Report comment

In Defense of Robin Hood Gardens: One learns that Robin Hood Gardens has been denied listing. One remembers pictures of Jencks being “mugged” on the access balconies, one remembers David Watkin’s glee “…that the Modern movement is over….”, that “… practicing architects … have temporarily suppressed the credibility of their profession by their barbarous Utopian dreams….” (1980). These memories from three decades ago have been supplanted by the end of Utopian dreams – barbarous or not – by the rise of “starchitects”, with their glorification of money. Why was this money never available for Utopian dreams of decent housing and schools and public amenities? Robin Hood Gardens was one of those – a late example – “barbarous” Utopian dreams. Now it must go. But why? One hears that some residents like it while others do not. Presumably this is true of any but the most luxurious flats. One never has enough space, the neighbors are noisy, the city itself is noisier – but those hated concrete fins are there precisely to reduce the noise from outside, the access balconies are on the outside to act as a buffer against street noise, with bedrooms on the inside where it is quieter. In fact most of what one sees has a practical – and idealistic (Utopian) – origin. While we hear demands for the destruction of these buildings we never hear reasonable reasons. The primary source of the negative reaction – as near as one can learn – is the project’s “brutality”, its lack of sympathetic elements, lack of softening touches which we find in older buildings. By chance, I was on a bus in the East End and saw Robin Hood Gardens from my window. It did not seem a very pretty part of the city, not like the squares of the West End – but not having money has always been a disadvantage, but it was those “barbarous Utopian dreams which were conceived to mitigate those disadvantages. Because something is not perfect is no reason to abandon it, starting over to build what will be hated tomorrow? The twentieth century is not unique. Think how Victorian buildings were hated, while the Victorians hated the “boring” Georgian terraces, and those boring Georgians hated their Baroque forebears and so it goes. Every city in the world has seen destructions which are later regretted. The American economist, John Kenneth Galbraith, noted that historic preservation is unique in that its actions are never regretted, that they are uniquely proven correct over time. Name an exception! Here is the president of Harvard University (not quite Oxford or Cambridge, but …) on unsympathetic buildings: "We have none, or next to none, of those coigns of vantage for the tendrils of memory or affection. Not any of our older buildings is venerable, or will ever become so. Time refuses to console them. They look as if they meant business and nothing more." But he is not speaking of Robin Hood Gardens (though you might feel that); he is speaking over one hundred years ago of Harvard Yard, now undoubtedly one of the most venerable places in the New World, buildings now cherished just for their austerity, only we prefer a softer word to express our pleasure in their simple virtue. The president was not unique in his unhappiness. Fifty years earlier a professor saw the buildings as "… barns, destitute alike of symmetry, ornament, and taste; and with all their plain and uncouth proportions, there is a horrible regularity and squareness about them which heightens their deformity." Isn’t this precisely what is being said of Robin Hood Gardens? If Robin Hood Gardens is granted even half a century, there can be little doubt that it will appear generous, even gracious. Let me cite another American example. Jefferson designed and built the University of Virginia in the first quarter of the 19th century. The buildings lack many amenities we now take for granted, but the privileged students at the university – privileged not only in having the opportunity to get a college education but also in reaching the top of the waiting list – get to live in these underserviced buildings. The visitor frequently sees a student, dressed in his bathrobe, walking to find a bathroom (perhaps similar conditions exist at Oxford and Cambridge). Last but not least, these buildings are embodied energy, part of the world’s scarcity today. Destroying them to satisfy mean-spirited people like David Watkin flies in the face of our public duty to protect embodied energy. Build new housing elsewhere – and demonstrate that you can do a better job!