Utopia Reloaded

utopia reloaded A+P Smithson’s Robin Hood Gardens Il volume “Utopia Reloded: A+P Smithson Robin Hood Gardens” è stato editato dal gruppo di lavoro che afferisce alla Unità di Ricerca del Politecnico di Milano “Adaptive Re-use/prof. Postiglione (www.lablog.org.uk) per raccogliere in un unico plico tutti i principali documenti necessari allo svolgimento del laboratorio di progettazione degli Interni 1 (aa 2012-13). Trattandosi di documenti coperti da copyright la loro riproduzione pubblica e/o commerciale è assolutamente vietata e gli studenti del corso e ogni eventuale altro lettore sono invitati a rispettare le limitazioni imposte dalla legge.

Il tema di progetto, la riqualificazione dei RHG, prende spunto dal dibattito che si è acceso dopo la decisione, presa nel 2008, di procedere alla demolizione del complesso residenziale e alla sua sostituzione. Grazie alla crisi finanziaria che ha colpito l’Europa, ad oggi i RHG non sono stati ancora demoliti, lasciando aperta una speranza per una loro riqualificazione.

Politecnico di Milano Scuola di Architettura e Società AA 2012 / 2013

Laboratorio di Progettazione degli Interni 1 prof. Gennaro Postiglione arch. Francesco Dolce arch. Enrico Scaramellini cura redazionale del volume arch. Maddalena Scarzella curatori del programma di Guest Lectures arch. Michela Bassanelli arch. Enrico Forestieri

© per i testi gli autori © per le immagini gli autori © per i disegni originali A+P Smithson Archives Milano, gennaio 2013 utopia reloaded A+P Smithson’s Robin Hood Gardens View of the largest mound in the central green space - ph Sandra Lousada, 1972

INTRODUZIONE di Gennaro Postiglione

Parte 1 THE ROBIN HOOD GARDENS

A CRITICAL NARRATIVE from: Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions C20 studies n°1, UK 2010 by Allan Powers

RHG TODAY IMAGES from: flickr, plataformaarquitectura © All right are reserved

Parte 2 RHG DESIGN COMPETITION BD 2008 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief”, 2008 Parte 3 ANTOLOGIA DELLA CRITICA

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND LONDON E14 from: Architectural Design volume 42, September 1972, pag 557-73 e 590-92

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND THE STATE OF THE POST-WAR LISTING by Alan Powers - 29th February, 2008 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008”

LETTER by Twentieth Century Society - 29th November 2007 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008”

BIBLIOGRAFIA

INTRODUZIONE

di Gennaro Postilgione Collage of the first scheme known as Manisty Street (1962-64), which became Robin Hood Gardens. PS, 1963 Il presente volume, “Utopia Reloded: A+P Smithson Robin Hood Gardens”, è frutto del lavoro del gruppo che afferisce alla Unità di Ricerca “Adaptive Re-use” che guido presso il Politecnico di Milano (www.lablog.org.uk), e nasce dalla volontà di raccogliere in un unico plico tutti i principali documenti necessari allo svolgimento del tema del Laboratorio di Progettazione degli Interni 1 (aa 2012-13): la riqualificazione e il riuso dei RHG, come vengono solitamente denominati dalla pubblicistica. Il tema di progetto prende spunto dal dibattito che si è acceso, non solo in Gran Bretagna, dopo la decisione presa nel 2008 di procedere alla demolizione del complesso residenziale. Una decisione che, grazie alla crisi finanziaria che ha colpito l’Europa, ad oggi non è stata ancora attuata, lasciando aperta una speranza per una loro riqualificazione.

I RHG sono uno dei pochi edifici costruiti da Alison and Peter Smithson, la coppia di architetti radicali che ha avuto una enorme influenza sulla cultura architettonica del dopoguerra non solo anglosassone. Membri fondatori del TEAM X e co-fondatori, insieme a Giancarlo De Carlo, dei seminari di progettazione estivi IL-AUD, sono stati mentori di generazioni e generazioni di architetti sia attraverso la loro attività didattica sia attraverso la loro vena critica, che li ha visti autori di centinaia di articoli e saggi per più di cinquant’anni: dal dopoguerra ai primi anni del duemila. Fino cioè all’ultimo respiro.

Già nel 2008, lo stesso anno in cui il governo britannico aveva preso la decisione di demolire il complesso residenziale, l’indignazione generale suggerì alla rivista on-line Building Design, in collaborazione con la XX Century Society, l’organizzazione di un concorso per idee che dimostrasse le possibilità e le ragioni di un progetto di riqualificazione e riuso dei RHG. Purtroppo né i risultati del concorso, che pure a suo tempo avevano mobilitato molte energie nazionali, né la parallela azione giudiziaria intrapresa dalla XX Century Society che aveva impugnato la decisione di demolizione presa, hanno sortito alcun effetto sull’amministrazione di Londra che è rimasta fedele alle proprie decisioni.

A tanti anni da quella decisione, i RHG non sono stati ancora demoliti e il Laboratorio di Progettazione 1 del Politecnico di Milano intende riprendere la sfida per dimostrare l’ammissibilità progettuale tecnica ed economica, oltre che culturale, di un progetto di recupero e riuso in grado di rispettare i caratteri dell’edificio ma anche di introdurre gli indispensabili adeguamenti e le modifiche, anche strutturali, utili garantirne il mantenimento.

Gli studenti sono quindi inviati a formulare una proposta progettuale a partire dal bando redatto da “BD” nel 2008 e individuando autonomamente, con l’aiuto dei docenti, specifici target di utenti in grado di restituire una varietà di proposte. I progetti, a fine corso, verranno messi in mostra e saranno oggetto di una valutazione da parte di un panel di critici esterni che dovranno individuare, come in un vero concorso, tre vincitori (primo, secondo e terzo qualificato): oltre all’influenza che queste decisioni avranno sulle valutazioni dei lavori, al gruppo che si collocherà al primo posto verrà consegnato un premio.

Link per scaricare la documentazione sui RHG: http://www.polimi-cooperation.org/RHG/RHG-book-low.pdf http://www.polimi-cooperation.org/RHG/collage.zip http://www.polimi-cooperation.org/RHG/disegni.zip http://www.polimi-cooperation.org/RHG/documenti.zip http://www.polimi-cooperation.org/RHG/foto_storiche.zip http://www.polimi-cooperation.org/RHG/modello.zip http://www.polimi-cooperation.org/RHG/modello.zip

Parte 1 THE ROBIN HOOD GARDENS

A CRITICAL NARRATIVE from: Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions C20 studies n°1, UK 2010 by Allan Powers

RHG TODAY IMAGES from: flickr, plataformaarquitectura © All right are reserved

A CRITICAL NARRATIVE from: Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions C20 studies n°1, UK 2010 by Allan Powers

RHG TODAY IMAGES from: flickr, plataformaarquitectura © All right are reserved Diagrammatic section showing reasoning behind disposition of the required accomodation Diagram of the traffic pattern and desire routes of tenantes

Diagram of visual connections of the people of their district Iimage of dimentions’ for a group. PS,1968 Shaded axonometric A+PS on contruction site of RHG, 1970 Photomontage-aerial Perpective

Robin Hood Garden

Building layout and external elevations

Garden and South elevations

Plans of Cotton Street Block: Above deck level, at deck level, below deck level

Plan showing structural cross walls (Cotton)

Plan showing structural cross walls (Blackwall)

Pencil drawing of lift lobby at ends of linear blocks including preliminary

Typical cross section

Blackwall Tunnel South Block, sixth floor, outside maisonette 96 of Type 3 flat, looking south towards the River Thames

Study axonometric of 3 bedroom duplex flat

Blackwall Tunnel South Block, eleventh floor, Type 6 up flat, upper level

Blackwall Tunnel South Block, 9 floor, outside maisonette 210 of Type 4B flat, looking south towards the River Thames Pencil study drawing of acoustic wall Section through Cotton Street Block with elevation elements ph by Alison + Peter Smithson

ph by Alison + Peter Smithson ph by Alison + Peter Smithson ph by Alison + Peter Smithson ph by Alison + Peter Smithson

ph by Alison + Peter Smithson View along first Deck Level of Cotton Street Building

View from the north of the central open space seen over the East India Dock Road - ph Sandra Lousada, 1973

Pre-cast skin component - PS 1969

Cotton Streat moat viewed from first deck level; St. Frideswide’s beyond - Building Design, 1973

Central green mound during school holidays - ph Sandra Lousada, 1972

Old people's ground floor flats at foot cotton Street building - ph Sandra Lousada, 1972

Cricket in the central green space. Archive negative, ph not known

The central space “..... a court or yard, a walk or a garden which cannot easily be touched by later building activity” - ph Sandra Lousada, 1972 The central space “..... a court or yard, a walk or a garden which cannot easily be touched by later building activity” - ph Sandra Lousada, 1972 View across the approach to the Blackwall Tunnel on the east side - ph Sandra Lousada, 1972

Cotton Street Building

A CRITICAL NARRATIVE from: Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions C20 studies n°1, UK 2010 by Allan Powers

View from south-est side - flickr © George Rex

View from the est side, particular of the garage - © plataformaarquitectura View from the west side - flickr © lablog 2012 West side facade, particular - flickr © Gary Kinsman particular - flickr © Moreikur COTTON STREET BLOCK From central green space - Flickr © SomeDriftwood

View from Cotton Street - © pixelhut

View from the est side - © plataformaarquitectura View from the west side, garage - © plataformaarquitectura View along Deck Level - flickr © Mattnstuff Facade particular - flickr © Joseph Beuys Hat Front door - © plataformaarquitectura Front door - flickr © Keithlard Parapet - flickr © BrutalisTeXile

Parte 2 RHG DESIGN COMPETITION - BD 2008 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008” Blackwall Tunnel South Block view on the east side - © WikiArquitectura, 2010 Robin Hood Gardens (RHG), the 1970s housing development in east London by Alison and Peter Smithson, is currently being considered for demolition and redevelopment, in order to accommodate increased numbers of homes on the site. It is currently being considered for listing: an announcement on this is likely during the course of the competition. We believe that RHG is an exceptional work of architecture which achieves good space standards in its flats and a large amount of open space. It offers much-needed family- sized units to the London Borough of Tower Hamlets. Demolition would also entail a high loss of embodied energy. All reasonable options for retaining it, while allowing for further development, should be explored. We also recognise that RHG has flaws as a place to live. Experience on other estates of its generation has shown that such flaws can be addressed without wholesale demolition. There is, however, a real need for change. Robin Hood Gardens is important in itself, but also for the wider issues it raises about the regeneration of developments of its period. At Park Hill in Sheffield plans are under way to renew a comparable estate, while others are being or have been demolished. These are essential issues for British cities as a whole. The purpose of this International Ideas Competition, which is open and anonymous, is to invite and generate proposals that show how the site can change and be intensified, without destruction of the existing buildings or loss of the site’s essential qualities. These proposals will inform and influence the ongoing debate about RHG in particular, and the wider debate about the retention and transformation of buildings of its generation. It is important that these ideas are considered in the context of the brief and the aspiration of Tower Hamlets Council and English Partnerships to use this important site to generate new affordable and market housing. Qualified architects are invited to submit proposals that show how the site can be renewed and transformed while retaining the best of the existing. The winner and finalists will be chosen by a jury of leading architects and other architectural figures, and will be published in a special feature in Building Design magazine. This is your chance to take a leading part in one of the important current debates in British architecture.

TECHNICAL ASSESSMENT

To ensure viability and to give greater weight to the proposals, the winning entry should successfully take into account and act in response to the technical expectations of the Blackwall Reach landowners, the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (LBTH) and English Partnerships (EP), whilst working towards their overall vision:

‘To provide new homes, new shops, broader community uses, improved connectivity, new business premises and attractive new open spaces, all underpinned by high quality urban design and architecture.’

Two options were presented for the Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project, the first retaining Robin Hood Gardens, the second replacing Robin Hood Gardens with higher density developments.

THE COMPETITION

The purpose of the competition is therefore to propose a viable and creative solution in response to the option of retaining Robin Hood Gardens. The proposal should propose imaginative approaches to saving and transforming this existing 70s icon. The competition entries need to show how Robin Hood Gardens (RHG) can be modified, and include an amenity strategy to keep the existing open space - one of the unique features of the estate. The competition will also establish that retention of the estate is a greener option than demolition, and hopes to influence the listing process which is current. To achieve this objective we have outlined in the detail of this document the current position as reported to the cabinet of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets and to enable entrants to fully understand the political context of the competition. The success of the competition will be the mix of the creativity of the idea with the reality of this wider political context.

EXISTING LAND USES

According to the report on the 1st August 2007 Cabinet meeting on the Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project – Draft Development Framework, there are 252 homes in this site area, of which 214 are within the RHG complex. In addition to housing, RHG provides community and sporting facilities, as well as a large open space. It has been estimated that a total £20 million would be required to bring the dwellings up to Decent Homes standards. There is a lack of shops, of well-run community facilities and the open spaces are poorly maintained and under-used.

KEY PRINCIPLES FOR THE REGENERATION

Key principles for the site area, as reiterated in the minutes of the Cabinet meeting mentioned above, should ensure: - That there is a provision of quality commercial, community and leisure facilities - That the Woolmore Primary School be retained and extended, along with any additional community services needed to support the school. - Freehold ownership of the land on which the Council’s homes are refurbished or replaced will remain with the Council. - The Woolmore Street properties of 1-22 Anderson House, 1-11 Mackrow Walk and 2-10 (Evens) Woolmore Street would be proposed for demolition, to enhance the available public space] - Additional residential development will need to provide a minimum of 35% affordable housing, together with the required levels of family housing across all tenures, in accordance with the Council’s policies. - This is likely to result in the provision of up to 800 new affordable homes depending on whether Robin Hood Gardens is retained or redeveloped. - The financial framework for the building of Council homes is not yet known. - That there is no net loss of public open space and that there is the opportunity to increase the amount of open space provision in the area and improve its quality. - If the existing education, health, youth and community facilities are to be redeveloped, they will need to be fully replaced with modern and improved facilities of at least the same size to ensure they have the capacity to serve an increased residential population. - That pedestrian and cycle linkages to and from the area are improved.

TWO OPTIONS, THREE VARIATIONS

The draft Blackwall Reach Regeneration Development Framework presents two options for the site area – one retaining Robin Hood Gardens, the other replacing the complex. Each option can be further modified by decking and developing, entirely or partially, over the Blackwall Tunnel approach, thereby also improving the access and pollution issues relating to the site area.

Blackwall Reach Regeneration Area - from “ Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project”

Parte 3 ANTOLOGIA DELLA CRITICA

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND LONDON E14 from: Architectural Design volume 42, September 1972, pag 557-73 e 590-92

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND THE STATE OF THE POST-WAR LISTING by Alan Powers - 29th February, 2008 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008”

LETTER by Twentieth Century Society - 29th November 2007 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008”

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND LONDON E14 from: Architectural Design volume 42, September 1972, pag 557-73 e 590-92

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND THE STATE OF THE POST-WAR LISTING by Alan Powers - 29th February, 2008 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008”

LETTER by Twentieth Century Society - 29th November 2007 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008” Construction -The Smithson Family Collection © 2008 Listing post-war buildings has always been a point of contention, says Alan Powers, but in the case of Robin Hood Gardens there should be no argument The threat to Robin Hood Gardens comes at a bad time, because there has seldom been a worse moment for listing a post-war building in the course of the past 15 years. This situation raises questions and concerns beyond the individual case under discussion, for which BD is making such a heroic effort of support. Post-war listing has never been an easy concept to sell to government, because there are many vested interests in restricting the protection of historic buildings, and even among supporters of “heritage” as a concept, post-war architecture is seen unselectively as the enemy rather than part of a logical progression of protection coverage. The argument that history does not stop was a crucial one when the principle of post-war listing was agreed in the 1980s. The convention of the “30- year rule” was borrowed from Scotland to give sufficient critical distance, and when English Heritage first considered a batch of post-war buildings in 1987, there was relatively little to look at from before 1957. Owing to ministerial intervention, the first round of post-war listings was a rather ill- considered flash in the pan, but after further pressure from amenity groups, a new selection procedure, based on thematic research according to building types, was instituted along with a Post War Listing Steering Group at English Heritage. This group commissioned the research and reviewed the outcomes, forwarding proposals for listing to higher committees. Some fell at the second fence, and, when they reached the minister’s desk, still more were weeded out, and in the process black-marked so that it was much more difficult to present them again, even if the decision made at the time was influenced by prejudice or expediency. The period 1992-2002 was marked by a methodical progress according to these procedures, including much effective public relations work by English Heritage to explain what listing was, and why these buildings deserved protection. An additional layer of consultation with the public and owners was introduced, but no listing proposal was found wanting in the light of occasional challenges. For a variety of reasons, some of them budgetary, the Steering Group was disbanded in 2002 and given assurances that its work was so well established that it was no longer needed. But with a further lapse of time, things have stood still or gone backwards. A few important isolated listings have been achieved, but the government has not been especially committed to this contentious area, despite the continued good news stories about buildings such as the Brunswick Centre where a good solution has been found within the constraints of listing. Many proposals made before 2002 have been stuck in the pipeline, causing uncertainty on all sides. Public housing is probably the most difficult category of post-war listing, owing to the lingering reputation of social dysfunction and faulty construction associated indiscriminately with almost every project. After much hesitation, English Heritage and Ministers bravely put Park Hill, Sheffield on the list in 1998 at II*, and the future of this major scheme was resolved with the collaboration of Urban Splash. The Alton Estates at Roehampton, listed in the same year, are visually less challenging than Park Hill, although very large in scale. In both cases, the international reputation of the schemes was a historical fact. Other large and small housing schemes have followed, including the two London towers by Goldfinger, and the Byker Estate in Newcastle. The Twentieth Century Society has been involved in discussions (mostly about window replacement) in both the Goldfinger buildings, but there have been no negative repercussions. One of the clear benefits of listing is that it not only protects the character of the building fabric, but also the spaces between the buildings, while allowing for sensitive upgrading of facilities. On most counts, Robin Hood Gardens should be a prime candidate for listing. It is the only housing built by architects who devoted much of their lives to the discussion of dwelling at various scales. Among architectural thinkers around the world today, these architects are seen as the most important to have worked in Britain in their generation. This is heavy weight to put against counter-claims that the buildings were not built as first designed, and experienced social teething problems owing to the almost universal post-industrial problems of the early 1970s in Britain. Emphasis should be put on the place-making quality of this housing, heroic towards the Blackwell Tunnel approach, embracing towards the nurturing mounds of the green space between the snaking block, where a big sky opens amid the scattered street patterns of the East End. As for resident satisfaction, the present Bangladeshi population seems to have no problem about inhabiting these monumental cliffs, in a way that the Smithsons would surely have recognised as a fulfilment of their intentions. This is no Holly Street or Aylesbury Estate, best destined for the dustbin. The pressure is on, and someone must decide whether or not we are going to look like international idiots who let Robin Hood Gardens fall prey to the bland machinery that calls itself “regeneration”, while effacing the useable legacy of the welfare state.

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND LONDON E14 from: Architectural Design volume 42, September 1972, pag 557-73 e 590-92

ROBIN HOOD GARDENS AND THE STATE OF THE POST-WAR LISTING by Alan Powers - 29th February, 2008 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008”

LETTER by Twentieth Century Society - 29th November 2007 from: “BD Architecture Foundation: Robin Hood Gardens International Ideas Competition Brief, 2008” English Heritage Heritage Operations Department 1 Waterhouse Square 138-142 Holborn London EC1N 2ST

29th November 2007

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Robin Hood Gardens including landscape and boundary wall; Poplar, Tower Hamlets, London Our Ref: 08 07 01

The Twentieth Century Society would like to put forward the above building for spot- listing at Grade II. We would also like to oppose the granting of a Certificate of Immunity from listing, for which we believe there has been an application, in the strongest possible terms. The Society sees the current regeneration proposals for the whole of the Blackwall Reach area as a specific threat to the future of Robin Hood Gardens. Consultation projects and workshops for local residents have already begun and Tower Hamlets hope to submit a planning application for the final regeneration plan in Spring 2008. There are two options being proposed, one involves the retention and refurbishment of Robin Hood Gardens, the other its demolition and replacement. The proposals will cover a site that runs from East India Dock Road in the north to Aspen Way in the south with Cotton Street bounding it on the western side and East India Docks on the eastern boundaries – an area that includes all of the Robin Hood Gardens site and associated landscaping and boundary structures. The Society therefore considers that the Blackwall Regeneration Project puts Robin Hood Gardens under threat of outright demolition.

Robin Hood Gardens – Background context In 1961, the London County Council (LCC) was faced with the task of clearing a waiting list for council housing of approximately 53,000 people. In line with the policy of the LCC at the time to employ private architectural firms to design public housing, Alison and Peter Smithson were added to the list in 1962,. At the time they were at the forefront of the international debate on the future course of Modern Architecture. They were eminent members of CIAM and Team 10, both platforms for furthering Modern Architecture. Together with Reyner Banham they were the main instigators of the New Brutalism as a response to the generic modernism of the International Style and what they saw as technocratic urban planning. The New Brutalism would be the most important contribution by British architects to the international discourse on Modern Architecture during the 1950s and 1960s.1 In 1963 they were given three small sites to design for on Woolmore Street and Mackrow Street, Poplar. Before they had time to design for these sites however, various other projects, including the widening of the Blackwall Tunnel, meant that the Smithsons were presented with a much larger site. The site, however, was not an easy one to design for. Ostensibly one large traffic island, it had the added difficulty of being immediately adjacent to the Blackwall Tunnel entrance. This made noise reduction an important consideration and the Smithsons were instructed to design for no more than 50 DBA during daylight hours and 35 DBA at night. The Smithsons also had to consider issues of density – the site was zoned by the GLC for use at a density of 132 persons per acre and it was a further planning requirement that the layout provide two-thirds of an acre of open-land per thousand persons. Conception and development of Robin Hood Gardens The Smithsons, along with their assistants, Christopher Woodward and Ken Baker, assumed the challenge of adapting an earlier proposal, originally drawn for the Golden Lane Estate in East London, as part of an open competition. For the 1953 CIAM-conference at Aix, they re-conceptualized this original competition entry into a model for a so-called superstructure, which they intended as a critique of New Town urbanization models. It is now considered as a key project in the international rethinking of Modern Architecture principles during the postwar era. Their CIAM presentation, also known as the Urban Re-identification-Grid is now in possession of the Centre Pompidou, Paris, and has been part of major shows such as Documenta X, Kassel and Team 10. In response to the constrained, complex site the Smithsons designed two long blocks which faced inwards to a central ‘stress free-zone’. They had employed a similar layout before, not just in the Golden Lane project that they were developing for the Poplar site, but also in their 1962 plan for Mehringplatz in Berlin. From Mehringplatz also, came the idea for periphery – based car parking and service bays, which form a ‘moat’ around the outside of each block. They chose a cross-wall construction, so as to build decks without the supporting columns which had been required at Park Hill (Sheffield City Architects Dept – 1956-61). The two, long blocks are carefully articulated but follow the approximate curve of the roads. The finish is of rough cast concrete. The pre-cast Sundh system was required to be used in line with contemporary preference for a system building method.

The Building as street The Smithsons, who had worked in the schools dividision of LCC Architects Department, were highly influential in re-establishing the Modern Movement, both here in Britain and internationally, after the war. Although few of their buildings were actually completed, those that were, were widely acclaimed. Their highly original competition designs, articles and books, cemented their reputation as architectural theorists of vision and rigour. Of particular significance was their development of Corbusier’s concepts of the ‘building as street’ and the Unité d’Habitation. In his unrealised Ville Contemporaine (1922) Le Corbusier proposed a series of interconnected pedestrian levels, singularly disconnected from the road – (the Smithsons use the phrase ‘street-in-the-air’) As the Smithsons worked on their proposals for Golden Lane, they adopted and evolved this idea which became “one of the salient propositions of mid 20th century urbanism”2. Their reworking of the idea of the street-in-the-air was also a critique of Le Corbusier’s seminal Unité d’Habitation of Marseille, which was celebrated at the 1953 CIAM conference in Aix, and which used a dark, interior corridor space to access the individual units. The Robin Hood Gardens estate shows one particular major shift within the Smithsons’ own development. Instead of a superstructure in the spirirt of Golden Lane (or Park Hill, Sheffield), they realized two distinct buildings. This was partly due to their shifting position within Team 10. From 1962 onward they would dismiss the idea of the city as one big building, and analogically a building as a small city – This was a similar development to that made by their Dutch counterparts in Team 10, Aldo van Eyck and Jaap Bakema.

Cars and urban space In 1952, the universality of the car was still not fully accepted therefore at Golden Lane The Smithsons introduced a series of elevated pedestrian decks as a completely connected system, which had no need to connect to vehicular circulation. By the time of Robin Hood Gardens, and after further developments made on their schemes for Haupstadt Berlin (1958) and Berlin Mehringplatz (1962) it was apparent that the Smithsons had come to accept the inevitability of near universal car ownership in their architectural thinking and the need to access private cars as a new tool for designing urban space.4 Parking provision for 70% of the flats was provided and as with the project at Mehringplatz, this was discreetly situated in two long ‘moats’ running along the street facing sides of each block below street level – this allowed cars to be hidden underground, yet still take advantage of natural light and ventilation. Thus the ground between the blocks was freed from car intrusion, and a pedestrianized, ‘stress free’ urban space could be provided.

Landscaping The walkways (or streets-in-the-air) are positioned on the exterior elevations providing magnificent views. These are uninterrupted by columns, achieved by the use of cross wall construction and the cantilevering out of the walkways. The outside position of the walkways also allowed the Smithsons to give every flat a balcony on the quiet side of the block overlooking the public garden. In an echo of the urban ‘city square’ they designed an impressive landscape between the two blocks from the rubble of the buildings demolished to make way for Robin Hood Gardens. The Main objective of this was to provide what the couple called an ‘urban event’ within the larger context of the infrastructure of the Docklands and the surrounding working class neighbourhoods Merging elements from the picturesque and the tradition of Modern Architecture the Smithsons regarded this green and quiet space as being in the specific tradition of a London Square. The landscaping consisted of two mounds, the largest of which was placed at the northern end of the site. This has since been altered as part of a millennium project and now one large mound sits in a more central position between the blocks. This however, has not changed the fundamental relationship between the buildings and central mounded greenspace. Conclusion The Twentieth Century Society sees Robin Hood Gardens as the culmination of a unique and influential architectural ideology. It is the only built expression of the Smithsons 20 year concern with the relationship between individual dwelling and street. It is currently fully let and supports a flourishing community in individual units of decent size and with magnificent views. There are no significant problems with vandalism or antisocial behaviour. Undoubtedly seminal in the context of international public housing, Robin Hood Gardens remains a salient proposition for the problems of mass housing on poor quality urban sites where high density is required. It is an outstanding example of the work of one of the most internationally celebrated and influential architectural partnerships of the twentieth century. The Society therefore wishes to strongly support the listing of the estate, along with the hard landscaping elements and acoustically reflective concrete boundary wall.

Yours sincerely,

Jon Wright C20 Society Caseworker

BIBLIOGRAFIA Alison&Peter Smithson. A critical Anthology Max Risselada (ed.) Ediciones Polìgrafa, Barcellona 2011

As Founf. The discovery of the ordinary C. Lichtenstein, T. Schregenberger (ed.) Lars Muller Publichers, Zurich 2001

Architecture is not made with the brain Architectural Association, Londra 2003

Peter Smithson. Conversaciones con estudiantes C. Splelman K. Unglaub (ed.) GG, Barcellona 2004

# lettura obbligatoria dei capitoli evidenziati

Il volume “Utopia Reloded: A+P Smithson Robin Hood Gardens” è stato editato dal gruppo di lavoro che afferisce alla Unità di Ricerca del Politecnico di Milano “Adaptive Re-use/prof. Postiglione (www.lablog.org.uk) per raccogliere in un unico plico tutti i principali documenti necessari allo svolgimento del laboratorio di progettazione degli Interni 1 (aa 2012-13). Trattandosi di documenti coperti da copyright la loro riproduzione pubblica e/o commerciale è assolutamente vietata e gli studenti del corso e ogni eventuale altro lettore sono invitati a rispettare le limitazioni imposte dalla legge.

Politecnico di Milano Scuola di Architettura e Società AA 2012 / 2013