Is London's Robin Hood Gardens an architectural masterpiece?

Jonathan Glancey visits one of Britain's most controversial housing estates, the 1960s creation of architects Alison and Peter Smithson, to find out why it's loved and hated by both residents and critics

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• the
• guardian
• architecture
• art
• council
• buildings

[mischnix]

@mischnix

For these reasons I think Brutalism should not be used for housing poor people. Robin Hood Gardens was surely well-meant by the architects, but they did not take into account what kind of people were going to live there and that the message they meant to sent with the architecture had a totally different meanting for the people.

[mischnix]

Apart from the bad maintenance etc. in this case, I see a general problem in using Brutalism for housing the poor. Brutalism is an extreme style, you love it or hate it, but they have not much choice where to live. Exposed plumbery, the house as a machine concept and bare concrete might look great for avant-garde middle class people, but for poor people, it seems like the state cares a sh*t about you and makes you live in half-finished houses of a dull grey color, treating you as a mere number.

[ogvert]

Hideous. Should be razed to the ground.

[sondinium]

Opinions on living standards due to bad maintenance aside, losing a building like this just plays into the hands of people who envision London as an extension of Surrey. Unsurprisingly, I'd be very sad to see it go the way of so many landmarks that make London what it is, only to be replaced with more ill designed/constructed, soulless & genteel housing that seems to be the preference of our dear leaders.