Comments on: The Brutalist Truth

By: Roger Woodward

Roger Woodward — Tue, 12 Jan 2010 22:00:50 +0000

Fascinating article. How did either planners or architects ever believe something described as Brutalism would be viewed as an attractive environment? Decades before this was built, concrete faced buildings were popularly dismissed as ugly.

It’s almost impossible to predict what is going to be successful, so boldness and risk taking are excusable. But this was predictably unsuccessful, in terms of providing a homely environment.

By: Luis Diaz

Luis Diaz — Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:40:42 +0000

Two problems with the debate over Robin Hood Gardens which are rarely addressed. 1) The question of ‘failure’ is never adequately defined or justified. Is the project a failure because it did not forsee the way in which housing would be treated by future regimes? Is the housing a failure due objective criteria which we can identify and agree upon? Is it a failure simply because its form is wrong? Is such a thing possible? The question of failure has been addressed by various historians (Forty, Summerson) yet too many commentators speak with authority on the issue without ever engaging with the serious problematics of the question of ‘failure. 2) Let’s agree this project has failed. Is the solution to tear it down and start again? Isn’t this what got us in this predicament in the first place? Why is adaptation never taken seriously? One reason: housing has been a political toy since at least the 19th century (e.g. Victorian moral reform housing) and the messages sent by construction and destruction are more important than material analysis of any project and material proposals for making things better.
I’ll add a third problem – the idea that we can ‘know’ how people intend or want to use spaces. In polar opposition (but equally problematic) to authoritarian decision making is the idea that democratic processes can achive some notion of ‘correctness’ or ‘truth.’

By: Nick Beech

Nick Beech — Tue, 11 Aug 2009 13:36:15 +0000

Interesting post—catching the main dilemmas. I wrote about this building a while back, and if you want, I could get you in touch with erect architecture, you’ll see why that might be of interest (I suppose you might not) if you go to: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/opticon1826/archive/issue1/easystreet.pdf
if you do read it, just a quick errata: p. 2 should read ‘public stairwell’ not ‘pubic stairwell’—god is in the details.

By: Paddy

Paddy — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 13:39:33 +0000

may be of interest:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/video/2009/jul/28/robin-hood-gardens-architecture

By: Will Brambley

Will Brambley — Wed, 27 May 2009 03:10:55 +0000

A great article, and I agree with almost all of it. Except the last sentence. Developing a housing system “top-down” can work if it’s done right. The problem seems to be that these aren’t.

One particular thing this reminded me off was Bryanston Square, a group of people who try to create schools (as in the actual buildings, primarily) that encourage learning better. It’s a similar idea applied to education as Le Corbusier’s was to housing, though from my limited understanding it seems to have been far more successful.

While growing things organically can work very well, often with forethought and planning you can create things that work even better in practice. Though it does need to be designed while strongly thinking about how people will use it, and – the difficult part – it needs to be right in how it is thought people will use it.

By: Oodah

Oodah — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:42:10 +0000

At long last, attention paid to social housing by someone with a heart.
Since the “sell-off of council housing” it’s as if housing has been invisible as a political concern (apart from “getting on the ladder” and eating up green belts” of course). Why has there been such scant attention paid to this the most fundamental of people’s human needs – shelter, safety and security (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs)? Maslow also opined that higher needs, like an opportunity to unfold well, privacy to reflect and consolidate life experiences and self-actualisation cannot be met if lower needs are not. And so with poor housing we commit people to lives of mental and (because they are so linked) physical illness and the improbability of being able to put “meaning” in their lives.
Thank you Dave for an article with warmth and one that gives hope that people with an interest in politics on the left, and jobs in the business like you, will focus on Mrs. So and So’s local environment and her house. It was “probably a first” that someone like you asked those two men what it was that they wanted. Cheers

By: jeanette

jeanette — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:35:32 +0000

Unfortunately we live in a state that is run by the higher classes who think they know what is best for the common good of all. Have I got news for them ………….what possible life experiences have they got from living in their over priced Georgian mansions with their butlers and hired help!!! Lets not even go to there misuse of funds for personal expenses……….. Anyway before we know where we are these highly “qualified” people will be deciding that actually, like any true sci-fi movie, houses will be built from the bottom down………….into the depths of gods knows where. What then will happen to the green leaves of that poor sorry little tree???
As for pubs, well don’t even get me started on the blatent destruction of them across Britain. Do people not realise that mental health is on the increase, in part due to peoples innate needs not being met. One of the most fundamental things we all need is community contact and how did we get this? We got this through the community spirit of pubs. Poor Grandad Sid, Great Uncle Ern and myself will be rattling around in that wonderland in the sky in the future suffering from depression caused by where our community life has gone.

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 25 May 2009 19:32:21 +0000

A further point of possible interest… thethirdestate.net ‘iconic’ logo in the top right corner is a picture of the Robin Hood Gardens estate.

By: julia

julia — Sun, 24 May 2009 17:30:36 +0000

This is a fascinating and moving piece — I was particularly interested the connection with Constructivism as I was pleased to have caught the Rodchenko exhibition at the Tate Modern the day before it closed. There is too little discussion on the left about art, architecture and the hopes and dreams of those who work to create an environment that’s fit for human beings old and young, and the history is in danger of getting lost. Thanks for this contribution.