Architecture and interior design thread

This is sad - RIP David.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/10186240/David-Collins.html

Pleasure to have met you.

Article about Habitat '67 by Oren Safdie (son of the architect)

http://www.dwell.com/essay/article/complex-story

Fantastic thread. Loving it.

I am blown away every time I see Robin Hood Gardens. I pass it on my way home and it was only recently that I got off my bike, had a wonder around and took a couple of snaps from that little hill in the middle of the estate (collecting that roll tomorrow actually). Surprising tranquil for an area that looks like there must be thousands of people living within a hundred metres.

RHG is a horrible, soul-destroying prison-like dump. Revered by architecture fayns, hated by those who have the misfortune of having to live there. It's bang next to the Blackwall Tunnel northern entrance, which is one of the most polluted areas in London, and in an area blighted by social deprivation, poverty, poor health and rampant crime. I live on the Teviot estate, which 'boasts' the Goldfinger monstrosities of Balfron Tower, Carradale house and Glenkerry house. The estate is truly one of the worst in London, and although various tarting up schemes have attempted to gild the turd, it's still a cesspit of Human neglect.

Forgive me for not joining in with the romanticisation of such architecture, but I see the reality; that ideas on paper made by people with no empathy or understanding of the issues faced by the eventual inhabitants, as well as a clear lack of understanding of simple social psychology, simply don't work.

Anyway, rant over...

Just doewn the canal from me is the Abbey Mills Pumping Station. The Victorians may have bin ****s, but they did do a good building, and had a knack at making even the most mundane and unglamourous, seem fantastic; a 'Cathedral of Sewage':

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7119/7570408772_ff9cedb3f1_z.jpg

http://i320.photobucket.com/albums/nn350/traktor999/_DSC9280hdr.jpg

http://www.annandave.org/Inside%202.JPG

Is this Robin Hood Gardens?

Incl the 'little hill'? Doesn't look that nice to me either

Yeah that's it. 'Orrible narsty place. They've spent a lot of money on a nice little garden area between the two main blocks, but it's gilding a turd.

There was a telly programme a couple of years ago, where residents met the group trying to get the dump listed. FFS. Was summed up when one resident offered to swap homes with one of the fanbois, some artist or summat; he squirmed in embarrassment.

I have no problem in preserving buildings of particular architectural/historical/cultural merit, but RHG has not had a positive effect on those the project was meant to serve. It has failed in it's purpose. This is the thing; those artists, architects etc wanting to preserve it, go and live there for a year, in the same circumstances as the current residents. You'll soon change your mind about the place.

Yeah that's it. 'Orrible narsty place. They've spent a lot of money on a nice little garden area between the two main blocks, but it's gilding a turd.

There was a telly programme a couple of years ago, where residents met the group trying to get the dump listed. FFS. Was summed up when one resident offered to swap homes with one of the fanbois, some artist or summat; he squirmed in embarrassment.

I have no problem in preserving buildings of particular architectural/historical/cultural merit, but RHG has not had a positive effect on those the project was meant to serve. It has failed in it's purpose. This is the thing; those artists, architects etc wanting to preserve it, go and live there for a year, in the same circumstances as the current residents. You'll soon change your mind about the place.

Err - a survey of the the residents supported a refurbishment not demolition, 80%. The flats inside are actually very spacious.

The problem was not the design it was the council using it as a sink estate but that's a different issue all together.

Don't just believe stuff you've read on Wiki, without any other source of info. The only reason '80% of residents' voted for refurbishment, was cos Tower Hamlets cuntcil would not have housed them close by, but elsewhere, with the residents having no choice in where they would be rehoused. This would have led to the breakup of what little there is in terms of community, and huge upheaval for everyone who lived there (in many cases, residents would be offered 'temporary' accommodation until they could be permanently rehoused; having experienced what THC consider 'suitable temporary accommodation', I would not wish that on anyone). So, refurbishment was the lesser of the evils on offer. Fact is that most residents would rather see it demolished and replaced with decent homes to live in.

The design was experimental, and has failed. It was compromised from the very beginning (drastically altered plans, inferior substandard materials etc), which has contributed to it's failure. Yet instead of demolishing the bastard and providing better housing, THC has neglected the area and the people within.

Apparently, the estate is finally to be demolished anyway, and 'regenerated'. About fucking time.

Apparently, the estate is finally to be demolished anyway, and 'regenerated'. About fucking time.

And we'll be saying the same thing about the 'regeneration' project in twenty years time.

Don't just believe stuff you've read on Wiki, without any other source of info. The only reason '80% of residents' voted for refurbishment, was cos Tower Hamlets cuntcil would not have housed them close by, but elsewhere, with the residents having no choice in where they would be rehoused. This would have led to the breakup of what little there is in terms of community, and huge upheaval for everyone who lived there (in many cases, residents would be offered 'temporary' accommodation until they could be permanently rehoused; having experienced what THC consider 'suitable temporary accommodation', I would not wish that on anyone). So, refurbishment was the lesser of the evils on offer. Fact is that most residents would rather see it demolished and replaced with decent homes to live in.

The design was experimental, and has failed. It was compromised from the very beginning (drastically altered plans, inferior substandard materials etc), which has contributed to it's failure. Yet instead of demolishing the bastard and providing better housing, THC has neglected the area and the people within.

Apparently, the estate is finally to be demolished anyway, and 'regenerated'. About fucking time.

Unfortunately my source info was not wiki. I would like to know where you got your info from? That telly programme you watched a few years ago?

Anyway as I said before - it was not a problem with the design but with Tower Hamlets council turning it into a sink estate.

I would like to know where you got your info from?

I live near there. I know people who live there. I know people who work for and with THC. I know people who work with residents who suffer from all sorts of often quite severe problems, many caused by living on that estate.

it was not a problem with the design but with Tower Hamlets council turning it into a sink estate.

It's a failure in design, execution and in management.

Give me an example of where such housing has succeeded, in such circumstances.

Sorry if I come across a bit tetchy over this, but I believe in putting the needs of people before the whims of architects etc. People who never lived there, who've probably never experienced the problems that those who do have.

And we'll be saying the same thing about the 'regeneration' project in twenty years time.

Sadly, you're probably right.

I live near there. I know people who live there. I know people who work for and with THC. I know people who work with residents who suffer from all sorts of often quite severe problems, many caused by living on that estate.

It's a failure in design, execution and in management.

Give me an example of where such housing has succeeded, in such circumstances.

Sorry if I come across a bit tetchy over this, but I believe in putting the needs of people before the whims of architects etc. People who never lived there, who've probably never experienced the problems that those who do have.

Sadly, you're probably right.

I see you have a bit of a irrational fear of architects...

I agree it was mismanaged, ie the bit about it turning into a sink estate. The council housed too many of the wrong sort of people - large families.

But I'm still wondering about the failure of design. The flats were very spacious and well designed. The same dimensions as the barbican if not bigger?

Ultimately the fault lies with the council as they didn't maintain/modernise it properly.

I think sometimes the failure of these schemes has to do with where they're placed, how large they are, and how wide the income range of the intended users.

Ultimately the fault lies with the council as they didn't maintain/modernise it properly.

This is the crux of the matter and the factor that ever naysayer since Jencks has tried to gloss over.

anyhow, patrick blanc's house is utterly amazing

Patrick Blanc, Vertical Garden interview in Paris - YouTube

http://www.verticalgardenpatrickblanc.com/realisations/paris/patrick-blancs-house

I see you have a bit of a irrational fear of architects...

Wrong.

I agree it was mismanaged, ie the bit about it turning into a sink estate. The council housed too many of the wrong sort of people - large families.

The housing need at the time was for large families. RGH wasn't suitable for large families.

But I'm still wondering about the failure of design. The flats were very spacious and well designed. The same dimensions as the barbican if not bigger?

I've bin in a couple, and they're not too bad compared to current shoeboxes, but they're not that 'spacious' at all, relative to the average house size at the time they were built.

The brief was to build social housing for families. RGH was a failure to fulfil that brief adequately,. Defend it all you like; the fact is that it has failed as a project.

Ultimately the fault lies with the council as they didn't maintain/modernise it properly.

No good blamingTHC al the time; they were stuck with it, with meagre resources to fix problems. RGH was the wrong type of housing for the need, end of.

It's a failure.

Its clearly a sh*thole, why are people defending it?

It does have value, as an example of Brutalist architecture. I doubt there's much quite as nasty anywhere else in the UK. Hence why certain people attach a fanciful, romantic significance to it. But that's not enough for it to deserve preservation. I don't see why those with rose-tinted designer specs should have a say in it's fate; that should be decided by those who have to suffer the 'orrible thing.

What line of work are you in, Elfinsafety? Your aggression makes you seem a bit of a reactionary twat. It's very tempting to get embroiled in this discussion but I just can't be arsed. Some interesting points so far though. No point in saying "end of", as if it's a simple issue.

What line of work are you in, Elfinsafety?

I design bespoke pasta.

Bespoke or made to measure? There's a difference you know...

Your aggression makes you seem a bit of a reactionary twat. It's very tempting to get embroiled in this discussion but I just can't be arsed.

..whereas you just sound like a needy apathetic twat. ;-)

Bespoke. Always bespoke.

It does have value, as an example of Brutalist architecture. I doubt there's much quite as nasty anywhere else in the UK. Hence why certain people attach a fanciful, romantic significance to it. But that's not enough for it to deserve preservation. I don't see why those with rose-tinted designer specs should have a say in it's fate; that should be decided by those who have to suffer the 'orrible thing.

if 'the people' had a say in what was built in Britain, we would be living in a noddy town meets thomas heatherwick land.

also the current residents not wanting to live there is not a reason to knock it down.

the fact that its become an either or scenario is also the fault of THC.

also the current residents not wanting to live there is not a reason to knock it down.

Hardly any residents in the carbuncle's history have genuinely wanted to live there.

It's a failure. English Heritage agree. Knock the fucker down.

Its clearly a sh*thole, why are people defending it?

Because it's 'cool' to spout bolocks about shit architecture. Because they misguidedly and mistakenly think that intellectualising such things elevates them to some sort of ethereal status above the common herd. Pretentious pricks. If you value it so much, go and live in it, in the same circumstances as the current residents. I guarantee that within a week, you will be wanting to leave.

Anyway; it's being demolished. So you lose. Suck it up.

Le Corbusier - what a cunt.