointing out that Robin Hood Garden is one of the only surviving examples of the Smithsons' New Brutalist style.

"The post-war housing programme was the probably the greatest building programme the country has ever seen and London was at the very epicentre of this 'campaign'," he said. "Are we really being told that 13 buildings from this period is enough? The city is dotted with terrific projects from this now 'historic' modern period. Has the list been closed?"

"Robin Hood Gardens is especially important because, unlike Park Hill or Roehampton – both important buildings and worthy of listing – it is a uniquely English response to the inner city housing problem of the time," added Smithson.

Alison and Peter Smithson's Robin Hood Gardens was completed in Poplar, east London, in 1972. The estate comprises two concrete slab blocks set on either side of a garden featuring a mound in its centre.

Famous for its "streets in the sky" concept, flats are accessed via elevated walkways, from which Smithson describes the views as "mouthwatering".

"Robin Hood Gardens should be seen as the example, par excellence, of a state that thought it could do better by its citizens. That it was finally completed just as this dream was all thrown into doubt makes it historically as well as architecturally all the more significant," he said.

"Robin Hood Gardens creates a vision of working-class housing with the grandeur of London's Georgian squares and with the bravura of the docklands (where the bulk of the local population of the time worked)," added Smithson. "And why not? Shouldn't the East End have an architecture to match that of Bath, Brighton or Harrogate?"

In 2014, a series of opinion pieces and building studies dedicated to brutalism were published on Dezeen, reflecting the rising interest in the period.

At the time, the debate to preserve Robin Hood Gardens was in full swing. But just three years later, while other countries are beginning to appreciate and protect their brutalist heritage, the UK is razing its own.

"They say brutalism is back. And if you’re in any doubt, pop down to Foyles on the Charing Cross Road and see the myriad of books in praise of this period of architecture," said Smithson.

"How is it then, that those tasked with protecting the important buildings from this period of our history are so far adrift of the mark – from the architectural profession, from the academic world, writers, commentators, the travel industry and even the fashion industry?"

A trio of architectural practices – Haworth Tompkins, Metropolitan Workshop and CF Møller – have been appointed to design a suite of new housing for the site, as part of a masterplan for developer Swan Housing. which will see Robin Hood Gardens' 214 flats replaced by 1,575 homes.

Earlier this summer, Dezeen took the opportunity to capture footage of the estate before its imminent demolition.

Read Simon Smithson's full statement:

The Brutal Truth about the Destruction of Robin Hood Lane

It seems as if the demolition of Robin Hood Gardens is imminent. That this act of vandalism should come to pass, after years of an unprecedented campaign to save the buildings by the architectural profession both at home and abroad, is a failure on the part of all those charged with protecting the nation's architectural heritage. The listing of Robin Hood Gardens formally came up for review in 2008. In the weeks up to the decision it was rumoured that there was an unusual level of interest by the minister. No sooner was the decision made public than we began to hear noises that a recommendation to list the building has been overruled at the instruction of the politicians, and that Historic England's initial report had been hastily rewritten to justify a "no, do not list" outcome.However, to those who campaigned, this information came as no surprise. When I first read the "No, do not list" report I was struck by two things – that the conclusions are not consistent with the weight of the text and furthermore that the report does not read right – you have an overwhelming sense that it was tampered with. Re-reading it some nine years later it seems blindingly obvious that it has been cut-and-pasted. Furthermore contained within the text are some astounding comments: "It is important to note that there are already 13 listed public housing projects of the post-war period in London.

"The post-war housing programme was the probably the greatest building programme the country has ever seen and London was at the very epicentre of this 'campaign'. Are we really being told that 13 buildings from this period is enough? The city is dotted with terrific projects from this now 'historic' modern period. Has the list been closed? Why should Robin Hood Gardens be listed?

Well I think the report, or at least the first half, does an acceptable job of giving us some of the reasons:"Robin Hood Gardens is their only manifestation of their 'streets-in-the-air' approach, and it thus a rare instance in English architecture of the built manifestation of a theoretical design concept. Another point is the architectural quality in some aspects of the building. It has considerable sculptural qualities form some angles and the rhythmic effect of the concrete detailing is impressing; daunting as it is, Robin Hood Gardens is on a monumental scale, and there is little else quite like it. The landscaping is generally admired, and the acoustic design and alignment of the blocks succeeds in creating a calm green zone of character, in the teeth of formidable challenges. Finally, is has some in its housing context. The estate takes its place among other progressive public housing developments in the area, showing the ongoing story of the remaking of the East End. Its lack of direct emulation should not be taken as a sign of lack of respect for the earnestness of its aspirations to create a new form of elevated community living; that this did not succeed in providing satisfactory homes does not offset the aspiration."This is all true, but doesn't get to the heart of what is so special about Robin Hood Gardens.

Robin Hood Gardens is especially important because, unlike Park Hill or Roehampton (both important buildings and worthy of listing), it is a uniquely English response to the inner city housing problem of the time. It was inspired by the crescents of Bath, Brighton, et al, whereby the construction of an ensemble of buildings also assumes the task of making and creating an urban space.

Early modernism rejected the old cities in favour of a new start. A and P Smithson (along with the other members of Team X) did not accept this view and instead believed the new architecture should become a part and parcel of the existing cities. The Robin Hood ensemble is an important manifestation of this, a radically different trajectory for modernism.

Robin Hood Gardens creates a vision of working class housing with the grandeur of London's Georgian squares and with the bravura of the docklands (where the bulk of the local population of the time worked). And why not? Shouldn't the East End have an architecture to match that of Bath, Brighton or Harrogate?

In this regard, Robin Hood Gardens should be seen as the example, par excellence, of a state that thought it could do better by its citizens. That it was finally completed just as this dream was all thrown into doubt makes it historically as well as architecturally all the more significant.

This is not to forget that it is also exquisitely proportioned, that the views from the streets-in-the-air (magically uninterrupted by columns) are mouth-watering, that the buildings miraculously make a habitable environment from a completely inhospitable location wedged between two tunnel mouths, and that the flats were absolutely fabulous. Take a look at the wonderful documentary the BBC commissioned ,The Great Estate – The Rise and Fall of the Council House, in which you can hear this from long term resident Sharon Copper.

To add to this A and P Smithson are amongst the most renowned English architects of their generation but who built relatively little, so what there is should be preserved.

But all of this is to be distracted from the key issue. Politicians leaned on those responsible for deciding the worth of our built inheritance, and history tells us their judgements are inevitably conditioned by the convenience of the moment rather than thought for the future. Similar misjudgements were made by the politicians with regards to the Euston Arch and I would put the loss of Robin Hood Gardens alongside the loss of this important building. Which, rather ironically, A and P Smithson fought hard (alongside many others including John Betjeman) to save. And boy do we miss that old beauty on the old Euston Road.

They say brutalism is back (these are not my words but the title of a recent article in New York Times). And if you're in any doubt, pop down to Foyles on the Charing Cross Road and see the myriad of books in praise of this period of architecture.

How is it then that those tasked with protecting the important buildings from this period of our history (and yes modern now is historic) are so far adrift of the mark – from the architectural profession, from the academic world, writers, commentators, the travel industry (yes there are indeed concrete tours!) and even the fashion industry?

Read more:

Exit mobile version