Rather inevitably, discussion among the architectural community this week has focused on the UK riots and the question of whether the cities we have been building have contributed to social breakdown. The opinions on the role of architecture differ widely. Here’s an overview of what some people had to say.

Read More

When first seeing this photo (courtesy of Courtauld Institute of Art), I thought it was from somewhere former Soviet Union, or so. Finding out it was something called “Priory Green Estate”, a rather prestigiously titled housing area in Islington, UK, from the 1950’s (architect Berthold Lubetkin), made me instantly more curious about how Soviet it would look today. While this, was mainly due to my inclination for modernist endeavours (and tragedies), it was also related to the fact that I often feel lost-opportunities-sadness about the way many shining works of modernism are being repaired and decorated into something they never were, after their usually inescapable social and physical decline.

If you look at things this way, modern architecture and urban planning has been a major failure. It’s not lasting forever. Often, the most interesting or valuable aspects modernism, are impossible to preserve because the world has moved on. The planners of today are forced to try and balance the clarity of yesterday’s design and repair the sociological, tecnological, or ecological problems, often losing the best bits in the process. This is because the modern look, only works in the exact context it was planned. The ways you can appreciate its chic, are mostly academic and nostalgic and of acquired taste.

So, what had really happened. As it could be expected, the place had gone sour. Stuff broken, up to 100 drug needles collected from the grounds weekly, prostitution, stuff the architect Lubetkin probably didn’t have in mind. What happened to people supposingly living perfect modern lives? In 1999 the governance of the Priory Green Estate was transferred to UK’s oldest housing association Peabody. After this, things started to run differently. Very refreshing, to see something good still coming out of the old modern.

(photos via Peabody blog)

via mikasavela 

Robin Hood Gardens in east London, designed by Peter and Alison Smithson (Photo: Sublime Photography)

Robin Hood Garden is a council housing complex in east London designed by architects Alison and Peter Smithson and completed in 1972. The plans to demolish the complex and replace it with a new one are surrounded by controversy and many fear for history to repeat itself once more when the current plans are pushed ahead.

In the 1960s, local authorities and urban improvers looked at Victorian terraces and declared them slums. The architects of Robin Hood Gardens wanted to lift the poor residents out of poverty, both physically and mentally, by providing them with aerial walkways or ‘streets in the sky’. It was meant to be the future of housing, but less then four decades after it was built, the estate is destined for demolition in order to be replaced by a new large scale housing development.

One proposal for Robin Hood Gardens involves a cluster of towers that is ‘pure Hong Kong, minus the vibrant street life or dramatic topography’. (Source: Guardian)

During a consultation, more than 75% of residents said they would like to see Robin Hood Gardens knocked down and replaced. But conservation organizations like Twentieth Century Society and a host of well known architects (Richard Rogers most notably called it a ‘sink estate’), are fighting to save and renovate it and turn it into a student housing complex.

The Council of Tower Hamlets, who owns the estate, last week decided to delay by a month the decision about which design team’s project should replace the estate. But  The Observer’s architecture critic Rowan Moore argues that it won’t make much difference who wins:

“We couldn’t make the same mistake again, could we? Yes we could. It could happen with the planned replacement of Robin Hood Gardens estate in east London. If you look at the sunlit, green-grassed images of the proposals, it is easy to imagine a big pointing finger descending from the fluffy white clouds, with a sign attached. “Slum of the Future”, it would say. Or, “Site for Regeneration in the Year 2050”.”

Last year, the Guardian’s architecture critic Jonathan Glancey visited the place to find out why it’s loved and hated by both residents and critics. You can watch the video coverage:

Sources: BBC, Guardian, Twentieth Century Society, Wikipedia

Liverpool: the difference between £31,000 and £132,000 in Anfield

The north of England has had its share of shrinking cities: Liverpool’s population fell from 768,000 in 1951 to 439,000 in 2001 (Manchester shrank at the same rate, from 692,000 to 393,000). And Liverpool is still transforming areas of abandoned housing and deprived wards, such as in Anfield in Liverpool, three miles north east of the city centre with its upgraded waterfront. 

Housing surrounding Liverpool Football Club in Anfield has been home to a strong community since its construction in the 1880s. Anfield Stadium, the home of Liverpool F.C., and the original home of Everton F.C. is located within the district. During the 1980s and 1990s the area declined physically and has suffered increasingly from underinvestment and neglect. 

Huge billboards declaring the area a “regeneration zone” were erected some time ago. Hundreds of houses or even entire streets are boarded up, pubs can no longer afford to open during daylight hours because of the lack of business, shops are closing and many are moving out of the area. As a result, a house in Anfield can cost as little as £31,000 compared to the average price of a property in Liverpool being £132,000.

A long-term regeneration programme started in the early 2000s involving the football club, city council, housing market renewal partnership and local community. This seeks to balance demolition, new build, including the construction of a new stadium, and retention of existing properties to provide good quality housing for the existing community.

Meanwhile, a selection of international artists, including Ed Purver (Brooklyn, New York) and Jeanne Van Heeswijk (Rotterdam), have been invited to produce new and innovative works within local communities and with locally based artists.

Sources: CABE, Fonds BKVB, BBC News, Wikipedia