Streets in the sky:
A naïve proposal or a brilliant manifesto?

Humanity has come through many events before it got to this point we are right now. W hat come in between of the years are constant changes in our lives.
Changes are inevitable, but has it done any good to us? In the sense of architecture, changes may refer to ‘tradition and modernity’. Tradition held us up to the point we are at right now while modernity sees the flaw of it then attempt to refine it, until one day modernity itself turns into another tradition that one overlooks. Being in the time where architecture has gone through different traditions, it is sad to say that what used to have the ‘wow’ factor no longer put people in awe. Instead, what people nowadays prefer are posh CGIs of new developments, heavily rendered, put on a site without immediate context. That triggers the question, have we changed so much until we don’t recognise what is aesthetically beautiful and what not? And one would question the position of the architect himself, are they no longer the dominant figure like they used to be? It seems that we have forgotten how satisfying it is to appreciate a ‘real’ building, like how a space would give you chill down the spine.
Fortunately, due to the unsatisfied nature of human being, the need to look for a fresh subject emerges. We constantly need fresh subjects to come into our lives, no matter if its something from the past or the future. In the current society p eople tend to look back and once again, be grateful of what the past has given us. Without them, what would our world be? And most importantly, where would we be? But then, having said all that, sometimes it is too late to appreciate what has been there. And for this matter, we are discussing about Robin Hood Garden in Poplar, London. It is scheduled for demolition, despite the objection by the high priests of contemporary architecture. Designed by architects Alison and Peter Smithson, this building is a gem in brutalist architecture but now, it shall only be a part in the history of architecture. As Rowan Moore said it, Robin Hood Garden maybe a building that

rose to stardom through infamy, but what do we know, an architectural disaster is stepping up to the plate.

Figure 1.1 New developments for Robin Hood Garden

Ever wondered who coined the word ‘Brutalism’? Smithsons are the one to look at. During their time, they made their name as masters of post-war architecture and made their mark in with the distinctive style of ‘Brutalism’ in their buildi ng design.
They never had much project built, unlike James Stirling, their sparring partner in the industry. That is also where they differ from James Stirling, they were able to theorize endlessly (Pearman November 30, 2003). They were once the topic of conversation for every critics back in the days. So why didn’t they rise to a higher platform like James Stirling did? They obviously had the guts to go against Le
Corbusier, the ‘god’ of architecture. Traditions proven to have no impact on these two; for instance, CIAM were the way of modernism and has become a tradition on its own, the Smithson saw it differently, they felt the urge to break the norm within modernism and come up with something new. Even though they didn’t build much,

and most of it went to the wrong direction, but there must have a reason why they were regarded as masters of post-war architects. One very good example of their distinct work is the Robin Hood Garden in London.
It is vital to know that CIAM were the way of architecture, unti l the Smithson came about. Alison and Peter were afraid that CIAM would led architecture towards the path of an isolated society. They were not keen on Corbusier and Walter
Gropius’ idea on a city, where zones are separated by activities; because they felt that a community should have all activities held in one place, where the residents should feel the ‘sense of belonging’ and ‘neighbourliness’. Therefore, they vision of modern housing saw the light when they were commissioned for the Robin Hood
Garden project. A great example of brutalist architecture, this was also their answer to Corbusier’s Unite d’Habitation in Marseilles, France. Robin Hood garden displayed the ultimate ideology of Alison and Peter, street in the sky. This ideology was opposing the one proposed by Athens’ charter, where a city should consists of high, widely spaced

apartment

blocks, and carefully planned zones, separated from one another by

acres

of

landscaped green belt (Open
University
2011).

Figure 1.2 Model of Radiant City by Le Corbusier

November

26,

Figure 1.2 A Sectional perspective of Robin Hood Garden and Below: Figure 1.3 Aerial view of the blocks enclosing the park

Robin Hood Garden was completed in
1970’s. It consists of two blocks, one 10 storey and another 7, both blocks were gently cantered so they could shield the central park from sounds from the adjacent road and also to show the appearance of the blocks hugging the garden in the middle. Apart from having the central park, the design added spaces for external activities by having the ‘streets’ on every 3 floors. As an indirect response to the Athens’ Charter, the Smithson wrote

‘Belonging is a basic emotional need. Its associations are of the simplest order. From
'belonging' (identity) comes the enriching sense of neighbourliness.’ And to further strengthen their point, they also stated that spacious redevelopment fails to achieve the neighbourliness like the short narrow street of slums ("Obituaries: Peter
Smithson" March 10, 2003). Peter Smithson designed the blocks with serious consideration of proportion, as how Ken Baker, an architect who worked on Robin
Hood Garden had stated; the proportions are similar to a rhythm, just like the way of designing a cathedral, repeated bays. But for Robin Hood Garden, the repeated elements were the sections and elevations. The variations of overlayed elements are what made the development interesting ("Robin Hood Garden," 2009). The
Smithsons were categorized as Brutalist because their design sought for the ‘sense of belonging’ within its location and its use using low cost and easily available materials. From these qualities, it shows the Smithsons’ utilitarian aesthetic, and that all reflected through forms of their buildings (Balters August 18, 2011). Take a look at
Robin Hood Garden, the project was designed with a communal space in the centr e plus streets in the sky and that shows their view of social intentions in their designs, very important.
Smithsons, however didn’t see how their ideas will turn out after some time.
Robin Hood Garden turn out in the future, a bad place to live in because of its grim concrete material and prison like appearance. Its location, in between two busiest road in London also boosts the uncomforting feeling. All these unhappy comments and the increase of crime rate split the residents into two main parties, one loves it and the other hate. Seemingly that the architects’ were indenial when they came out with the protest saying that one day the residents will be proud to admit they were once the resident of Robin Hood Garden. Despite the fact that they were successful

with their design in Hunstanton Secondary School and Economist Building, Robin
Hood Garden was where it all went wrong (Balters August 18, 2011). They were the type of architects who wished to improve social lives by design, but it’s a shame that they didn’t see it clear enough, apparently they didn’t see the defective side of ‘beton brut’. And their social intention to emphasize the ‘neighbourliness’ turned out worse,
Robin Hood Garden was a hotbed of crimes (Pearman November 30, 2003). This project had put their reputation at the bottom of architectural scene in Britain and it never recovered in time. W ith it carrying the bad names of design all this while, its miserable state was put to an end when it was to be demolished. Residents of the estate were more than happy compared to those wh o are pro towards conservation.
It’s not hard to see that the residents had suffer long enough under the miserable state of Robin Hood Garden, as one stated: ‘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 ("Other Brutalist Architecture" ).
As a conclusion, Robin Hood Garden is a great example of a brutalist architecture and even more important, it is a role model for the breakthrough architecture. Even though the appeal for listing it as a heritage site was denied, it will always be in the memory of the people who appreciated it. And even though it came through all the hate and love, it is undeniable that Smithsons’ radical vision was somehow embodied between the building blocks. This masterpiece by Smithsons was no doubt a vital piece of puzzle on the development of British architecture, and their status as the pioneer of ‘Brutalist’ architect remained the same despite the infamy gained from Robin Hood Garden. No matter what, in the end, the architectural spirit of Alison and Peter Smithson shows that their passions to make people have a better life has never ceased e ven though their vision were not as

successful as they imagined. But that, is enough to prove that Brutalism is not something one can simply achieve by erecting a building using ‘Breton Brut’, it requires rational thinking, consideration of the building site, functions while telling a story of its own. Therefore, Brutalism by Alison and Peter Smithson is a distinctive style only they can recreate, hence the joke ‘Brutalism equals to Brutus plus Alison’
("ALISON PETER SMITHSON" ).

Reference list:
Balters, Sofia. Arch Daily, "AD Classics: Robin Hood Gardens." Last modified August
18, 2011. Accessed January 2, 2012. http://www.archdaily.com/150629/ad-classicsrobin-hood-gardens-alison-and-peter-smithson/.

Moore, Rowan. The Observer, "Robin Hood Gardens: don't knock it… down." Last modified December 05, 2010. Accessed January 2, 2012.

Open University, First. The Open University, "Peter and Alison Smithson." Last modified November
26,
2011.
Accessed
January
2,
2012. http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/peter-and-alisonsmithson. Parkhillflats, "Other Brutalist Architecture." http://www.parkhillflats.co.uk/similar.html. Accessed

January

2,

2012.

Pearman, Hugh. "Meet the Smithsons: separating the hype from reality. Should
Alison and Peter Smithson have stuck to talking?." Last modified November 30, 2003.
Accessed January 02, 2012. http://www.hughpearman.com/articles5/smithsons.html.

The Design Museum, "ALISON PETER SMITHSON." Accessed January 2, 2012. http://designmuseum.org/design/alison-peter-smithson. The Telegraph, "Obituaries: Peter Smithson." Last modified March 10, 2003.
Accessed January 2, 2012. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1424164/Peter-Smithson.html. "Robin Hood Garden." Posted July 30, 2009. Twentieth Century Society. 2009. Web, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqerCukyUuA. Picture Credit:
Figure 1.1 http://www.archdaily.com/150629/ad-classics-robin-hood-gardens-alisonand-peter-smithson/image0001/
Figure 1.2 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/03/19/arts/robin2.large.jpg
Figure 1.3 http://davidthomas.eu/wp/wpcontent/uploads/2010/05/robin_hood_gardens_london1. jpg