Post-war brutalist social housing in Britain: what has become of them?

Post-war brutalist social housing in Britain: what has become of them?

Zahraa Al-subeiti Word count: ~ 11,000

Masters of Architecture AR7101 Dissertation Kingston School of Art, Kingston University, London

Contents

Preface

2

Tectonics Balfron Tower

4

Context Park Hill

30

Architecture Robin Hood Gardens

43

Bibliography

63

Illustration Credits

66

2

Preface British society witnessed some of the most notable changes in the mid-20th century, significantly impacting the social housing sphere at a time when post-war Britain called for an emergency in reconstructing the nation and housing the neediest. The boom in the economy that followed shortly after, along with the revolutionary concepts featured within the Brutalist social housing estates, promoted a newfound lifestyle especially for the working class. Renowned architects adopted New Brutalism, leaving a lasting legacy, albeit a controversial one, today.

By analysing the tectonic characteristics of Balfron Tower, the social and physical context of Park Hill, and Robin Hood Gardens' architectural scheme as a whole, this dissertation endeavours to trace the reasons for the listed fate and regeneration of the former two and the demise of the latter. It argues the importance of design uniqueness in fortifying a building against demolition and delves into the changing attitudes of the architectural industry, where privatisation becomes more common as profitable opportunities and housing shortages rise.

3

Chapter 1: Tectonics Balfron Tower’s distinguishing and lasting nature amongst other brutalist social housing

4

Introduction: Tectonics in the modern day is defined as “the science or art of construction, both in relation to use and artistic design”1, referring not solely to the mere joining of parts to satisfy certain needs, rather to the construction that manifests into an art form2. In broader terms, Kenneth Frampton argues in his ‘Studies in Tectonic Culture’ that Tectonics is one of three essential characteristics of architecture, the other two being the topos (the site) and the typos (the meaning)3, whereby all three converge to describe a space architecturally. Tectonics and its ever-growing understanding dates back centuries; it is of Greek origin that stemmed from the word ‘tekton’, referring to carpenter or builder.4 The term advanced and developed during the fifth century B.C., evolving from a specified physical component to a more generalised idea of making.5 It is evident that with time, due to the progression of societies throughout the eras, Tectonics had gradually abandoned its ancient definition and embodied various extensions to its meaning, whereby the term aspired to an aesthetic, as opposed to technological classification.6 We can see this concept of art endorsed through Karl Otfried Muller’s 1830 Handbook of the Archaeology of Art, architecturally defining tektonische as “applying to a series of art forms such as utensils, vases, dwellings and meeting places of men, which surely form and develop on the one hand due to their application and on the other due to their conformity to sentiments and notions of art.”7 Thus, the notion of incorporating aesthetics within construction had become part and parcel of defining tectonics, rather than the sole focus of usefulness through solid structure.

One can present tectonics to be the aesthetic combination of a building’s physical qualities and technical components in which the architect consciously attempts to “tell a story”8, producing more than just a physical outcome, but rather a sensory impact too, upon the surroundings and those present. By examining the tectonic strategies implemented within Balfron tower (Fig. 1), this essay intends to assess the extent to which its tectonic, materiality, and constructional techniques impacted the spatial character of the scheme and how much of a role did its sound structure play in escaping it from demolition, and consequently reach listed status.

Robert Maulden, Tectonics in Architecture: From the Physical to the Meta-Physical (Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1986), p. 3.

2 Ibid.

3 Kenneth Frampton, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture (London: MIT Press, 1995), p. 2.

4 Ibid., p. 3.

1

5

6 7 8

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Maulden, Tectonics in Architecture, p. 195.

5

Figure 1 Balfron Tower facade

6

Recent History: Britain’s brutalist architecture became the default style of the 1950s due to post-war circumstances; the style name derived from Béton Brut in French, meaning raw concrete, and architecturally, had a significant, brutal-like impact on the UK’s urban design realm.9 Before the second world war, European Modernist innovations of Le Corbusier did not appeal to British architects, as their “white boxes shorn of ornament and teetering on skinny legs”10 seemed to be an underrepresentation of the timeless empire of Britain, and stone-faced classicism was more fitting in depicting Britain’s grandeur and mighty status.11 However, post-war Britain was in an eager and desperate position to rebuild the demolished homes and rehouse the poor, who were found in unpleasant and unsanitary slums (Fig. 2). Hence the mid-60s became “a time of economic expansion, rapidly developing technology, changing social attitudes, the demand for more complex and sophisticated buildings”,12 which led to the adoption of Modernism. Britain’s energy wealth in the 60s was always likely to support a major building boom13; however, many did not anticipate it to be a Modernist one and therefore, it became the dominant style as it could “present itself as being unadorned and utilitarian”,14 absent of detailing and “pure-construction”15, as seen earlier at the 1951 Festival of Britain Exhibition (Fig. 3). In a period of emergency reconstruction, this was considered the most efficient method in getting the country up and running once more, as the economy and speed were far more important than architectural aesthetics.16 To meet the new urgent housing requirements, prefabricated systems that lacked excitement were erected extensively and “put up in a cheap simplification of traditional houses”,17 giving an “unconvincing veneer of intellectual substance by the tag ‘New Humanism.’”18 To rectify the shortcomings, New Brutalism soon emerged as a response, whereby it looked at “advanced Modernist art theory, theoretical maths, the emerging discipline of sociology, and renaissance ideals of symmetry”,19 in pursuit of, as architectural critic Reyner Banham mentions in his 1955 essay The New Brutalism, “memorability as an image”, “clear exhibition of structure” and “valuation of material as found”. In other words, exhibiting honesty in architecture and material surfaces whereby one can instantly recognise a brutalist building, see how it was made and what it was made from. Brutalism was viewed as the architectural style of the Welfare state20 due to it being inexpensive and quick to erect, where housing and public buildings were produced in significant quantities.

9

Balfron Tower, Balfron Tower Brochure Design (London, 2019), p. 19 <https://balfrontower.co.uk/assets/BA.BalfronTower.BrochureDesign.LargePrintVersion_700x473.pdf> [accessed 10 December 2020].

10 Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism (London: William Heinemann, 2016), p. 10.

11 12

13

Ibid.

Jack Masterman, An Introduction to Building Procurement Systems, 2nd edn (London: E & FN Spon, 2003), p. 9.

Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete, p. 9.

Ibid., p. 11.

15 Miles Glendinning and Stefan Muthesius, ‘Tower Block: Modern Public Housing in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’, Architectural Heritage, 5.1 (1994), 134-136 (p. 91).

14

16 17 18 19 20

Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete, p. 11.

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid., p. 12.

Ibid., p. 15.

7

Figure 2 Victorian Slums in London, 19th century

Figure 3 Festival of Britain, 1951

8

Brownfield Estate: The 27-storey landmark concrete skyscraper, Balfron Tower in Poplar, East London, was designed by Hungarian architect Ernö Goldfinger in 1963. The Tower opened in 1968 during a peak of a wave of post-war high-rise developments, comprising predominantly flats and maisonettes in the main block, connected by access bridges to a service tower. Goldfinger stayed with his wife, Ursula (Fig. 4), in one of the flats for two months, assessing the functionality of the building and feedback from residents. Built as part of the phase one London City Council (LCC) Brownfield Estate (named Rowlett Street Housing Estate at the time), the complex was designed to meet London’s housing demands and re-house residents of a local community stricken by the harsh conditions of the war.

The LCC had to outsource public work as they could not fulfil the demanding reconstructions needs of London;21 hence, Goldfinger was approached and appointed as the official architect, especially after having displayed competence in previous schemes and abilities in “working to Welfare State budgets.”22 This position was “absolutely fundamental to his career after the war”23 as it enabled him to undertake large scale projects in addition to Brownfield Estate, such as Elephant and Castle and Edenham Street Estate.24

Figure 4 Erno and Ursula Goldfinger on their Balcony in Balfron Tower, 1968

John R. Gold, The Practice of Modernism: Modern Architects and Urban Transformation, 1954-1972 (London: Routledge, 2007), pp. 47-8.

22 Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete, p. 61.

23 Charles Jencks, Modern Movements in Architecture (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987), p. 59.

24 John R. Gold, The Practice of Modernism, p. 59.

21

9

The initial brief was to design four-point blocks; however, Goldfinger combined them into a single high rise slab with “vertical circulation and communal facilities concentrated at one end, housing approximately 600”.25 Upon the initial viewing of Goldfinger’s design, the LCC architect mentioned that “a high sense of visual drama would be achieved while emerging from the Blackwall Tunnel”26 regarding the view of Balfron Tower (Fig. 5). The lack of high rise structures at the time meant it would be one of the tallest structures in Europe, and indeed, Goldfinger’s first high-rise housing scheme whereby it became an opportunity for him to exercise and explore his design intentions on a grand scale. The Balfron Tower was one of the first to impose a dominant presence within the city and its onlookers. Throughout the three phases, Brownfield estate, in addition to Balfron Tower, consists of Carradale House, Glenkerry House and several small scale buildings (Fig. 6 and 7) that have a particularly “strong planning, visual and aesthetic relationship with Balfron tower”.27 Post-war housing estates in Britain had adopted various models, including the Corbusian model, such as the Roehampton estate, which the LCC’s own Architects’ Department drew up plans for, becoming the most prominent large scale Corbusian-style in the UK.28 Goldfinger’s interlocking apartment arrangements within Balfron tower and the entirety of the development were also inspired by Corbusier’s Modern Movement slogan of the ‘Soleil, Espace, Vendure’ (sun, space, greenery), through building upwards. Maximising density would create “dramatic spaces, wide views, ample sunlight, privacy, and wide areas of green space at ground level.”29 Pleasant user experience, therefore, would be achieved for the inhabitants of the Tower as well as locals on ground level through an increase in spatial freedom, community connections, enjoyment of ‘Mother Earth’, as well as an avoidance of excessive brick and mortar.30

Figure 5 View of Balfron Tower from the Blackwall Tunnel Approach 25 26

James Dunnett, 'Ernö Goldfinger The Architect as Constructor', Architectural Review, (1983), 42-48 (p. 46)

Historic England, Balfron Tower. Listed building. Grade II (London, 2015), <https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1334931> [accessed 23 December 2020].

27

28

29 30

Ibid.

Balfron Tower, Balfron Tower Brochure Design, p. 19.

James Dunnett, ‘BROWNFIELD ESTATE – GRADE 2*-LISTING NOMINATION – REASONS TEXT’, (2014), (p. 5) Balfron Tower, Balfron Tower Brochure Design, p. 25.

10

Figure 6 Brownfield Estate Site Axonometric

Figure 7 Preliminary study for the layout of a flat by Erno Goldfinger, Brownfield Estate, 1962

11

Structure, design and influences: Not only was Balfron tower one of the closest parallels to European Modernism in Britain,31 but it had a profile that was unmatched in both style and form. British architectural writer, Owen Hatherly, states that the structures are “all designed with an attention to detail and quality of materials unusual for the 60s or any other decade”32 and that the entirety of the estate is “remarkable as an example of a time when public housing could be valued as much, or rather more, than any other form of building.”33 Goldfinger’s stylistic influences, particularly the unapologetic, bold and expressive elements of his works, were derived from his teachers, namely Auguste Perret, a distinguished architect and concrete pioneer. During his training in Paris at the neoclassical school of École des Beaux-Arts in 1921, Perret provided him with a solid foundation in classicism, structure, order, and geometry.34 In the eyes of Perret, “architecture was construction,”35 thereby teaching Goldfinger the importance of the French tradition of Structural Rationalism, the theory where “all architectural forms could, or ought to be explainable by reference to the logic of structural design and technique of construction”.36 Hence, we see that Goldfinger discarded “stylistic conservatism” during his training and later abstained from the Modern Movement archetypal style of the ‘white box’,37 focusing on sound construction instead. The root of classical architecture was perceived by Perret and Laugier, whom Goldfinger also trained under, as “the simple constructional logic of post and beam”,38 seen in the “systematised classical plans of Durand”,39 which was what informed the precise nature of Goldfinger’s plans. Since Goldfinger would on one occasion declare himself to be a classical architect and in other, “sometimes classical, sometimes medieval”,40 his powerful conviction in Parret’s structural rationalism had overlaid his response to Corbusier’s social idealism.41 Due to these convictions, we see the Tower’s material and structural truth demonstrated through the treatment of the bush-hammered concrete frame of the main block (Fig. 8 and 9) the slender service tower and the precast concrete access bridges. The use of harmonious proportions, logical expression of structure and visual transparency in the way it is supported can be said was achieved by the architect to express conviction and persistence in the building’s determination to remain.

31 32

Historic England, Balfron Tower.

Owen Hatherley, ‘London's most underappreciated architecture – in pictures’, The Guardian, 28 May 2013.

33

Ibid.

James Dunnett, Gavin Stamp and Charlotte Perriand, Erno Goldfinger: Works 1 Architectural Association (London: Architectural Association, 1983), p. 9.

35 Ibid.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid., p. 112 41 James Dunnett, 'Ernö Goldfinger The Architect as Constructor', p. 42, 34

12

Figure 8 Balfron Tower view showing the bush-hammered concrete material treatment

Figure 9 Exposed concrete frame of facade

13

Goldfinger viewed himself as a ‘rationalist’ architect whereby he ensured all of his buildings were designed in a rational way, “Like one solves maths problems.”42 His association with and implementation of proportional theory lasted beyond the second world war43 and insisted that “Modern architecture has to be in proportion”.44 Goldfinger preferred the proportioning references of the medievals relating to human measures; hence, his inclusion of the human dimension meant that it could “provide the module for a building so that it may truly be ‘To the measure of Man,’”45 where his greater concern was for “human size and scale than for human proportions.”46 The Golden section rectangle as well as rectangles proportional to 1 √2 or 2 3 was the system Goldfinger utilised (Fig. 10); hence, “Goldfinger’s combination of the rational with the human produced a system of constructional modules that were sized through a consideration of ergonomics”,47 resulting in a “planning grid of squares for application to both vertical and horizontal planes, in which the basic units were 2’ 9”, subdivided into 3 units of 11”.48 Balfron Tower’s structural grid has employed the proportions “on 22’ 0” centres (2’ 9” module x 8)”49 (Fig. 11).

The main residential block is a double square rectangle (Fig. 12), and the row of double-height balconies which lies in the dividing line between the two squares create a void which is “within 1.5% of the Golden Section (20’ 8” x 12’ 11 ½”).”50 The small balconies serving the upper level of the maisonettes that lie on the diagonal are “also of Golden Section proportion (7’ 2” x 4’ 5”).”51 Goldfinger states that through the human dimension, “the eye could measure the height of a building in reference to normal heights of houses in London,”52 resulting in a facade that is comforting to the eye despite its bulky nature. It creates an intimate, harmonious connection between the viewers and the building, a sentimental bond that could be an added reason to its existence today. Balfron’s all-embracing structural rationality promises a reasoned, utilitarian tower that responds to the brief’s requirements, resulting in an assertive, tectonically sound and effective high-rise block that acknowledges the human scale, suggesting that it is principally built for the man.

42 James Dunnet and Nigel Hiscock, ‘To this Measure of Man’: Proportional design in the work of Ernö Goldfinger , in Twentieth-Century Architecture and its Histories, (UK: Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 2000), p. 87.

43 Ibid., pg. 87 44 Ibid., pg. 9 45 Ibid., pg. 111 46 Ibid., pg. 113 47 Ibid., pg. 115 48 Ibid., pg. 114 49 Ibid., pg. 109 50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid.

14

Figure 10 Goldfinger’s rectangles, showing how each is derived from the square

Figure 11 Goldfinger’s 2’ 9” panning grid and 11” module applied to domestic design

15

Figure 12 Double square rectangle illustrated on elevation

16

Tectonic expression: Barnabas Cadler in The Beauty of Brutalism mentions the importance of post-war tower blocks such as Balfron Tower and their function in having provided facilities for the poor, which had previously only been “confined to the rich” such as “fitted kitchens, central heating, and dedicated bathrooms with hot water”53 whereby these life-changing experiences had “exploited the rapidly dropping energy prices of the 1960s.”54 Although high rise builds were known to be more costly than low rise builds, the prefabricated systems which Goldfinger abhorred were heavily used and implemented due to their time and cost-effectiveness. However, the structural ability of the prefabricated systems was questioned due to the 1968 Ronan Point explosion; a gas blast led to the collapse of a section of the 22-storey block (Fig. 13 and 14), resulting in the death of four residents. Goldfinger, therefore, confessed his love for the use of concrete, mentioning, “I do not hold with any heavy prefabricated system. Poured concrete is three times better.”55 He proceeded to focus on designing buildings that would withstand heavy blows to prevent such events from recurring, as well as buildings that would stand the test of time. Strategic studies of buildings and their structural make-up allowed him to apply the learnings to his own. Hence, one cannot disregard the innate soundness of the concrete frame within Balfron tower’s structural system in Goldfinger’s pursuit of its long term endurance.

Figure 13 Ronan Point progressive corner

Figure 14 Close up view of floor panels and slabs collapse

Barnabas Calder, Raw Concrete, p. 65.

Ibid.

55 Nigel Warburton, Ernö Goldfinger – The Life of an Architect (London: Routledge, 2003), p. 162.

53 54

17

The tectonic expression of the three components, namely the lift and service tower, the main block, and access bridges connecting at every third floor due to the design of the units, attests to Balfron tower’s “impressive sense of order and controlled drama.”56 This was never before seen and, as Andrew Saint and Elain Harwood would describe it, was rather ‘unexpected’ in its ‘concrete technique’ within the setting of Poplar. The Tower’s dramatic nature is demonstrated through its grand size as it rises over the Blackwall tunnel, in which its tectonic characteristics impart a bulky and weighty appearance portrayed in its sheer height and width. Nevertheless, it is contrasted and complemented with the slenderness of the service tower (Fig. 15) that is taller than the main block, whereby its physical separation breaks up the heaviness to one side asymmetrically and provides a lighter sensation when looked upon, thereby toning down the chunkiness in pursuit of drama that is controlled and harmonised.

The service tower, comprising two lifts, an oversailing boiler house and other services,57 was designed to be detached and stand as a self-contained element. Functionally, this reduces noise pollution from the lift and services. According to the contractor, there were cheaper options to eliminate noise that did not require the separation58 but Goldfinger was adamant about the physical separation, hence suggesting that function was not the sole reason for the separation; rather, it was more of an outstanding monumental design feature that he desired to employ. Furthermore, the service tower elegantly sets upon itself a sense of importance in that it is an element standing in its own right. Physically disconnected yet still linked to the dwelling block by precast walkways (Fig. 16), their “heavily radiused upper and lower profiles resemble a row of railway carriages”59 (Fig. 17) that become interdependent enclosed access galleries, structurally supported on either side by concrete brackets. The linked bridges simultaneously express an external and internal, public and private feature to them, as although all sides are enclosed, they manifest externally, resembling a mini version of Alison and Peter Smithson’s ‘Streets in the Sky’. This feature suggests that Goldfinger, throughout the planning phase (Fig. 18), may have desired for the user to experience the external feeling of moving through the building whilst looking through the generously sized windows at a great height, detached from the central mass, yet not be directly outside, as there is an intended circulation route within the design of the Tower, starting from the entrance (Fig. 19). It dictates when inhabitants should, and can, expose themselves to the outside air, such as through their balconies.

Owen Hatherley, A New Kind of Bleak: Journeys Through Urban Britain (London: Verso, 2012), p. 29.

Nigel Warburton, Ernö Goldfinger: The Life of an Architect, p. 156.

58 Goldfinger, Letter from Ernö Goldfinger to F. G. Minter Ltd, (1965); cited in Post-war reconstruction, design aspirations and procurement: The case of Ernö Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower, p. 50. <https://architoss.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/post-war-reconstruction-design-aspirations-and-procurement.pdf> [accessed 5 January 2021] 59 Dunnett, Ernö Goldfinger The Architect as Constructor, p. 44.

56

57

18

Figure 15 Balfron Tower elevation view showing the semi-detached service tower

19

Figure 16 Precast walkways

Figure 17 Link bridge resembling a row of railway carriages

20

Figure 18 Balfron Tower floor plans and site layout, 1965.

21

Figure 19 Service tower entrance

22

A key distinguishing feature of the service tower is the slight cantilever of the boiler room (Fig. 20), elevated to the top in a way that garners attention. What is typically hidden in a basement of a building is given a sense of high importance and power here. However, rather than a conscious design decision, this projection of the boiler room resulted from Goldfinger’s realisation of the shortage of space in the floor plan of the service tower; hence, more units needed to be added.60 It served to be of an advantage to the Tower, attaching an additional unique element, which we see became more pronounced and sculptural in the similar design of its younger sister, Trellick tower (Fig. 21). Aside from the physical separation, a tectonic device that Goldfinger used further to contrast the functional space from the dwelling space are the slit-like windows (Fig. 22 and 23) pierced into the concrete on the service tower, cascading “down the facade like rain, bearing a hint of menace”,61 which can be perceived as a reference to the wartime when bombs rained down on the city. The horizontal daywork joints wrapped around the Tower in the concrete intersect with some of these vertically slit windows, constituting a “highly expressive feature on elevation”62 and functionally providing an abundance of light into the service spaces.

Figure 20 Balfron Tower boiler room

Figure 21 Trellick Tower boiler room

Ivan Gilkes, Erno Goldfinger’s Sublime Towers (2008), <https://issuu.com/ivangilkes/docs/erno> [accessed 5 January 2021].

61 Dunnett, Ernö Goldfinger The Architect as Constructor, p. 45.

62 Dunnett, Brownfield Estate, p. 3.

60

23

Figure 22 Slit-like windows on service tower

Figure 23 Interior view of slit windows

24

Materiality: Goldfinger was a great proponent of expressing materials structurally and logically; he was “always conscious of the nature of materials, whether concrete, brick, wood or metal.”63 From his varied expertise in different materials and their behaviour, Goldfinger was skilled with concrete, gave importance to its tectonic expression within Balfron tower, and likened concrete to a “plastic material” where it can be flexible in the expression of its textural and structural properties.64 We see a tectonic language emerge through the material treatment of the Tower; on the one hand, the exceptionally fine bush-hammering technique was employed on the in-situ exterior concrete frame of the housing block, revealing the rough concrete texture as in Perret, without “the element of ‘disguise’ intrinsic in the more picturesque Corbusian shutterboarding.”65 On the other hand, the contrasting smooth finish of the insides of the balconies and unplastered interiors is achieved from casting against the formwork66 (Fig. 24 and 25). The juxtaposition of the rough and smooth material expressions (Fig. 26) humanises the Tower in reflecting a metaphoric sense of harmony and softness from the inhabitants’ homes, contrasted by the external harsh reality and rubble remnants post-war.

Such connections manifested in material treatment that can be seen and touched create a psychological and emotional bond towards the Tower and its significance. Therefore, inhabitants and passers-by may view it as more than a housing block but rather an iconic sculptural representation of the past and present. The professionality in construction through the “precise joinery” and “consistency in planning, palette of materials and aesthetic applied across the estate”67 is one of the features that singles out Balfron tower in its uniqueness; one can argue that such monumentality has aided in its present-day survival.

Dunnett, Stamp and Perriand, Erno Goldfinger, p. 9.

Ibid., p. 12 65 Dunnett, Ernö Goldfinger The Architect as Constructor, p. 46.

66 Goldfinger, Letter from Ernö Goldfinger to F. G. Minter Ltd, (1965); cited in Post-war reconstruction, design aspirations and procurement: The case of Ernö Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower, p. 58. <https://architoss.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/post-war-reconstruction-design-aspirations-and-procurement.pdf> [accessed 10 January 2021] 67 Historic england listing 63 64

25

Figure 24 Smooth integrated concrete planter contrasting with bush-hammered concrete

Figure 25 Bush-hammered concrete

Figure 26 Interior hallway featuring smooth wall tiles opposite to the bush-hammered concrete walls

26

The fall and the flourish: Goldfinger’s vision of the tight-knit Tower Hamlets community adjusting well in their new raised environment had diminished over the decade, and like many of the brutalist buildings of the ’60s, Balfron tower later became a subject of despise, associated with crime and horror. Barnabas Calder in Raw Concrete: The beauty of Brutalism describes that the backlash towards “strong, unfamiliar new architecture” which required a “destruction of familiar cityscapes” is hardly surprising when “fashion turned against it”, as anything new on such a grand scale is likely to be subjected to controversy and criticism at the time of its downfall. Many critics, such as Terence Bendixson in the Guardian in 1969, were highly vocal on the design of the Tower, stating that it “conjures up thoughts of prisons and pill-boxes.” Such statements, along with the rampant vandalism (Fig. 27) and anti-social behaviour surrounding the block, ultimately made people question whether high-rise living would be a sustainable housing solution for the future, especially for families with youngsters.

This notion was further perpetuated within fiction, associating concrete towers to the dystopian architectural depiction of JG Ballard’s novel ‘High Rise’ (1975): “With its forty floors and thousand apartments, its supermarket and swimming-pools, bank and junior school – all in effect abandoned in the sky – the high-rise offered more than enough opportunities for violence and confrontation.”68 It is also important to note that many areas of Balfron tower were left unattended,69 and the lack of funds from the local authority meant that repairing faulty aspects of the building could not have been done. Naturally, this led to “concrete spalling, corroded wiring conduits, leaking pipes (Fig. 28) and vermin infections”,70 which all had a part to play in the negativity surrounding the Tower and its call for demolition.

Figure 27 Vandalism around the block Chris Beckett, J. G. Ballard: Streets in the Sky and the Secret Logic of the High-Rise (2016), <https://blogs.bl.uk/english-and-drama/2016/03/j-g-ballard-streets-in-the-sky-and-the-secret-logic-of-the-high-rise.ht ml> [accessed 20 January 2021] (para. 3 of 6).

69 Ibid 70 David Roberts, Balfron Tower: a building archive. <http://www.balfrontower.org/> [accessed 20 January 2021] 68

27

Figure 28 Interior rainwater leakage

Throughout the beginning of the 21st century, perceptions of high-rise brutalist towers of the Welfare State began to shift slowly, and Balfron Tower was perceived as a monumental symbol that should be protected. It was listed as Grade II in 199671 to aid its survival. The Tower’s unique appearance, being the first of its kind, was a fundamental reason for its listing, along with the interior that is “unusually well thought-out, revealing Goldfinger as a master in the production of finely textured and long-lasting concrete masses”,72 as stated in the 1996 listing description by English Heritage. The Tower’s uniqueness is not solely in the apparent physical design and aesthetic, but its uniqueness also lies in its symbolism, whereby it represents each eventful decade post-war Britain, making it more of a concrete memorial overlooking the Blackwall Tunnel near the Thames than just a residential tower. In just under two decades from its initial listing, Balfron Tower was upgraded to Grade II* in 2015 and Glenkerry house to Grade II.

71 72

ibid ibid

28

Figure 29 Pen outline drawing of the top left view of Balfron Tower, Author’s own

Conclusion: At a time when Britain was emerging from the rubble of war, and social housing was in dire need across the country, Goldfinger stepped up as the architect who designed a project beyond its basic brief requirements. Whilst many pre-fabricated shoddy systems were widely employed, Goldfinger’s technical mastery in concrete set himself apart and enabled him to design one of the most distinctive towers in appearance. From the bush-hammered concrete and smooth interior finishes to the bulky main block and the slender service tower, Goldfingers play with contrast in materiality, structure, form, and aesthetic allowed Balfron Tower to be perceived as more of a sculpture than a social housing estate. Being the tallest tower in Europe upon its erection with a unique, never-before-seen profile, Balfron has become a landmark that embodies the deep-rooted history of the past, and it is due to its uniqueness that has allowed it to reach listed status.

29

Chapter 2: Context The Redevelopment of Park Hill

30

Introduction: The word Topos, as briefly outlined in Kenneth Frampton’s theory regarding the interplay of three components that make up the ‘built’, derives from the Greek word for ‘place’, referring to the site, environment or context in which a building is located.73 Context in architecture and the built environment is rather broad and can cover various aspects in relation to a project, whereby it can largely inform the design, function and overall shaping of a scheme. Factors include site conditions, environment, historical references as well as social, political and economic issues. Frampton views architecture that is disconnected from its site to be a form of perversion and argues that it is, in fact, the most prevalent foe of meaningful architecture.74 Hence, one could propose that a fundamental aspect in analysing a project's context is to examine its relation and integration to the physical surroundings and how that has come to inform the architectural make-up.

The brutalist architecture of the post-war era has had divided opinions over the decades; however, over the 21st century, they have garnered a newfound admiration. Coupled with a current housing crisis in Britain, this has led to many Brutalist housing estates being rehabilitated, inevitably catching the eyes of both developers and buyers, meanwhile displacing and re-housing low-income tenants. Park Hill Estate (Fig. 1) in Sheffield (1957-1961), South Yorkshire, designed by architects Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith, is an example of one of the biggest public housing estates in Europe to be listed with Grade II* status and has recently completed significant regeneration in the last decade.

Dominating the skyline as it coils across the hill in Sheffield, the estate’s physical context has allowed it to become the face of the city’s image; however, it is evident that Park Hill has received a fair share of backlash regarding its regeneration process as the social housing aspect to it, which was its inherent purpose, has been, for the most part, lost. Through examining the contextual, social and economic implications, this chapter intends to shed light upon the changing popular opinion on brutalist housing and the effects that has had on Park Hill housing.

Anne James and Dai Nagasaka, Architectonic influences of multimedia and their spatial significance. Department of Architecture and Design (Japan: Kyoto Institute of Technology, 2010 ), p. 279. <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28e0/c8c747a2339f31d04df3f9ba3b047c6b45e0.pdf> [accessed 28 January 2021].

74 Carlos Rodriguez, Frampton’s Physicality of Architecture (2012), <https://24car.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/framptons-physicality-of-architecture/> [accessed 28 January 2021] (para. 2 of 6).

73

31

Figure 1 Park Hill renovation

32

Historical Context Park Hill Estate (Fig. 2), completed in 1961, emerged out of a desperate need for social housing estates in the post-war period due to the rising numbers of homelessness from the severe impact of bomb destruction within the city of Sheffield. Before its construction, discussions on multi-storey developments were conducted as there was a dire need for over 79,000 houses,75 according to Sheffield’s Planning Officer’s report. Therefore, multi-storey developments were seen to be a viable solution that would cover such figures relatively quickly, more so than the erection of single-storey housing. Park Hill was positively received by many such as William Holford, the Professor of Town Planning at University College London, stating that it was a “notable and forward-looking redevelopment scheme which should receive every encouragement”76 in 1955 on a B.B.C. Third Programme broadcast entitled ‘Is Town Planning Possible?’

Architects Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith, who were both recent graduates of the Architectural Association, designed what was known as the most radical, ambitious housing scheme on the outskirts of Sheffield city centre, behind the city’s railway station, guided under Sheffield Council’s City Architect, J. L. Womersley (Fig. 3). Park Hill housing, comprising four blocks, was built on a 22-acre slum clearance in Don Valley, situated between industrial and residential areas,77 and was the first estate to apply the ‘streets-in-the-sky’ concept. The Park district in the early 20th century was known as ‘Little Chicago’78 for its high crime rates, and the rapidly deteriorating slum structures amounted to the lack of adequate sanitary provisions with suffering health conditions. In response to the successful slum clearance, Park Hill Housing relocated the lower-class living in the back-to-back Victorian slums to the multi-storey complex. The architects applied a contextual strategy to retain the community spirit by keeping the existing families together with their original neighbours and naming the street decks after the original roads.79 This provided a swift transition and a sense of familiarity to the incoming inhabitants, which demonstrates that Lynn and Smith were determined to design architecture that not only provided a new way of living, but one that also sought the comfort, contentment and welfare of its users.

Sheffield.gov.uk, Sources for the Study of Park Hill and Hyde Park Flats (2011), p. 10; cited in Jane Rendell, One Way Street or “The Degeneration of Things” <https://www.janerendell.co.uk/textworks/one-way-street-or-the-degeneration-of-things> [accessed February 4 2021].

76 Ibid., pg 12.

75

AJ Buildings Library, Park Hill Flats, Sheffield Corporation City Architect’s Department (1961), <https://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/2764> [accessed 5 February 2021] (para. 1 of 4).

78 Dave Himelfield, Archive photos show Yorkshire’s most famous council estate during its 1960s heyday (2020). <https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/history/gallery/archive-photos-show-yorkshires-most-18029096> [accessed 5 February 2021].

79 Amy Frearson, Brutalist buildings: Park Hill, Sheffield by Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith (2014), <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/10/brutalist-buildings-park-hill-jack-lynn-ivor-smith/> [accessed 6 February 2021].

77

33

Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Park Hill Estate, 1960

Figure 3 John Lewis Womersley sitting with Jack Lynn standing behind

34

Design and contextual influences The young Park Hill architects were in part inspired by their teachers, Alison and Peter Smithson, most notably for their 1952 Golden Lane design competition entry that featured a long, continuous high-rise development (Fig. 4). Lynn and Smith expressed their liking towards the project, stating: “The Smithsons’ Golden Lane Project used a similar street access to ours, and made the first moves towards their continuity by creating street-corner junctions where refuse chutes would be located, which they likened to the modern equivalent of the village water pump.”80 Although the development was not actualised, it was the first to feature the ‘streets-in-the-sky’ concept (Fig. 5); hence it was adopted as the key, revolutionary design element within Park Hill, connecting many high-density slabs that created a circulation system throughout the site.81 Unlike the narrow access galleries seen in the likes of Balfron Tower, the streets incorporated within the plan of Park Hill were open yet sheltered decks that gave direct access to the dwellings, actualising the concept of ‘Streets’ within the structure (Fig. 6). They were over three metres in width on every third floor, connecting the bridges to each building and attaching one side of Park Hill to the other.82 It is evident that Lynn and Smith held importance to community identity by way of the wide decks, the primary objective to reignite the tight-knit neighbourhood bond and street play usually found on ground level streets, but this time, as if it had been carved out and elevated.

Children were able to play safely, without the concern of vehicles; as Reyner Banham stated in a review of the building after its opening, “These decks are more than glorified access balconies, functionally and socially they are streets without the menace of through vehicular traffic.”83 Functionally, because the decks were not only “wide enough for the milkman to bring his cart along”, but were also convenient through direct access from the goods lifts, and “for two women with prams to stop for a talk and still let the postman by”.84 The decks were viewed to be a pioneering concept as it meant that though the flats were above ground level, city life was actualised whereby the street was merely a doorstep away, and one did not feel abandoned from their immediate context. Despite the communality of the scheme, privacy and quietness were maintained as the flats were designed not to overlook the decks. There seems to be a delicate balance between the ‘public’ and ‘private’ employed by the architect, as the street decks are more private than regular ground level streets through the absence of vehicles, whilst simultaneously somewhat public in the context of the estate itself. Here, an option for further outdoor privacy is provided within each flat, by a “large sheltered balcony where small children can play in the open air, where a pram can be put out and on which an occasional meal can be taken.”85 This allowed the residents to take ownership of their autonomy, whilst ridding the isolation felt by residents in tower block structures at the time.

Reyner Banham, The new Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? (London: The architectural Press, 1966), p. 132.

Ten Years of Housing in Sheffield 1953-1963 (Sheffield: Sheffield Corporation’s housing development committee, 1962), 82 Miles Glendinning and Stefan Muthesius, Tower Block: Modern Public Housing in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island, 1st edn (London: Yale University Press, 1994), 83 https://www.architectural-review.com/archive/reyner-banham-on-park-hill-sheffield-uk 84 Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

85 J. L. Womersley, Park Hill and Hyde Park Study Guide, 1955 (Sheffield Archives: CA655/15) (Online). <https://www.scribd.com/document/224838389/Park-Hill-and-Hyde-Park-Study-Guide-PDF-1-63-MB> [accessed 15 February 2021].

80

81

35

Figure 4 Smithsons’ Golden Lane project, network of housing and streets in the air, 1952

Figure 5 Golden Lane project Street Deck design, 1953

Figure 6 Park Hill Estate “Streets in the Sky”, 1962

36

Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation (Fig. 7) was also of core influence to both the Smithson’s and Park Hill architects; hence many references can be seen within the Park Hill scheme (Fig. 8). In Unité, Corbusier merged several typologies within proximity to one another - the civic, domestic, commercial and recreational,86 creating a self-sufficient environment. Lynn and Smith drew inspiration from this and implemented the idea of easily accessible amenity provision within the design of Park Hill, making this concept an integral part in shaping the community spirit that it stood for. In addition to 948 dwellings comprising single-person flats to six-person maisonettes,87 the overall scheme accommodated various shops in one of the inner courts (Fig. 9 and 10), pubs designed by private architects, clinics, tenants’ hall, and an extension to a nearby primary school. A “splash of green near to the heart of the city”88 was introduced in between these buildings, making the act of roaming around the complex a more pleasant experience, with views of the open green spaces and tranquil park areas. This indicates Lynn and Smith’s recognition of the effects of post-war distress and the need to make effective use of spaces that would have otherwise been left empty to benefit the public and the environment. The increase in footpaths and pedestrian-only zones also meant quieter surroundings with less noise pollution from vehicles, enhancing a better quality of life for the inhabitants. J. L. Womersley’s many reports give us insight into the philosophy behind the design decisions, noting that the “ground floor dwellings are omitted at various points to give pedestrians long views”, and therefore such pleasant surroundings will “avoid the oppressive, overpowering feeling sometimes produced by large schemes of multi-storey flats.”89 Again, we sense a high level of awareness in the architect’s response to the complexities of the modern city and the design features employed to improve the project’s relationship to the physical site.

Figure 7 Unité d’habitation, Marseilles Alexander Clement, Brutalism: Post war British Architecture (Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd, 2011), p. 113.

AJ Buildings Library, Park Hill Flats 88 (Sheffield Telegraph, 14th September 1960) 89 J. L. Womersley, 1955 (Sheffield Archives: CA655/15) 86 87

37

Figure 8 Plan of level 12, Norwich Row

Figure 9 Pedestrian route southwards up the hill from the shopping area

Figure 10 Slab block seen from shopping area

38

In addition to the street decks, Lynn and Smith’s design was also notable for its interconnected concrete ‘H’ frame grids (Fig. 11). The structure was left bare, and the panels were overlaid with a gradient of coloured bricks for each three-storey unit, ranging from light shades of red, orange and yellow as it reached higher levels (Fig. 12), which enables one to distinguish the storeys from the outside when looking from afar. Built on one of the seven hills in Sheffield90 (Fig. 13), the site’s topography meant that the architect’s had to be incredibly considerate in how the project merged within the landscape. They took advantage of the uneven site and strategically emphasised the topography by creating a constant horizontal roof level throughout (Fig. 14), a stark contrast to the steeply sloped site. What resulted was that there were fewer storeys on one end than the other, with four at its lowest and fourteen at its highest. As the storeys increased in the northern direction, the large open spaces in between each building allowed for a generous amount of air, sunlight and great views across the city, from the Arts Tower and Hallamshire Hospital to the Peak District and Derbyshire Hills beyond.91

Figure 11 Park Hill concrete ‘H’ frame grids

Figure 12 Facade gradient change

BBC, Park Hill’s History (2007), <http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2007/03/07/park_hill_feature.shtml> [accessed 5 March 2021].

91 Ibid.

90

39

Figure 13 Park Hill Estate built on a hill

Figure 14 Site section showing the constant horizontal roofline

40

The Near Past and Contemporary situation Park Hill’s praise following its completion enabled it to have international recognition as the ideal model for post-war social housing. The community spirit was one of its biggest successes, and recollections of the residents were majorly positive, as one of its former residents mentioned: “I cannot think of a better place to have spent my childhood.”92 Amid the public’s outpouring of admiration and glorification for Park Hill, not all were optimistic about it in the 60s. Architectural historian Nikolaus Pevsner foresaw the negative sentiments and social problems that indeed did follow on in the future, attributing the cause to its high density, stating, “There can alas be no doubt that such a vast scheme of closely-set high blocks of flats will be a slum in half a century or less.”93 It was not long till Park Hill had been portrayed by the media and consequently perceived by the public as one of Britain’s most infamous ‘sink estates’, dealing with high crime rates, vandalism, poor noise insulation and badly lit walkways.94 Many tenants were desperate to escape, which led to the breakdown of original communities as families relocated.

Economic depression, soaring inflation of the 70s, and Sheffield’s decline of the steel industry were all factors that played a part in the dilapidation of Park Hill and other Brutalist housing estates at the time. Park Hill was undoubtedly a significant upgrade for the occupants compared to their experience in the slums, with amenities they could have only dreamt of. Therefore, one could argue that it was perhaps the expectation for a consistency in excellence that caused the sheer disappointment and abhorrence towards the estate when the local government no longer committed to the high standards of investment, maintenance and repairs. Moreover, Pevsner added, “this may well be a cosy slum which people will feel to be their home.” Here, Pevsner alludes to the nature and background of the tenants, indicating that their slumlike lifestyle was bound to turn any new environment to a slum atmosphere, so as to grasp a feeling of familiarity and call it ‘home’.

Pevsner’s statements were, however, published before the opening of Park Hill, a time when the fate of the economy was unknown. Therefore, it would be unfair to blame Park Hill’s failure on solely the tenants or the authorities; instead, it was both the lack of care from the residents and the mismanagement from local officials, along with the economic circumstances, that led to its reputation for a ‘sink estate’.

What was affordable in the 60s became expensive in the 70s; however, the 80s saw some improvement through Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Right to Buy’ scheme, where tenants could legally buy their homes at a discounted rate.95 Expectantly, the best homes were taken first, and so council estates were deemed to be for the needy. Appreciation for Brutalism grew in the last decade of the 20th century, and much to the dismay of many critics, Park Hill was granted Grade II* listed status in 1998 for its “architectural importance, its ground-breaking use of ‘streets in the sky’ and its

Sheffield Archives’ collection of B.B.C. Radio Sheffield audio-tapes Pevsner, Nikolaus and Enid Radcliffe, Yorkshire: The West Riding (London: Penguin, 1993), p. 466.

94 BBC, Park Hill’s History 95 Streets in the Sky Pt 2.wmv. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSoonyYXoNc> [accessed 25 March 2021].

92

93

41

impressive scale.”96 Although the listing of a project has the primary benefit of aiding its survival and protection against demolition, this does not mean redevelopments cannot take place, even if it were to be stripped down to its very core, as was done to Park Hill over the last decade.

Reyner Banham wrote: “The moral crusade of Brutalism for a better habitat through built environment probably reaches its culmination at Park Hill.”97 From this, it can be said that Park Hill alone embodies the true essence of Brutalism which further highlights the significance of its survival. However, one can question, does ‘survival’ merely mean to be present in the physical? What about the inherent purpose and architect’s intention upon which a building was erected? Park Hill is yet another example of a Brutalist building majorly stripped from its original aim of social housing.

Development firm Urban Splash, in cooperation with English Heritage, took on Park Hill in 2005 and commissioned architectural firms Hawkins/Brown and Studio Egret West to begin the refurbishment process of Phase I. Park Hill’s design constitutes a mixed-use plan with apartments and business units along with various shops on the ground level. Although giving ‘life’ back to what was once known a ‘crime-ridden eyesore’98 should be commended so it may host lively communities as it did in the 60s, the concern lies in that the redevelopment will come at the expense of the poor.

More concerning is that the estate, erected upon the intent of social housing, has now only one-third of its flats dedicated to social housing, resulting in only 22 households returning after 750 moved out. With a £90,000 starting point per flat, one questions the developers lack of care towards the poorly paid and unemployed residents, in stark contrast to Lynn and Smith, who, as discussed in the points above, made it their utmost priority to provide care and comfort for the residents upon arrival to Park Hill.

Conclusion: From slum clearance and a lifestyle upgrade to renovation clearance and relocation, all within half a century, Park Hill leaves one pondering the ever-changing worldview of architecture and the parting of ideals held by architects of the mid-century. As Owen Hathaway puts it, if you were to “walk around here [Park Hill before redevelopment] in the day, you'll see chairs on the walkways, doors open and elderly tenants chatting.”99 Therefore, it makes one question whether or not the conditions at Park Hill were ever as bad as they were made out to be, and whether this was done so with the agenda of making it an “easy sell.” The years of denigration made the public think “at least something’s happening. At least it’s not being knocked down.”100 With an increase in council housing stock being sold off and privatised despite Sheffield’s council waiting list of at least 60,000 people, it seems as though money and profit has threaded its way through the architectural field where it has started to take precedence over ethics.

Historic England, Park Hill Flats, Talbot Street. <https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/grants/visit/park-hill-flats-talbot-street-s2-2tg/> [accessed 27 March 2021].

97 Banham, The New Brutalism, p. 132.

98 Historic England, Park Hill Flats, Talbot Street.

99 Owen Hatherley, Regeneration? What’s happening in Sheffield’s Park Hill is class cleansing (2011), <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/28/sheffield-park-hill-class-cleansing> [accessed 27 March 2021].

100 Ibid.

96

42

Chapter 3: Architecture Robin Hood Gardens

43

Introduction Political theorist Hannah Arendt coined the term “The space of public appearance”, which Frampton quoted in response to the question ‘What is architecture?’, defining it as that which guarantees the public realm and political, social and cultural importance. The opening of the previous two chapters highlighted the tekton, topos and typos as the three constituents of ‘Architecture’, and Frampton further identifies it as the understanding of a building as an object and, secondly, a representation of itself.101 Therefore, one can say that architecture embodies the visual, tactile, structural, aesthetic and physical elements of a building, substantial in its own right, along with the contributing conditions surrounding it.

Brutalist social housing of the post-war period witnessed a fluctuation in its perception, from praise and commendation in the 60s, attack and vilification in the 70s, to a newfound admiration in the late 20th century and beyond. However, whilst the likes of Balfron Tower and Park Hill have been listed and consequently remain with us today, Alison and Peter Smithson’s 1972 Robin Hood Gardens (Fig. 1), in Poplar, East London, has been demolished. The estate was the Smithson’s only built social housing featuring their popular ‘streets in the sky’ concept; its consideration for demolition had been the subject of architectural political debate over the recent decades. This final chapter aims to assess Robin Hood Gardens’ tectonic and contextual factors in an attempt to unearth the reasons why, despite it being similar to the design of Park Hill, it could not be saved nor redeveloped, whilst the latter did.

101 Kenneth Frampton, ‘Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture’, 32 (1996), 102-104 (p. 102) <https://www.jstor.org/stable/29544035> [accessed 30 March 2021]

44

Figure 1 Robin Hood Gardens facade and garden

45

Alison and Peter Smithson were internationally recognised for their theoretical contributions, polemical writings and leadership of ‘New Brutalism’ in the post-war period. Their bold ideological propositions were perceived to be new concepts in the architectural world, one that sought to change the existing modernist urban theories. The Smithson’s were involved in the formation of Team 10 as a revolt against the International Congresses of Modern Architecture (CIAM) and the consequent suspension of the previous older masters. Team 10 were a group of predominantly young European architects committed to the exploration of ideas and solutions regarding the future course of modern architecture and urban planning, beyond the former rationalistic attitudes; they shifted the discourse in terms of epistemology and programme.102 In the 9th CIAM conference in 1953, the Smithson’s put forward their ‘Urban Re-Identification Grid’ (Fig. 2) and ‘Hierarchy of Association’ (Fig. 3), which ultimately formed the principles that governed the design of Robin Hood Gardens, through the concept of ‘cluster’ housing as the “invention of an architecture that is structured by notions of association”.103 The Grid re-identified CIAM’s four categories that encapsulate communal life, from “Housing, Working, Recreating, Circulating” to “House, Street, District, City”.104 This new set of identification aimed to highlight human associations; it explored one’s relationship to the city and its residents, starting from the home to the initial point of contact (the street) and beyond. As proclaimed by the Smithsons, social cohesion would only be attainable through the increase in density as the population rises, coupled with the provision for ease of movement throughout the four re-identified categories.105 Le Corbusier’s Ville Contemporaine influenced Alison and Peter Smithson throughout the development of the “building as a street” concept in 1952, which was a way of attempting to come to terms with the problems of the modern city.106 We see this applied in the direct relationship of the dwelling and the street deck within Robin Hood Gardens.

Figure 2 Urban Re-Identification Grid, 1953

Pablo Allard et al., Team 10 Keeping the Language of Modern Architecture Alive (Dutch: Delft University of Technology, 2006), p. 6.

103 Alison and Peter Smithson, Ordinariness and Light (London: Faber & Faber, 1970), p. 11.

104 Ibid.

105 Alison Smithson, The Emergence of Team 10 out of C.I.A.M (London: Architectural Association, 1982), p. 7.

106 Peter Eisenman, Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, 1963-1988 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 41.

102

46

Figure 3 Hierarchy of Association, 1953

Robin Hood Gardens neighbours Brownfield Estate in Poplar (Fig. 4) and Blackwall Tunnel (Fig. 5); Poplar was vigorously pummeled during the Blitz, thus the need to rebuild social housing estates in the borough that had 52,000 people on the LCC’s waiting listing for social housing in 1961.107 The Smithsons viewed Robin Hood Gardens as the prime opportunity to put their principles on housing into practice, principles they had spent numerous years fine-tuning, such as in their Golden Lane design competition entry. They believed that upon completion, one would be able to “smell, feel and experience the new life that’s offered”.108 Despite the popularity of high-rise tower blocks throughout the 50s and 60s, the Smithsons opposed them and criticised their flawed nature. They believed that since the concept originated in an era before widespread car ownership and intensive urban development,109 it was unsuitable for modern times. They had documented their beliefs in their writings from 1954, stating, “We live in moron-made cities... We wish to see towns and buildings which do not make us feel ashamed, ashamed that we cannot realise the potential of the twentieth century”.110 By the end of the 60s, the Ronan Point explosion and the criminal activities surrounding tower blocks gave additional weight to the Smithson’s views, as the public had also caught up on the negative stigma towards high-rise developments wherein lower-rise housing became favourable.

Alan Powers, “A Critical Narrative” in Robin Hood Gardens: Revisions (London: RIBA, 2009), p. 27.

Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture, prod. by B. S. Johnson (BBC, 1970).

109 Robin Hood Gardens: Concrete Bungle? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YqP21MQKvA> [accessed 1 April 2021] 110 Nigel Whiteley, Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003), p. 123.

107

108

47

Figure 4 Robin Hood Gardens with Balfron Tower in the background

Figure 5 Robin Hood Gardens East block as viewed from the entry to the Blackwall Tunnel, 1972.

48

The GLC in 1965 appointed the Smithson’s to build the large-scale housing estate (Fig. 6); the design comprised two long, canted concrete slab blocks, whereby the ‘serpentine’ shape is reminiscent of neoclassical British forms.111 In the era of the automobile boom, the site was bounded by complex road networks and heavy traffic, with the northern approach to Blackwall Tunnel to the east, the East India Dock to the north and the Isle of Dogs to the west. Poplar required an increase in open space, particularly open green spaces amid the city’s commotion, which became ideal for the Smithson’s as they cherished calmness, the idea of bringing the peace of the countryside “enjoyed with the self-consciousness of the city dweller, into the notion of the city itself.”112 The Smithson’s responded by placing the canted blocks around the site’s busiest edges to create an enclosed ‘stress-free’ grassed zone and intentionally designing one block with more storeys than the other.

The 10 storey block was placed at the east boundary, whilst the 7 storey block was at the west. The purpose of this calculated placement was that the taller building, by virtue of its bulk and height, can form an acoustic barrier opposing the hectic road beside the Thames, whilst the block with fewer storeys enabled the garden to receive ample sunlight, thereby contributing to its ‘stress-free’ design purpose. The inner garden was a distinctive, delicate and intimate component of the scheme within the close-packed urban fabric. Such a space was crucial for the Smithsons due to the scarcity of green, calm areas in London. Peter Smithson references the central, stress-free zone of Law Courts at Gray’s Inn (Fig. 7), describing it as an “extraordinarily civilised place”.113 He adds that “there is no reason for thinking we cannot invent something as good as the Georgian Square”,114 albeit with the accompanying challenge of “how to make it speak”,115 thereby referencing the relationship between the building and the road.

Figure 6 Robin Hood Gardens

111 112 113 114

115

Figure 7 Gray’s Inn, London

Alexander Clement, Brutalism: Post war British Architecture (Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd, 2011), p. 130.

Alison and Peter Smithson, The Charged Void: Urbanism (New York: The Monacelli Press, 2005), p. 172.

Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

Eisenman, Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, p. 46.

Ibid.

49

Due to the noisy site conditions, the Smithson’s were compelled to devise several design methods to reduce noise pollution. In addition to the placement of the canted blocks as an effective barrier, the estate featured vertical precast concrete fins (Fig. 8) on the facades that provided sound insulation from flat to flat through the disintegration of the noise upon impact. The living rooms, facing the noisy roads, had windows that pivoted in a position whereby the air would be admitted at the top but prevented direct noise at the bottom,116 (Fig. 9) with the addition of projected window sills.

Further measures employed included the 3m (10ft) acoustic wall at the edge of the pavement that threw any incoming noise back onto the road.117 However, the Smithson’s desired subtle views through the panels but were conscious of the vertical gaps making it look “like a prison”118; therefore, the gaps were angled strategically, maintaining views from the inside out (Fig. 10). Visual aesthetics were not compromised, and the noise was filtered as there was no direct path for sound to travel.

The emphasis upon noise break-up was evident through the additional line of trees along the site boundary (Fig. 11 and 12), demonstrating the Smithson’s concerns and care for maintaining the inhabitant’s sense of tranquillity and protection within the dense district.

Figure 8 Vertical precast concrete fins on facade

116 117 118

Figure 9 Windows preventing direct noise entry

Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

Ibid.

Ibid.

50

Figure 10 Angled gaps on acoustic wall

Figure 11 Line of trees on site boundary

51

Figure 12 Site section (above) and site plan (below)

52

The rationale of the design suggests that the objective was to create two worlds for the residents: a peaceful, harmonious and pleasant inner world that swiftly transitions into the bustle of the outer world, activating the connection between the environments in the home, the street and the city, as Peter mentioned, “To achieve a calm centre, the pressures of the external world are held off by the buildings and outworks.”119 This ‘calm centre’ was achieved through the layout of the functions within each flat, rippling from the inside out. Private spaces, such as the bedrooms, were placed on the inside of the estate looking towards the garden through the windows and balconies, whilst the “noisy next to the noisy”,120 that is, the living rooms, interior circulations and decks facing out onto the roads, serving another layer of sound insulation. Additionally, to prevent noise from within the ‘stress free’ zone, the artificial mound was designed to be 2 storeys high so that children could not play football in that specific area (Fig. 13); it was instead accommodated for at the site's southern end.121 The height of the mound was achieved using recycled site waste, highlighting the Smithson’s ethics and mindfulness towards the environment, even at that time.

Figure 13 Children on artificial central mounds, 1972.

Smithson, The Charged Void: Architecture, p. 296.

Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

121 Ibid.

119

120

53

Figure 14 Street deck looking out into the city

The ‘streets in the sky’ featured within Robin Hood Gardens (Fig. 14) reflected the Smithson’s previously proposed unbuilt ‘pilot project’ discussed in the second chapter, Golden Lane. Contrary to Golden Lane, the position of the housing blocks and the placement of the street decks on the outside in Robin Hood Gardens defined the central space and separated the public sphere from the semi-public and semi-private, maintaining a front to back connection with the nearby context.122 Serving on every third floor and approximately 2 metres in width, the street decks enabled direct access to the dwellings from the deck level with uninterrupted views of the docks. The function of the decks, as elevated open-air networks of routes permitting free movement whilst connecting to surrounding neighbourhoods and amenities, aided the reduction of noise from the Blackwall tunnel and further stressed the relationship between the dwelling and the first step into city life. The raised street enabled children to begin their early years interacting and associating with wider society in a protected environment.

122

Eisenman, Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, p. 45.

54

A continuous flow of movement throughout the street decks was maintained through the deliberate placement of the dwelling entrances at right angles to the deck,123 whereby in order for one to enter their home, they must take a turn into the ‘eddy-place’ (Fig. 15). This intermediate space shared between two flats with entrances facing each other not only offered a more spacious doorstep but would have also fostered stronger connections to the neighbour opposite. The recessed space was also effective in that it prevented doormats from being kicked aside by passers-by,124 and the street circulation remained undisturbed. The Smithsons encouraged the residents to place their objects, parcels and plant pots125 in the eddy-place as a way of spilling the inside life onto the outside. Taking “a piece of the deck”126 may have encouraged the occupants to feel a sense of autonomy and ownership within a dense block. The concept of transition from public to private spaces is further emphasised by parallelling the interior stairs to the decks, providing a space in front of the entry and acting as a sound buffer between the public and private domain.127 Although Park Hill estates feature the street decks, it differs in design where the architects placed the internal stairs centrally, which lacks any public-private transition.128

Figure 15 ‘Eddy-place’ and entrances to flats

Anthony Pangaro, ‘Beyond Golden Lane, Robin Hood Gardens’, Architecture Plus, 1.5, (1973), (pp. 36-45).

Ibid.

125 Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

126 Ibid.

123 124

127 128

Eisenman, Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, p. 49.

Ibid.

55

The dwellings are 214 in total between the blocks; their sizes range between one to two storeys and two to five bedrooms planned to the 1961 Parker Morris Report, with varying views of the garden and city. The Smithsons had planned the layout of the flats to such an intricate degree whereby a mother can stand in her kitchen and watch over her children playing on the access decks on one side and simultaneously look down into the older children's play spaces.129 Their strategic placement also demonstrates another successful measure employed in the Smithson’s design to reduce noise levels between each dwelling. Opting for L-shaped maisonettes (Fig. 16 and 17) meant that the quieter, more private rooms between the neighbours could be placed next to one another, thereby effectively creating spaces that provide comfort to the individual. Easy access to the elderly was provided through the placement of their dwellings on the ground floor and making sure the buildings were self-explanatory in how they were intended to be used, through the expression of the entry points.130 The Smithsons introduced hidden underground “Moats” (Fig. 18) running along the outer boundary of each block to facilitate parking spaces for automobiles, garages and storage for over half of the residents. The Moats aimed to protect the pedestrians from excessive contact with vehicles on the roads and also contained vehicular pollution and reduced noise. Entering the building as a walker from the bus stop became a safer journey through the spatial separation, and the driver’s dustcart had no fear of knocking down an old lady.131

Figure 16 Elevation illustrating L-shaped units; flats and maisonettes. Elderly flats situated on the ground floor

Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

Ibid.

131 Ibid.

129

130

56

Figure 17 Spatial arrangement of units

Figure 18 Cross section of the Robin Hood Gardens, looking at building frontage and public realm

57

The main mass and details of the blocks are composed of exposed rough concrete (Fig. 19), as per the Brutalist aesthetic; however, there are instances throughout the scheme that features smoother and curvier concrete, such as the balcony rails and balustrades. This enabled a more pleasant texture to the touch. Architecturally, the design had a pronounced geometric arrangement between its vertical and horizontal elements, notably the horizontality of the decks contrasted with the verticality of the mullions, as well as the lift shafts that marked the end of the blocks. Ken Baker, an architect who worked on Robin Hood Gardens, likened the estate to Georgian terrace architecture, whereby there is order through the similar proportions, from the base to the parapet, forming a rhythm through the repetition of the bays.132 A level of complexity and excitement is illustrated in the design of the building when captured at an angle, whereby its identity becomes completely abstracted and perceived distinctly at different viewpoints (Fig. 20). As Peter Smithson expressed, “so that repetition in a mechanical sense seems melted away.”133 As families settled into their homes, the many satellite dishes added to the facade increased this degree of abstraction over the years.134 Despite the building’s Brutalist, unadorned and honest block-like character, the repetitive vertical mullions speak a language of art on a grand scale. Peter Smithson shares his reflections on rhythmic compositions, mentioning: “When I am moved by repetition it is by very grand, very simple affairs, which on reflection all have similar properties – they are dominated by big-scaled repetitions and are bent or curved on plan so that repetition in a mechanical sense seems melted away.”135

Figure 19 Concrete detail

Figure 20 Abstract angled view of facade

Robin Hood Gardens <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqerCukyUuA> Peter Smithson, ‘Simple Thoughts on Repetition’, Architectural Design, (1971), (p. 481).

134 Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

135 Peter Smithson, ‘Simple Thoughts on Repetition’, (p. 481).

132

133

58

Despite the Smithson’s first attempt at designing a social housing scheme showcasing their thinking and societal solutions, Robin Hood Gardens became a ‘sink estate’, much like the fate of Balfron Tower, Park Hill and other Brutalist social housing. It was expected to become one due to the negative stigmas attached to other Brutalist estates in the 70s. As discussed within the previous chapter, the economic and social decline at the time, along with the lack of funds from the local authority and the unsuccessful community cohesion, the estate’s fate became inevitable and was consequently engulfed in vandalism and crime. The anti-social behaviours may not have come from the residents themselves but rather from offenders who found the Moats and circulation points ideal environments for transgressing.

The overall poor reception led to the belief that while implementing the 20-year-old ‘Urban Reidentification’ grid on Robin Hood Gardens may have worked in a heroic-scale urban utopia, it did not respond well for the Smithsons. One of the reasons was the timing of its inception, for “ideas conceived in 1952 were, by 1972, becoming unfashionable.”136 What was seen as an impressive innovation in the Golden Lane design and its physical implementation in Park Hill in the late 50s, became a model not suitable for the conditions of the 70s. This indicates that the design quality of Robin Hood Gardens is not solely to blame for its ill-perception; instead, it was that society was not prepared for the newfound ideas that manifested with it. Perhaps it was the cramming of the numerous flats and maisonettes in the bulky blocks that felt unfamiliar to the residents, or their high expectations which led to such resentment, despite the Smithsons efforts and care in taking contextual issues into account.

The Smithson’s heavy focus on building a utopian present and future in contrast with the GLC’s concern for housing purely for the fulfilment of the present needs137 can be argued to be a reason for the scheme’s downfall. Robin Hood Gardens seemed to be designed for the bourgeois, yet the architects housed the working class within it and claimed that “in the heart of every worker there is a potential aristocrat.”138 This mismatch between the design intent and the nature of the occupants revealed itself in the way the building was treated. The Smithsons, however, were adamant about providing the best quality housing irrespective of the people’s expectations and conduct towards it.139 This suggests that they were aware that it would be badly treated, but given that they were renowned architects, their conscience would not permit them to build to a lesser design quality; as Peter Smithson stated, “We feel an obligation to build for successive occupying generations… society has to make a framework so that the makers can get ahead of the destroyers.”140

Steve Parnell, ‘The Smithsons’, Architectural Review, 231.1380 (2012), p.8.

Eisenman, Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, p. 54.

138 Ibid.

139 The Smithsons on Architecture.

140 Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

136

137

59

Despite their firm stance, Alison Smithson commented that she might have to rethink her intention of designing high standard successive architecture due to the uncertainty of its future and contemplated upon the idea of repairing that which exists instead.141 The frustration stemmed from the vandalism surrounding modern social housing at the time and suggested that high-quality homes being built may be “really stupid.” Rather, they should “just leave people where they are to smash it up in complete abandon and happiness so that nobody has to worry about it anymore.”142 It seems as though the Smithsons initially believed that their architectural design could solve the complexities of modern society only if the inhabitants acted how they wanted them to, which did not turn out to be the case.

Robin Hood Gardens continued to decline as it became a target to attacks from various fronts and after many campaigns to get it listed, it was refused in 2008 by English Heritage based on its “failing as a place for human beings to live” as well as being 20 years late in the approach of ‘streets in the air’.143 It seemed as though the changing attitudes towards architecture since the end of the 20th century and into the 21st, was what dictated whether the estate should remain or cease to exist, more so than basing the judgement upon its apparent design characteristics. When viewed purely as an architectural scheme independent of external factors, Robin Hood Gardens was an overall successful complex that embodied ideological and intellectual standpoints. Nevertheless, Park Hill housing was celebrated and eventually listed, whilst Robin Hood Gardens was destined for demolition and no longer exists today. The estate was perceived to be ‘obsolete’ and ‘ordinary’ since the ‘streets in the sky’ era was coming to an end, especially as Park Hill had already built the concept more than a decade prior “on a more confident scale” and that it was “innovative, wider and more accessible”, as English Heritage compared it. Despite Lynn and Ivor Smith’s more celebratory design of the street decks, for English Heritage to have deemed Robin Hood Gardens as insignificant based on the narrower decks could be argued to be an unfair point as the Smithsons dealt with a challenging site on a limited budget, and the decks served a dual purpose which was to filter out noise polluting in addition to facilitating communal life.

There seemed to have been other underlying reasons for the demolition of Robin Hood Gardens other than the aforementioned points, in which finance plays a significant role. Poplar, a historically poor district that already finances the maintenance of the three other listed post-war buildings in the borough, including Balforn Tower, would have the added burden of refurbishing and maintaining the upkeep of Robin Hood Gardens were it to have been listed. The estate would have resulted in more expenses from the council’s social housing budget and less profit in comparison to the gained profit of the new Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project (Fig 21 and 22) that has replaced it.

The Smithsons on Architecture.

Peter Smithson in The Smithsons on Architecture.

143 Historic England, Robin Hoods Gardens Estate (2015), <https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/news/robin-hood-gardens/> [accessed 20 April 2021].

141

142

60

Figure 21 Blackwall Reach Project site axonometric

Figure 22 Blackwall Reach Project visual

61

Conclusion The Smithson’s primary objective in the design of Robin Hood Gardens was to foster a communal ambience that rekindled the relationship between one’s home and society, with measures that sought after the comfort of the inhabitants amid the highly complex site. Through housing various members of the public, the estate aimed to dismantle social hierarchies. Clear within the scheme are the many successful design implementations, notably the smooth transition from the private domain to the public, the dual-facing flats and the noise insulation, which all attest to the Smithson’s skilful ability to respond to the brief that called for a social housing estate amongst such dense constraints.

Therefore, it has been concluded that the scheme's design is not at fault for its demolition, rather the social conditions and economic opportunities played a part. Park Hill’s survival and listing was as a result of it being the first to implement the ‘streets in the sky’ concept, in which this actualisation was widely celebrated. However, the fact that the Smithsons were able to actualise their theories on housing in a built scheme, albeit 20 years later, is a testimony to their grand status as architects, as Peter Eisenman stated in 1972, “Whatever the particular flaws of Robin Hood Gardens, whatever the limitations in the original idea of Golden Lane, the achievement of finally realising in built form any ideas must transcend not only my criticism but also the building itself.”144

144

Peter Eisenman, ‘Robin Hood Gardens London E14’, Architectural Design, 42.9 (1972), 557- 592, (p. 573).

62

Bibliography AJ Buildings Library, Park Hill Flats, Sheffield Corporation City Architect’s Department (1961), <https://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/2764> [accessed 5 February 2021] Allard et al., Pablo, Team 10 Keeping the Language of Modern Architecture Alive (Dutch: Delft University of Technology, 2006) Balfron Tower, Balfron Tower Brochure Design (London, 2019), <https://balfrontower.co.uk/assets/BA.BalfronTower.BrochureDesign.LargePrintVersion_700x473.pdf> [accessed 10 December 2020] Banham, Reyner, The new Brutalism: Ethic or Aesthetic? (London: The architectural Press, 1966) BBC, Park Hill’s History (2007), <http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2007/03/07/park_hill_feature.shtml> [accessed 5 March 2021] Beckett, Chris, J. G. Ballard: Streets in the Sky and the Secret Logic of the High-Rise (2016), <https://blogs.bl.uk/english-and-drama/2016/03/j-g-ballard-streets-in-the-sky-and-the-secret-logic-of-the -high-rise.html> [accessed 20 January 2021] Calder, Barnabas, Raw Concrete: The Beauty of Brutalism (London: William Heinemann, 2016) Clement, Alexander, Brutalism: Post war British Architecture (Wiltshire: The Crowood Press Ltd, 2011), Dunnett, James, ‘Brownfield Estate - Grade 2*- Listing Nomination - Reasons Text’, (2014). <http://dono5hgmjj8is.cloudfront.net/uploads/document/file/87/2014-08_Listing_Nomination.pdf> [accessed 30 December 2020] Dunnett, James, 'Ernö Goldfinger The Architect as Constructor', Architectural Review, (1983), 42-48. <https://jamesdunnettarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/writing/83-04%20AR%20Erno%20Goldfinger%2 0The%20Architect%20as%20Constructor.pdf> [accessed 18 December 2020] Dunnet, James and Hiscock, Nigel, ‘To this Measure of Man’: Proportional design in the work of Ernö Goldfinger , in Twentieth-Century Architecture and its Histories, (UK: Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 2000) Dunnett, James, Stamp, Gavin, and Perriand, Charlotte, Erno Goldfinger: Works 1 Architectural Association (London: Architectural Association, 1983) Eisenman, Peter, Eisenman Inside Out: Selected Writings, 1963-1988 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004) Eisenman, Peter, ‘Robin Hood Gardens London E14’, Architectural Design, 42.9 (1972) Frampton, Kenneth, Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth Century Architecture (London: MIT Press, 1995)

63

Frearson, Amy, Brutalist buildings: Park Hill, Sheffield by Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith (2014), <https://www.dezeen.com/2014/09/10/brutalist-buildings-park-hill-jack-lynn-ivor-smith/> [accessed 6 February 2021] Gilkes, Ivan, Erno Goldfinger’s Sublime Towers (2008), <https://issuu.com/ivangilkes/docs/erno> [accessed 5 January 2021] Glendinning, Miles and Muthesius, Stefan, ‘Tower Block: Modern Public Housing in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland’, Architectural Heritage, 5.1 (1994), 134-136 Gold, John R., The Practice of Modernism: Modern Architects and Urban Transformation, 1954-1972 (London: Routledge, 2007) Goldfinger, Letter from Ernö Goldfinger to F.G. Minter Ltd, (1965); cited in Post-war reconstruction, design aspirations and procurement: The case of Ernö Goldfinger’s Balfron Tower <https://architoss.files.wordpress.com/2020/06/post-war-reconstruction-design-aspirations-and-procurem ent.pdf> [accessed 10 January 2021] Hatherley, Owen, A New Kind of Bleak: Journeys Through Urban Britain (London: Verso, 2012) Hatherley, Owen, ‘London's most underappreciated architecture – in pictures’, The Guardian, 28 May 2013, <https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2013/may/28/london-underappreciated-architecture-i n-pictures> [accessed 24 December 2020] Hatherley, Owen, ‘Regeneration? What’s happening in Sheffield’s Park Hill is class cleansing’ (2011), <https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/sep/28/sheffield-park-hill-class-cleansing> [accessed 27 March 2021] Himelfield, Dave, Archive photos show Yorkshire’s most famous council estate during its 1960s heyday (2020). <https://www.examinerlive.co.uk/news/history/gallery/archive-photos-show-yorkshires-most-18029096> [accessed 5 February 2021] Historic England, Balfron Tower. Listed building. Grade II (London, 2015), <https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1334931> [accessed 23 December 2020] Historic England, Park Hill Flats, Talbot Street. <https://historicengland.org.uk/services-skills/grants/visit/park-hill-flats-talbot-street-s2-2tg/> [accessed 27 March 2021] Historic England, Robin Hoods Gardens Estate (2015), <https://historicengland.org.uk/whats-new/news/robin-hood-gardens/> [accessed 20 April 2021] James, Anne and Nagasaka, Dai, Architectonic influences of multimedia and their spatial significance. Department of Architecture and Design (Japan: Kyoto Institute of Technology, 2010) <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/28e0/c8c747a2339f31d04df3f9ba3b047c6b45e0.pdf> [accessed 28 January 2021] Jencks, Charles, Modern Movements in Architecture (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1987)

64

Masterman, Jack, An Introduction to Building Procurement Systems, 2nd edn (London: E & FN Spon, 2003) Maulden, Robert, Tectonics in Architecture: From the Physical to the Meta-Physical (Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dept. of Architecture, 1986) Pangaro, Anthony, ‘Beyond Golden Lane, Robin Hood Gardens’, Architecture Plus, 1.5, (1973) Parnell, Steve, ‘The Smithsons’, Architectural Review, 231.1380 (2012) Pevsner, Nikolaus and Enid Radcliffe, Yorkshire: The West Riding (London: Penguin, 1993) Powers, Alan, “A Critical Narrative” in Robin Hood Gardens: Revisions (London: RIBA, 2009) Rodriguez, Carlos, FRAMPTON’S PHYSICALITY OF ARCHITECTURE (2012), <https://24car.wordpress.com/2012/05/19/framptons-physicality-of-architecture/> [accessed 28 January 2021] Robin Hood Gardens: Concrete Bungle? <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YqP21MQKvA> [accessed 1 April 2021] Robin Hood Gardens <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqerCukyUuA> Sheffield.gov.uk, Sources for the Study of Park Hill and Hyde Park Flats (2011), p. 10; cited in Jane Rendell, One Way Street or “The Degeneration of Things”<https://www.janerendell.co.uk/textworks/one-way-street-or-the-degeneration-of-things> [accessed February 4 2021] Smithson, Alison and Peter, Ordinariness and Light (London: Faber & Faber, 1970) Smithson, Alison, The Emergence of Team 10 out of C.I.A.M (London: Architectural Association, 1982) Smithson, Peter, in The Smithsons on Architecture, prod. by B. S. Johnson (BBC, 1970) Smithson, Peter, ‘Simple Thoughts on Repetition’, Architectural Design, (1971) Warburton, Nigel, Ernö Goldfinger – The Life of an Architect (London: Routledge, 2003) Whiteley, Nigel, Reyner Banham: Historian of the Immediate Future (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2003)

65

Illustration Credits Chapter 1 Figure 1, Balfron Tower facade, Pinterest, available at: <https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/262545853258517581> [accessed 29 October 2020] Figure 2, Victorian Slums in London, 19th century, History Extra, available at: <https://www.historyextra.com/period/victorian/life-in-19th-century-slums-victorian-londons-homes-from -hell> [accessed 29 October 2020] Figure 3, Festival of Britain, 1951, The National Archives, available at: <https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/WORK-25_209-_3840_June-1951.jpg> [accessed 29 October 2020] Figure 4, Erno and Ursula Goldfinger on their Balcony in Balfron Tower, 1968, British Library, available at: <https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/photograph-of-erno-and-ursula-goldfinger-on-their-balcony-in-balfro n-tower> [accessed 15 November 2020] Figure 5, View of Balfron Tower from the Blackwall Tunnel Approach, Marcin Rogozinski, Alamy, available at: <https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-balfron-tower-residential-building-and-a102-blackwall-tunnel-approa ch-117440543.html?> [accessed 15 November 2020] Figure 6, Brownfield Estate Site Axonometric, The Architects’ Journal, available at: <https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/c20-society-demands-balfron-tower-rethink> [accessed 15 November 2020] Figure 7, Preliminary study for the layout of a flat by Erno Goldfinger, Brownfield Estate, 1962, Erno Goldfinger, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Preliminary-study-for-the-layout-of-a-flat-Rowlett-Street-housing-Poplar-Londo n_RIBA13284> [accessed 15 November 2020] Figure 8, Balfron Tower view showing the bush-hammered concrete material treatment, Justin Tallis, The Guardian, available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/feb/28/delicate-sense-of-terror-what-does-concrete-do-to-our -mental-health> [accessed 20 November 2020] Figure 9, Exposed concrete frame of facade, David Borland, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Balfron-Tower-Rowlett-Street-Poplar-London_RIBA45184> [accessed 20 November 2020] Figure 10, Goldfinger’s rectangles, showing how each is derived from the square, Dunnet, James and Nigel Hiscock, ‘To this Measure of Man’: Proportional design in the work of Ernö Goldfinger, in Twentieth-Century Architecture and its Histories, (UK: Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 2000), p. 118 Figure 11, Goldfinger’s 2’ 9” panning grid and 11” module applied to domestic design Dunnet, James and Nigel Hiscock, ‘To this Measure of Man’: Proportional design in the work of Ernö Goldfinger, in Twentieth-Century Architecture and its Histories, (UK: Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 2000), p. 94

66

Figure 12, Double square rectangle illustrated on elevation Dunnet, James and Nigel Hiscock, ‘To this Measure of Man’: Proportional design in the work of Ernö Goldfinger, in Twentieth-Century Architecture and its Histories, (UK: Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 2000), p. 110 Figure 13, Ronan Point progressive corner collapse, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Ronan-Point-Clever-Road-West-Ham-London-after-building-collapse_RIBA3716> [accessed 28 November 2020] Figure 14, Close up view of floor panels and slabs, New Civil Engineer, available at: <https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/insight-the-ronan-point-legacy-50-years-on-16-05-2018/> [accessed 28 November 2020] Figure 15, Balfron Tower elevation view showing the semi-detached service tower, Getty Images, Dezeen, available at: <https://www.dezeen.com/2019/05/03/balfron-tower-brutalist-renovation-gentrification-owen-hatherley-o pinion/> [accessed 28 November 2020] Figure 16, Precast walkways, available at: <https://416expat.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/open-house-london-balfron-tower/#jp-carousel-2424> [accessed 28 November 2020] Figure 17, Link bridge resembling a row of railway carriages, Elwall, Robert, Ernö Goldfinger / Robert Elwall, (London: Academy Editions and RIBA, 1996) Figure 18, Balfron Tower floor plans and site layout, 1965, Roberts, David (2017), The Journal of Architecture, 22(1), 123–150. Doi: 10.1080/13602365.2016.1276096 [accessed 28 November 2020] Figure 19, Service tower entrance, David Secombe (2014), available at: < https://thelondoncolumn.com/tag/28-days-later/> [accessed 28 November 2020] Figure 20, Balfron Tower Boiler room, David Borland, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Balfron-Tower-Rowlett-Street-Poplar-London-the-service-tower-topped-by-a-boi ler-room-seen-in-evening-light_RIBA45159?> [accessed 30 November 2020] Figure 21, Trellick Tower boiler room, Pinterest, available at: <https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/533324780848754671/> [accessed 30 November 2020] Figure 22, Slit-like windows on service tower, available at: <https://thelondonphile.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/img_1198.jpg> [accessed 30 November 2020] Figure 23, Interior view of slit windows, Danny Robinson, AD Classics, available at: <https://www.archdaily.com/160672/ad-classics-balfron-tower-erno-goldfinger/50381b5928ba0d599b000ee 4-ad-classics-balfron-tower-erno-goldfinger-image> [accessed 30 November 2020] Figure 24, Smooth integrated concrete planter contrasting with bush-hammered concrete, The Architects Journal, available at:

67

<https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/buildings/brutal-refurbishment-studio-egret-west-upgrades-balfron-t ower> [accessed 01 December 2020] Figure 25, Bush-hammered concrete, available at: <https://416expat.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/open-house-london-balfron-tower/#jp-carousel-2435> [accessed 01 December 2020] Figure 26, Interior hallway featuring smooth wall tiles opposite to the bush-hammered concrete walls, available at: <https://416expat.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/open-house-london-balfron-tower/#jp-carousel-2435> [accessed 01 December 2020] Figure 27, Vandalism around the block, Coljax videos, Balfron Tower Redevelopment Video, available at: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2hVJ0_SxtI&t=3s> [accessed 01 December 2020] Figure 28, Interior rainwater leakage, available at: <https://416expat.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/open-house-london-balfron-tower/#jp-carousel-2442> [accessed 01 December 2020] Figure 29, Pen outline drawing of the top left view of Balfron Tower, Zahraa Al-subeiti, 2021

Chapter 2 Figure 1, Park Hill renovation, The Modern House, available at: <https://www.themodernhouse.com/past-sales/5998-3-park-hill/> [accessed 05 January 2021] Figure 2, Aerial Photograph of Park Hill Estate, 1960, Bill Toomey, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Park-Hill-Estate-Sheffield_RIBA39918> [accessed 05 January 2021] Figure 3, John Lewis Womersley sitting with Jack Lynn standing behind, Sam Lambert, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/John-Lewis-Womersley-sitting-with-Jack-Lynn-standing-behind_RIBA48210?> [accessed 05 January 2021] Figure 4, Smithsons’ Golden Lane project, network of housing and streets in the air, (1952), available at: <http://www.grids-blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Smithson-Golden-Lane.jpeg> [accessed 17 January 2021] Figure 5, Golden Lane project Street Deck design, (1953), Peter Smithson, available at: <http://www.grids-blog.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/smithson-golden-lane-street.jpeg> [accessed 17 January 2021] Figure 6, Park Hill Estate “Streets in the Sky”, (1962), Picture Sheffield (2020), available at: <https://storiesintheskyparkhill.com/history/> [accessed 17 January 2021] Figure 7, Unité d’habitation, Marseilles, Paul Dobraszczyk, Sheffielder, available at: <https://sheffielder.net/2020/02/12/park-hill/> [accessed 12 February 2021]

68

Figure 8, Plan of level 12, Norwich Row, Sheffield City Council, Dezeen, available at: <https://static.dezeen.com/uploads/2014/09/Park-Hill-Brutalism_dezeen_0_1000.gif> February 2021]

[accessed 12

Figure 9, Pedestrian route southwards up the hill from the shopping area, Reginald Hugo de Burgh Galwey, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Park-Hill-Estate-Sheffield-the-main-pedestrian-route-southwards-up-the-hill-fro m-the-shopping-area_RIBA18225?> [accessed 12 February 2021] Figure 10, Slab block seen from shopping area, Arthur Winter, RIBA Library, available at: <‘https://www.ribapix.com/Park-Hill-Estate-Sheffield-a-slab-block-seen-from-the-shopping-area_RIBA18220 ?> [accessed 12 February 2021] Figure 11, Park Hill concrete ‘H’ frame grids, Paolo Margari, AD Classics, available at: <https://www.archdaily.com/791939/ad-classics-park-hill-estate-sheffield-jack-lynn-ivor-smith/57e7c81ee58 ece9e1d000283-ad-classics-park-hill-estate-sheffield-jack-lynn-ivor-smith-photo> [accessed 06 March 2021] Figure 12, Facade gradient change, Richard Chivers, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Park-Hill-Estate-Sheffield_RIBA54707> [accessed 06 March 2021] Figure 13, Park Hill Estate built on a hill, John Donat, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Park-Hill-Estate-Sheffield_RIBA15328?> [accessed 06 March 2021] Figure 14, Site section showing the constant horizontal roofline, Joseph Thomas Empsall, ‘Stories in the Sky’ (Unpublished Master's Thesis, University of York), available at: <https://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/28222/1/Stories%20in%20the%20Sky%20VR_MRes%20Thesis_Joseph%20T homas%20Empsall.pdf> [accessed 08 March 2021]

Chapter 3 Figure 1, Robin Hood Gardens facade and garden, Steve Cadman, AD Classics, available at: <https://www.archdaily.com/150629/ad-classics-robin-hood-gardens-alison-and-peter-smithson/50380d6f2 8ba0d599b000b67> [accessed 29 April 2021] Figure 2, Urban Re-Identification Grid, 1953, Sophie Warren & Jonathan Mosley, ‘A Nodding Acquaitance’, (2017), available at: <https://www.edgearts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IC138-Parallel-SJ-Guide-AW2.pdf> [accessed 06 June 2021] Figure 3, Hierarchy of Association, 1953, Sophie Warren & Jonathan Mosley, ‘A Nodding Acquaitance’, (2017), available at: <https://www.edgearts.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/IC138-Parallel-SJ-Guide-AW2.pdf> [accessed 06 June 2021] Figure 4, Robin Hood Gardens with Balfron Tower in the background, Neil Clasper, (2012), Londonist, available at: https://londonist.com/2012/03/robin-hood-gardens-set-for-demolition [accessed 10 July 2021] Figure 5, Robin Hood Gardens East block as viewed from the entry to the Blackwall Tunnel, (1972), available at:

69

<https://municipaldreams.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/p14302-robin-hood-gardens-1972-300dpi.jpg> [accessed 10 July 2021] Figure 6, Robin Hood Gardens, Blackwall Reach Community, available at: <https://www.blackwallreachcommunity.co.uk/blank-page> [accessed 21 July 2021] Figure 7, Gray’s Inn, London, Christine Matthews, Wikimedia Commons, available at: <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Gray%27s_Inn_Gardens%2C_London_WC1.jpeg> [accessed 21 July 2021] Figure 8, Vertical precast concrete fins on facade, Christopher Hope-Fitch, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Robin-Hood-Gardens-Tower-Hamlets-London_RIBA53657> [accessed 21 July 2021] Figure 9, Windows preventing direct noise entry, Mark Walton, Flickr User, available at: <https://www.flickr.com/photos/n5mark/50263248057/> [accessed 21 July 2021] Figure 10, Angled gaps on acoustic wall, available at: <https://416expat.wordpress.com/2011/09/20/open-house-london-carradale-house-glenkerry-house-robinhood-gardens/#jp-carousel-2466> [accessed 21 July 2021] Figure 11, Line of trees on site boundary, Hugh Pearman, Architectural Record, available at: <https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/12926-last-days-of-the-smithsons-robin-hood-gardens> [accessed 21 July 2021] Figure 12, Site section (above) and site plan (below), AD Classics, available at: <https://www.archdaily.com/150629/ad-classics-robin-hood-gardens-alison-and-peter-smithson> [accessed 21 July 2021] Figure 13, Children on artificial central mounds, 1972, available at: <https://municipaldreams.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/p14307-robin-hood-gardens-1972-300dpi.jpg> [accessed 28 July 2021] Figure 14, Street deck looking out into the city, available at: <https://municipaldreams.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/p14307-robin-hood-gardens-1972-300dpi.jpg> [accessed 28 July 2021] Figure 15, ‘Eddy-place’ and entrances to flats, Christopher Hope-Fitch, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Robin-Hood-Gardens-Tower-Hamlets-London_RIBA53656> [accessed 29 July 2021] Figure 16, Elevation illustrating L-shaped units; flats and maisonettes. Elderly flats situated on the ground floor, Nicholas Channon, ‘The Legacy of Postwar Housing An investigation into recent contention at Robin Hood Gardens’, (University of Westminster, 2010), pg. 49, available at: <https://files.cargocollective.com/719804/The-Legacy-of-Postwar-Housing---An-investigation-into-recent-c ontention-at-Robin-Hood-Gardens---2010.pdf> [accessed 29 July 2021] Figure 17, Spatial arrangement of units, Florence Bell, Space, Materials, Politics, available at: <https://florencebell.myportfolio.com/gmda> [accessed 29 July 2021] Figure 18, Cross section of the Robin Hood Gardens, looking at building frontage and public realm

70

, Florence Bell, Space, Materials, Politics, available at: <https://florencebell.myportfolio.com/gmda> [accessed 29 July 2021] Figure 19, Concrete detail, Christopher Hope-Fitch, RIBA Library, available at: <https://www.ribapix.com/Robin-Hood-Gardens-Tower-Hamlets-London-detail-of-concrete_RIBA53658> [accessed 30 July 2021] Figure 20, Abstract angled view of facade, Alamy Stock Photo, available at: <https://www.alamy.com/derelict-robin-hood-gardens-estate-poplar-london-uk-image433945883.html> [accessed 30 July 2021] Figure 21, Blackwall Reach Project site axonometric, Franklin, Sydney, C.F. Møller's mass-timber vision for Robin Hood Gardens stifled by ban on combustible cladding (2019), available at: <https://archpaper.com/2019/02/c-f-mollers-blackwall-reach-uk-ban/> [accessed 05 August 2021] Figure 22, Blackwall Reach Project visual Franklin, Sydney, C.F. Møller's mass-timber vision for Robin Hood Gardens stifled by ban on combustible cladding (2019), available at: <https://archpaper.com/2019/02/c-f-mollers-blackwall-reach-uk-ban/> [accessed 05 August 2021]

71