[A.Y.

2013-14] - HISTORY AND THEORY OF THE TWENTIETH-CENTURY ARCHITECTURE

[Prof. DAMIANO COSIMO IACOBONE ]

Essay on
The architectural and planing theory of Alison and Peter Smithson and it’s resounding
in their project at - Robin Hood Gardens, London (1969-1972)
Student Joris Katkevicius
First ed.2014

The Architects - Man and Woman, and not Man and Machine.

English architects Alison Smithson (1928 – 1993) and Peter Smithson (1923 – 2003) together
formed an architectural partnership, and are often associated with the New Brutalism. They met
while studying architecture at Durham University and married in 1949. Together, they joined the
architecture department of the London County Council before establishing their own partnership
in 1950.
They first came to prominence with Hunstanton School which used some of the language of
high modernist Ludwig Mies van der Rohe but in a stripped back way, with rough finishes and
deliberate lack of refinement. They are arguably among the leaders of the British school of New
Brutalism. They were associated with Team X and its 1953 revolt against old Congrès International
d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) philosophies of high modernism.
Among their early contributions were streets in the sky in which traffic and pedestrian circulation
were rigorously separated, a theme popular in the 1960s. They were members of the Independent
Group participating in the 1953 Parallel of Life and Art exhibition at the Institute of Contemporary
Arts and This Is Tomorrow in 1956. Throughout their career they published their work energetically,
including their several unbuilt schemes, giving them a profile, at least among other architects, out
of proportion to their relatively modest output. His teaching activity included the participation for
many years at the ILAUD workshops together with fellow architect Giancarlo De Carlo.
The Smithsons gained an international reputation in the early 1950s, both for their buildings and
for being instrumental in the development of the “thoughtful” approach to modern architecture.
Their theoretical accommodation of the economic and social context in which the architect/urbanist
works was set out as succinctly as possible in Urban Structuring, published in 1967. Team 10 Primer,
first published in a special issue of Architectural Design in 1962, and subsequently brought up to
date and published by The MIT Press in book form in 1968, documented the Smithsons’ search with
other leading architect/urbanist/teachers for a technique of working together, a skill or way of
thinking that past cultures obviously had but that seemed to be lost to the builders in our present
cities.
Important to note that Team 10 was of great importance for the development of post-war
architecture and urbanism. It was Team 10 who first questioned the large-scale, technocratic and
abstract nature of modernist architecture and who argued for the introduction of the human scale,
the importance of community, and the perspective of a continuous process of transformation of
place instead of the production of finished buildings. Their influence on subsequent generations of
architects has been immense, and one could argue that many of the achievements of the discipline
since the 1970s were made possible by the issues and designs defined by Team 10.
1
 The project and theory

I would like to introduce a project and then start to analyze it according to their’s theory
and see what is corresponding to what. Its interesting to note the sintetic language Smithsons
use and visuality, as still a legacy of modern times, or as approved reality of the paradigm of our
contemporary lives. So the image is important, and inspired me to work in visual interpretation and
comparative way. I found their sketches, diagrams, and other visual materials bring very charged by
meanings thought I was feeling to use it as a reference to dialogue architectures theory and degree
of implementation. In this project one can sense and interesting approach to the renovation of an
industrial area in eastern London. The site is approximately located 5-6 km. from London city. So
location is important, and one can note the contrasting choose of this project to the surrounding
context. This is where theory comes in play. Architects sees London city as a collection of smaller
towns, and they approach it through underlining the importance of association, and its levels.

Sintetic manifestations of the urban - architectural theory, as in my subjective oppinion (I had

never experienced the building by my self) seems to be brought by the Robin Hood Gardens
project. But lets eventualy put the theories to the real life test, as I also agree on the importance of
human wellbeing. As an architect to provide the “conditions” to the soccial change to the better.
Importance of a common - shared - accessable ground as our social media. Eventualy lets see if
thought expressed by architecs that an importance of the street as active environment, changed by
increased mobility, (and now challanged by virtuality) as so man can’t associate to historic forms of
house-groupings: streets, squeres, greens. ect., as the social reality they represent no longer exist.

2
In Smithsons words the prjects is described in following way:

Vertical “zoning” according to the

intended habitants and their needs in
Golden Lane project. One can draw
theoretical parrarels from it to the Robin
Hood Gardens.

3
 Movement:

one can see the influence of L. Kahn of the

Philadelphia project of the visual meants of
representing of the movement.

4
 “Street” move as vertical element, we can
note the shif from plan to section with remaining
qualities of inhabitating the street, we can find this
parrarel to what they propose as:

5
 Another example of the Smithsons’ social intentions
is integrated through the concept of “streets in the
sky.” Every third level of the buildings includes a wide
concrete balcony jutting off towards the center of the
site, overlooking the garden. The balconies are wide
enough for multiple people to walk and for children
to play. They were proposed by the Smithsons as a
new neighborhood street for these housing units.
The street or deck - has also eddy places intended
for people to stop to interract, to grow plants, or just
get of the deck to “safe” isle.

Can we find those eddy places

tangents with their proposal for
a village street? So is it about
transcendental scale or different
levels of association? Layers of fabric
in dialogue with layers of meaning.

6
 Theoretical implications in the project.
Smithsons sees the 50’s - 60’s construction as having lack of identity and dissalowining of
recognition of any patern of association need, - as associations are the poetry of ordinary life. In
fact P.S. describes buildings inspirend directly from modernism of 20’s - a free standing building
surrounding by nature, transformed in britain as “clean, sundrenched boxes, with fitted carrpets
insided and vandalism outside”. They state that its an architects wish to overpass the perriod, sort
of to communicate current values to the future. The need of buildigns overlasting the first users is
evident, as they form the “building pool” from which people can choose, how and where to live.
There is a claim to use associative simbols - again playing with associative paterns, for example
expressed entrances to the buildings as porticos.
Noisy traffic patterns are settled down, so its possible to build quite - more humane residential
environments - so implementations of sound barrier long the building - blocking sound but aranged
to still provide visual insights, sound transition on the fassade blocking concrete “fins”, windows
opening in shuch a way that they allow minimum noice entering inside. In outer - noisy part of the
building there are common “decks - streets” for horizontal circulation and connection to the vertical
one. Building them selves were deliberatly design to create a quite-protective internal courtyard
with upward land modeling as to disincourage soccer playing which would eventualy create noise.
This quite area has also 4 recesed circular areas intended for the older kids. Spaces are arranged in
the way that it allows visual communication both with internal part and of the surrounding of the
project. Kitchens and bedrooms are facing the common inside area, sort of that building is reflected
longitudinaly and noisy living rooms, workspsace, bath. Kitchens are design so that the mother can
keep and eye on her kid playing on the deck side infront and from another side gasp to the stress
free zone.

Possitions of soudnbarriers. Recessed parking areas, again noise isolation and

visual clearance to the intimate inside part.

Simetrical axis of the project according to which Interesting envision - rounded structure corners to
functions are lined to enchache the residential facilitate the traslocation, moving of wood works
qualities. and ect.

7
 One can note the reppetition of rational plan and variation where the line is shifting to the angle,
where meter remains the same, but introduces the variation in the plan, and following that dwelling
types are of several types - including duplex, the project enriches even further his architectonical
composition by also allowing diferent type of habitats, so as there is a rational loop - link between
their theroy.

8
the Mound - as central space -
ASSOCIATION.

9
 Importance of achieving a quality in active and creative grouping of housings which leads to the
association with the place.
So applying it in different scale repetition - as rationalization might lead to the variety. Important
to note how in this project simple constructional elements are in variation and so enriching the final
composition

10
11
 Programmed extention as a pattern above infrostructures - already a theme of the architects
reflected in ohther proposals, particulary in Robin Hood project one can note the contrasting building
form and its supper possition over the infrastructure. But still there is a invision for further expansion
- and one can node the human - pedestrian disctances - (vision for future alwing to connect them all
together J.K.) between proposed building in they simmetrical repetition - translational expansion
according to existante ones. Again - pattern applied in the different scale, repetition, somewhat
fractal expansion of neiberhoods toward forming the regions through cities. Can we call it holisting
aproach iterchanging between planing and architectural sollutions? Or it’s still being brought by
modernins innertial thought of expanding over what ever?

12
 ...then - Build.

Robin Hood Gardens is a council housing complex in Poplar, London designed

in the late 1960s and completed in 1972. Built in post-war Britain when residential
towers were being built as a symbol of progress after the war. It was intended as
an example of the ‘streets in the sky’ concept: social housing characterized by broad
aerial walkways in long concrete blocks, much like the Park Hill estate in Sheffield; it
was both informed by, and a reaction against, Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation. The
estate is owned by Tower Hamlets Council. It covers about two hectares and consists
of two long blocks, one of ten storeys, the other of seven, built from precast concrete
slabs and containing 213 flats, surrounding a landscaped green area and a small hill
made from construction spoil. The flats themselves are a mixture of single-storey
apartments and two-storey maisonettes, with wide balconies on every third floor.
The complex is located near Blackwall DLR station. It is within sight of the nearby
Balfron Tower; both are highly visible examples of Brutalist architecture. Following
the approval of a redevelopment scheme as part of a wider local regeneration project
in 2012, demolition of the estate began in 2013. An earlier attempt, supported by a
number of notable architects, to head off redevelopment by getting the estate listed
status, was rejected by the government in 2009.
Robin Hood Gardens is in a pretty remote area of London. It’s on the fringes of
Canary Wharf and the area hasn’t seen much regeneration considering its proximity
to the city. Never the less the height of the flats is still an imposing presence from the
road. The hard face of one of the blocks shields the building from a busy road leading
to Canary Wharf and is the higher of the two. When in the enclosed garden area
you are taken aback by how private it feels. The noise from the perimeter streets is
minimised by the bulk of the surrounding buildings, only interrupted by the buzz of
a plane overhead. Noise is also reduced by employing concrete ‘fins’ on the facades
to break up the noise. On the exterior (road side) each level has an exterior walk way
that also breaks up the sound. So when you’re sitting on one of the robust wooden
benches you get a nice feeling of tranquillity, even if it is freezing cold. Local kids
are cycling around the mound which almost creates a circuit track (reminiscent of a
Corbusier Unite?). The enclosed garden is probably the best kept feature of the site.
Concrete play sculptures and sturdy landscaping mean it copes with the heavy use.
Mr Smithson said: “It is a model, it is an exemplar of a new mode of urbanisation.”

13
 From the beginning, Robin Hood Gardens has been at the center of a debate
concerning its success. Initially, structural issues raised the cost of the building. Once
lived in, critics blamed crime within the buildings on the Smithsons’ design, but there
have been many issues contributing to the less than ideal conditions of Robin Hood
Gardens today. A serious denial in upkeep has made the apartments less desirable
places to live, and developers are eager to demolish the buildings in order to expand
their own visions of the future. If London intends to keep Robin Hood Gardens it will
need to invest in renovations to liven the building, but renovations would come at a
much lower cost than the current plan to demolish it.
One of the most obvious problems of the existing blocks is the failure of the
Smithsons’ “streets in the sky”. The balconies are too narrow, and a number of entries
proposed making them wider and greener — more hedges than streets.

14
 ...and Now!

The project was the subject of a BBC documentary The Smithsons on Housing (1970), made by B.S.
Johnson, in which both Smithsons are interviewed.
Although Peter Smithson admitted he had been driven by a combination of urgency, practicality
and idealism, he claimed in a 1990s interview that the project had failed, although he largely blamed
social issues rather than architectural ones for this failure.
“In other places you see doors painted and pot plants outside houses, the minor arts of occupation,
which keep the place alive. In Robin Hood you don’t see this because if someone were to put
anything out it people will break it.”
Asked why he felt this was the case, Smithson cited ‘social jealousy’, he then went on to say,
“The week it opened, people would shit in the lifts, which is an act of social aggression.”
The Smithsons, if they were still alive, would be heartbroken that Robin Hood Gardens is currently
being demolished to make way for a complex designed primarily for the financial classes that
populate Canary Wharf.
Nearly 36 years after it was built, the Robin Hood Gardens estate in Poplar, east London, is
destined for demolition.
For most of the current residents, the end of the concrete blocks cannot come soon enough.
Yet for many well-known architects, the building represents a shining example of modern
buildings and have signed up to an online petition in a bid to save it.

Lord Rogers, who designed he Lloyd’s of London building and the Millennium Dome, has written
to the culture secretary Andy Burnham.
In the letter he says: “Peter and Alison Smithson built two seminal buildings in London - the
Economist Building in St James’ Street and Robin Hood Gardens in Tower Hamlets - both as good, if
not better, than any other modern building in Britain.
“Whilst the Economist Building has been maintained and upgraded, Robin Hood Gardens has
been appallingly neglected and, from the beginning, has been used as a sink estate to house those
least capable of looking after themselves - much less their environment.
“It would be a real tragedy and a terrible mistake to demolish this important and extraordinary
piece of modern architecture.”

But the estate developed problems with crime and there were concerns with its quality and
design.
“People live in Robin Hood Gardens, like they live in a prison,” said resident Charles Alison.
“You could be walking along and all of a sudden you find something has hit you - an egg, a stone,
a drink or cup thrown from the top.”
Fellow resident Obadiah Chambers said: “They should pull it down, without a doubt.
“They would not be pulling my home down because I don’t call it a home.”
Tower Hamlets Council agreed to demolish it and replace it with new homes as a part of
regeneration of what is known as the Blackwall Reach area.
During the consultation, more than 75% of residents said they would like to see Robin Hood
Gardens knocked down and replaced.

The top entries in BD and the Architecture Foundation’s ideas competition for Robin Hood
Gardens show that inspired refurbishment of the estate can give it a new vibrancy while reaching
the required density levels.
Tower Hamlets Council, which owns the estate, together with English Partnerships, propose
to demolish the estate to make way for 3,000 new homes. This is on the grounds that not only
are the Smithsons-designed blocks past saving, but residents also voted for demolition, although
refurbishment has since been costed as the cheaper option.
While many of the architects treated the two blocks with reverence, the more successful entries in
the judges’ view were less nervous about cutting through the blocks to make them more permeable,
or hanging additional structure off the facades to animate them and make the occupancy of the
blocks more readable.
The competition also disapproves the claim by Tower Hamlets Council and English Partnerships

15
that the buildings have to be demolished in order to achieve the required density levels.
A number of proposals added dwellings ranged east-west at the northern end of the site, or
added housing to close both ends of the site and create more of a courtyard, minimising overlooking
and maximising security.
One of the most obvious problems of the existing blocks is the failure of the Smithsons’ “streets in
the sky”. The balconies are too narrow, and a number of entries proposed making them wider and
greener — more hedges than streets.
Almost all the entries preserved the central green space, while the most convincing recognised
that its function, as a kind of a green lung for the estate, should be allowed to spread or percolate
through new residential blocks.
Finally, the entries makes a convincing argument that the estate’s problems are nothing to do
with the architecture but are down to a lack of vision by its owners. This is why the judges liked the
proposal to move the buildings to west London, putting it in an environment where, watched over
by Goldfinger’s Trellick Tower, the equally iconic Robin Hood immediately feels more at home.

Zoran Radivojevic’s winning scheme in our ideas competition shows how the buildings’ powerful
urban form can easily withstand some quite radical intervention. And this idea — that the buildings
can act as a fulcrum for further development — was a theme that ran through a number of the
entries.
The buildings are treated as giant carcasses that allow parts of the structure to be removed and
new, lighter structures to be added. These extensions could house work studios or retail space.
Some flats are also removed and the hollows used either as public space or let out as business units.
Circulation is via a new set of externally attached ramps and stairwells.

Conclusions:

...or more open questions - so what didn’t work in the end? Apart from interesting and inspiring
theory we are facing the reality. Interesting skism of oppinions, with architects who respect the
authors, and dwellers who live inside. May deccaying has other reasosn? One can thought about
history of Narkomfin housing inspiring project and his current status quo.
So is it a manifestation of a lack of architectural quality, “unsolvable” micro social context or
just inadequance of post CIAM theories to our times? I would like to end up with an immage, of
actual “core” of the “stress free” associative secure place - and the most succsessful part of the
project. One can take it as a methafora with him and travel to the Monte Stella park-hill in Milan
wich covers the reminescences of WWII still reflecting in the memories of inhabitants. May it be
manifestation of real wish to have peacefull reconstruction according to the changing needs, or
devellopers brainwashing the inhabitants with the unreaceable panorama of quality of life?

16
 Bibliography:

Peter Smithson and Alison Margaret Smithson

The Charged Void - Architecture,
The Monaccelli Press,
2001

Peter Smithson and Alison Margaret Smithson

Urban Structuring Studies of Alison & Peter Smithson
Studio Vista Press,
1967

Peter Smithson and Alison Margaret Smithson

Without Rhetoric - An Architectural Aesthetic, 1955-72
The M.I.T. Press,
1974

V.A.
Team 10 - 1953-81 In Search of Utopia of the present
NAi Publishers,
2005

B. S. Johnson’s short documentary- The Smithsons on housing

BBC,
1970
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5thwHTYNk)

BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7281156.stm

The Guardinan
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/artblog/2008/jun/26/dontknockbrutalism

http://www.archdaily.com/150629/ad-classics-robin-hood-gardens-alison-and-peter-smithson/

Rotten Utopia,
Video,
2012
http://vimeo.com/52743211

The Guardian
Jonathan Glancey reportage - Is London’s Robin Hood Gardens an architectural masterpiece?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOpEJT_d3rI&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Robin Hood Gardens Life on the Edge - An interview with a gentlemen who is about to be evicted from the basement garages of
Robin Hood Gardens Tower Hamlets October 2008

17