What value in preserving a fragment of building? A sociological enquiry into the museum preservation of Robin Hood Gardens

ABSTRACT

There continues to be much debate as to whether to preserve buildings, and this is particularly pertinent to post-war architecture, especially in the UK. This paper further explores the issue by concentrating on the acquisition of a fragment of Robin Hood Gardens by the Victoria and Albert Museum. The Smithsons’ key work was deemed a failed social experiment in its listing verdict, and the acquisition of the fragment during demolition sparked controversy when exhibited at the 2018 Venice Biennale. Devoid of its context in an exhibition setting, the fragment of building questions the applicability of traditional conservation values, particularly those relating to age or architectural value. This paper aims to demonstrate the value of taking a more sociological approach to this dilemma. It uses theories of collective memory, specifically Halbwachs and Bachelard’s variations, to explore multiple interpretations of the fragment’s physicality. Three frameworks have been chosen for analysis: the changing social housing rhetoric, its listing campaign, and finally the present, a speculative section on what the current interpretations of the past indicate for the future. Through this chronological analysis it is concluded that the Estate’s physicality is reduced to a semantic contribution, representative of our current crisis of collective memory.

KEYWORDS:

• Collective memory
• conservation
• fragment
• museum
• Robin Hood Gardens
• the Smithsons

Introduction

Writing about mortality the political theorist Arendt claims that the ‘reality and the reliability of the human world rests primarily on the fact that we are surrounded by things more permanent than the activity by which they were produced, and potentially by things more important than the lives of their authors’.¹ This quote infers a sociological inclination to fix memory to architecture. It means that the physical manifestation of a building can embody social and cultural meaning beyond its evident aesthetic; a significant aid to interrogating the current debate regarding the application of traditional conservation ideals to post war architecture.²

Robin Hood Gardens stands on the extremity of this debate. The Estate was designed by the architects Alison and Peter Smithson in the 1960s and completed in 1972, drawing on their ideas developed in the 1950s.³ Located in Poplar, east London, the development was a large council housing estate constructed with street decks that ran the entire length of each block. It was the Smithson’s first major housing project, comprising two long blocks, ten and seven storeys high, and 213 residential units. These comprised a mixture of single storey apartments and two storey maisonettes. Built using precast concrete slabs, it was regarded as a prime example of brutalist social housing. However, the buildings did not weather well and based on a critical comparison of the Smithsons’ design ideals and the observed realities of life in the development Furse⁴ concluded that it was a failure. Although this view is not shared by many architectural critics, Smithsons’ key work was condemned to the bulldozer in 2017 (Figure 1) following a contested campaign to save it. All that was salvaged from demolition was a fragment of the building acquired by the Victoria & Albert Museum (V&A) in London.

Figure 1. Robin Hood Gardens. Source: Image courtesy by Frearson, A., 2017. Footage reveals demolition of Robin Hood Gardens [online]. Available from: www.dezeen.com/2017/12/13/video-movie-footage-demolition-robin-hood-gardens-brutalist-smithsons/ [Accessed 12 November 2022].

The fragment sparked controversy in the press when it was displayed at the 2018 Venice Architecture Biennale, in an exhibit entitled ‘Robin Hood Gardens: A Ruin in Reverse’⁵ (Figure 2). Occurring simultaneously with the demolition of the western block, critics stated that the museum had no place in exhibiting an ugly piece of Brutalist housing that was once part of a failed social experiment, which should not be protected by public funds.⁶ Its archival as part of British architectural heritage represented a contradiction to the listing decision that the Estate was not worthy of heritage listing.

Figure 2. Venice Architecture Biennale exhibition 2018. Source: Image courtesy by Hatherley, O., 2018. Perspectives, Robin Hood Gardens [online]. Available from: https://assemblepapers.com.au/2018/11/15/robin-hood-gardens/ [Accessed 12 November 2022].

Altercation in the press may relate to the obscurity surrounding the Estate’s fate, its museum preservation matched by no other example of post-war social housing, and the V&A’s intent for the acquisition. In comparison to the rest of their well-established architectural collection, which includes exhibits such as Charles Rennie Macintosh’s Oak Room, the fragment of the building was preserved for a very different reason. It was obtained for its architectural significance in retrospect to current housing challenges. The Smithsons’ advocated for council housing to the highest possible quality and specification so that it would last generations.⁷ Although intended to be an object that provoked discussion,⁸ the differing political perceptions of its polarising aesthetic questioned the museum’s position as a neutral collector. While this raises questions about the role of museums in the conservation and preservation of parts of buildings, it also raises questions about the value of building fragments removed from their immediate context and utility. And in the case of social housing, it could be argued that the fragment has been removed from sight and immediate memory. Zografos explores conservation politics by linking architectural concepts, say time and absence, to theories of collective memory. The conceptual nature of this approach is applicable to Robin Hood Gardens, given the unconventional preservation of a fragment of the Estate by a museum. However, Zografos only briefly touches on the quandary of post war architecture, stating that it is fraught with ‘theoretical dilemmas’.⁹

This paper explores the significance of this relationship to the ongoing preservation discourse, applying a methodology derived from collective memory theory to the case of Robin Hood Gardens. Theories by Halbwachs and Bachelard are based upon architecture providing a spatial fix to past events. Through a chronological analysis of social frameworks associated with the Estate, this paper will question the specific contribution of the fragment’s physicality as a museum acquisition. On a broader note, this paper aims to make a case for the importance of a more sociological approach to questioning the applicability of traditional conservation values, particularly the analysis of architecture’s multiple interpretations. A theory-applied methodology to demonstrate this probably limits the political considerations for the sake of theoretical clarity. However, analysing the fragment through social frameworks shifts the focus from what constitutes political associations with Robin Hood Gardens away from class or neoliberalist politics that have previously been associated with the Estate. Regarding museum politics, the scope of this paper is limited to the selective nature of the acquisition, which as an act of collective memory had strategic, political, and ethical consequences.¹⁰ Can collective memory theory be applied to aid clarification of the inherent issues with the museum preservation of Robin Hood Gardens? The theory resonates with both past and present; therefore, this paper has a structure aligned to certain points of the Estate’s lifetime. Three frameworks have been chosen for analysis: the changing social housing rhetoric, its listing campaign, and finally the present, a speculative section on what the current interpretations of the past indicate for the future.

Background

The history of Robin Hood Gardens is highly politically charged; hence, bias regarding secondary sources must be accounted for in the fragment’s analysis. This paper primarily relies on articles by Li,¹¹ Thoburn¹² and Mould,¹³ all of whom recognise multiplicity in interpretations of the Estate. It should also be acknowledged that the prevailing opinion is that post war examples of social housing were regarded as failures from the 1970s onwards, often described as ‘sink council estates’.¹⁴ Although this is discussed in the first social framework, the limited scope of this paper does not make a case for, or against, these opinions. Boughton's writings,¹⁵ amongst others, have taken the view that the reality was far more diverse across the housing stock than implied in earlier publications.

There is little exploration in the literature into the museum acquisition. A recent article by Thoburn¹⁶ makes a case for the fragment’s inferred meanings in relation to class politics; and further supports the questioning of the museum’s intentions that have been previously explored by Heathcote in the Financial Times¹⁷ and Bennes in Frieze.¹⁸ This paper aligns with Thoburn’s concept of the fragment as a ‘complex and moving assemblage of artefactual, institutional, visual and discursive parts’,¹⁹ however, the focus is more on what the acquisition signifies to the ongoing preservation debate. Hence, this paper takes precedent from Hopkin’s book Lost Futures: The Disappearing Architecture of Post War Britain.²⁰ Discounting the questionable success of its aesthetic, Hopkin’s key ideas suggest that Britain’s stock of post war architectural can perhaps aid to resolve current economic and political upheavals, rather than allowing Estates, including Robin Hood Gardens, to become memory repositories.²¹

The significance of social frameworks

Architecture features prominently in theories of collective memory, a field of socio-political research founded by philosopher and sociologist Halbwachs in the early 1900s. This is because of the built environment’s object-like nature; theories refer to physical fabric having the ability to recall former notions within social groups²² of prior events. When architecture is designated for preservation, it represents a spatial ‘fix’ to time that ‘offers a concrete link to the past’.²³ Any manipulation of these artefacts thereby alters collective memory. This can be deliberately exploited by those in control of the object, from a nostalgic memory for what once was to polemical recollections of the past that manipulate the present.²⁴ The way in which the present and its associated actors depict interpretations of the past validates the significance of social frameworks.

This paper focuses on two variations of theory to understand their prominence, beginning with Halbwachs’ fundamental idea. Understanding memory as a social phenomenon,²⁵ Halbwachs differentiates between individual and collective recall in his 1950s publication ‘On Collective Memory’.²⁶ Whereas individual memory is a personal fleeting collection, collective memory is constructed via a memorialisation process to represent the social group with which it identifies.²⁷ The strength of collective memory in this theory thereby depends on the recollection of the framework rather than time itself; there can be no difference between recent and old memories belonging to the same social group. Specific to the preservation of a fragment of Robin Hood Gardens, memories will survive by physical means only to the extent to which they are fixed into architectural place.²⁸

Although Halbwachs recognises that the reconstruction of the past in present time affects its recall,²⁹ there is an inherent limitation to this theory. Bilsel argues that it ‘rests on the positivist assumption that architectural monuments of the past only communicate the original intent of commemoration’.³⁰ Hence, Bachelard’s theory is required to acknowledge the Estate’s changing appearances throughout the multiple frameworks associated with its past. Published in ‘The Dialectics of Duration’,³¹ the theory derives from ideas of narration, where physical representations of memory are sequentially disrupted by breaks in time. Discontinuity is therefore a ‘pre-requisite for well-formed actions, whether one is beginning an action or resuming it’.³²

Zografos grounds Bachelard’s notion of discontinuity in architectural preservation by assuming that conservation processes freeze the impacts of time; this disruption triggers memory.³³ By elevating the fragment of Robin Hood Gardens to an artefact distant from the ordinary,³⁴ the architecture ceases to exist within limits of a normal duration. The absence of context exacerbates its reliance on past social frameworks.

An ethical aesthetic

Social framework 1: the changing social housing rhetoric

Shortly after its acquisition, Heathcote describes the appearance of the fragment as a ‘three storey slice of the sad remains of socially engaged modernism’.³⁵ This indicates the first social framework derived from the recent controversy: past perceptions of social housing in relation to a shifting political context. Housing came to the fore when it was named one of 5 pillars of the Welfare State by Attlee’s government between 1945 and 1955³⁶ alongside healthcare, education, pensions, and social insurance.³⁷ The concept was to provide social security from cradle to grave³⁸ in an epoch of post war optimism. Architects were tasked with new ways of designing social housing estates. At its simplest form, housing was a response to the state’s duty to provide good housing even if the market was unable to,³⁹ however, its prominence in policy enabled designers to experiment with Utopian thinking and modern technologies. Propagated in the Architectural Review by the Smithsons themselves,⁴⁰ the political context provided a stable social framework for a new architectural polemic, the ‘New Brutalism’, to attach itself to.

The fragment presents an aesthetic inherent to this polemic, providing justification for its cultural preservation considering this initial context. The rough concrete finish owes itself to a legibility concept of structure and material⁴¹ as prescribed by the Smithsons in their manifesto for the ‘ism’.⁴² These publications prior to Robin Hood Gardens demonstrated a clear intent for the appearance to act as a resistance both against a mass production society and dishonest modernist design,⁴³ to ‘drag a rough poetry out of the confused and powerful forces which are at work’.⁴⁴ With this ambition, the Estate’s uniform materiality was a unanimous response to Welfare State policy; it was both ‘avant garde and accessible’,⁴⁵ clear in its aims to provide for both typical men and women.

Considered the most important feature of the fragment’s physicality is the preserved elevated walkway attached to the mezzanine flat’s interior. ‘Streets in the Sky’ were regarded as the Smithson’s key innovation in housing, initially perceived in 1952 during an unsuccessful design submission for the Golden Lane Estate in London (now named the Barbican). The concept continued to be republished in the architectural press in a ‘manifesto’ like manner,⁴⁶ until opportunity arose with the commission of Robin Hood Gardens. Located on the inner faces of the eastern and western blocks, street decks were ‘stages for the theatre of everyday life’,⁴⁷ allowing children to play and community relations to develop away from the noise and traffic below. Their physical manifestation was the embodiment of the Smithson design philosophy of neighbourliness and communal living,⁴⁸ which had already provided the Smithson with an international reputation as housing theorists prior to Robin Hood.⁴⁹

This reputation, although perhaps predominantly confined to intellectual discourse, may validate the fragment’s acquisition by means of solely memorialising the Smithson’s new and experimental architectural ideas. It is the only example of street decks authored by the architects themselves, in a time where few theoretical ideas were realised in architecture.⁵⁰ Many conceptual projects, such as those by Cedric Price and Archigram were never built, only exhibited. On exhibition at the Venice Biennale, the street decks were specifically highlighted; new scaffolding was procured to allow visitors to climb and reflect.⁵¹ Their significance resonates with an intended utopian recall of architects as the heroic members of society,⁵² as the prominence of housing policy enabled new ideas on social relations and pedestrian focused design to be brought to life.

Viewing the ‘street decks’ as a ‘touchstone’⁵³ to the Smithson’s written works perhaps does not aid the wider understanding of the fragment’s physicality, only the architecture’s intended meaning. This is supported by Li’s distinction between originality and interpretation, which infers that the Smithson’s ethical polemic may have been superseded by later narratives. In analysis of the Estate’s reading, Li states that originality in architecture is ‘anchored to a single author and year of completion’,⁵⁴ enabling an initial link to form between its physical form and the date it was completed. Yet interpretation succeeds this, it allows the building’s success to rely on its ability to move away from that origin, both forwards and backwards, dependent on evolving criteria.⁵⁵ Coherent with Bachelard’s theory of memory, the fragment’s physicality cannot be therefore assumed a pure depiction as the memory is modified⁵⁶ as it moves through time.

Hence the difference in time between the conception of the Smithsons’ ideas, the Estate’s completion and its ongoing interpretations remain fundamental to understanding the fragment’s memory in this first context. Furse makes a case that the intended meaning behind Robin Hood Gardens was perhaps already outdated at its completion in 1972. His thesis (1982)⁵⁷ is based upon the concept that Robin Hood Gardens, its ideology, and iconic street decks, was a 1950s ‘dream’⁵⁸ that was conceived in the 1960s and completed in 1972, where shifts in the social framework were already evident. No longer did architects quite have the same elevated position as they did in the 1950s: ‘the post war spirit had flagged and the myth for the class-less society exposed for it was: a divided and alienated working class was becoming increasingly resentful’.⁵⁹ In this shifting interpretation of class divide, perhaps left unrecognised by the architects themselves, there was little that the Smithson’s established philosophy could do to alleviate the poverty and social problems that plagued the docklands.⁶⁰

Furse’s ideas are further supported by evident political shifts in the late 1970s. Just five years after the Estate’s completion, Labour’s 1977 Housing Act placed a statutory duty on local authorities to rehouse only those with priority needs,⁶¹ which spurred a process of residualisation and depicted social housing as catering for those on the margins of society. This was later compounded by perceptions arising following Coleman’s 1985 publication ‘Utopia on Trial, Vision and Reality in Planned Housing’. The commentary prescribes sixteen elements prevalent in post war housing estates, named ‘design disadvantagements’ and associated with Coleman’s concept of social malaise:⁶² the Estate scored a high fourteen.⁶³ Its eight-storey massing and long circulation routes all conformed to Coleman’s opinion that ‘anonymity, lack of surveillance and escape routes’⁶⁴ encouraged antisocial behaviour, tempting criminal activity. This analysis was pivotal in encouraging the political demise of social housing, encouraging Thatcher’s ‘right to buy’ scheme.⁶⁵ But more so, in relation to the fragment’s instantiation, it strengthened the once tenuous link between social deprivation and the Brutalist aesthetic.

The negative rhetoric following developments in this canon contributed to the degradation of Robin Hood Gardens; it influenced a lack of maintenance and investment in existing social housing stock nationwide. There was little attempt by Tower Hamlets council to upkeep the concrete structure or preserve its internal features⁶⁶ (Figure 3). Robinson refers to the fixing of pipes and cable ducts to the external balcony soffits during a service upgrade as reinforcing ‘its “welfare housing” character’, creating an ‘air of despondency and decline’.⁶⁷ Altering its past appearance, the political shift in this social framework therefore directly correlates with the fragment’s interpretations at the Venice Biennale exhibition. Bennes observes that while some were delighted by the preservation of the Estate as a part of architectural heritage, others questioned why ‘a dilapidated remnant of the compromised ideals of social housing, merited collection by one of Britain’s most venerable museums’.⁶⁸

Figure 3. Robin Hood Gardens. Former view of external circulation with degradation of windows and concrete. Image courtesy of Greyscape, 2018. Robin Hood Gardens; Taking from the Poor to Give to the Rich [online]. Available from: https://www.greyscape.com/robin-hood-gardens/ [Accessed 12 November 2022].

Bennes’ quote infers a typological difference between a museum artefact and active social housing. Relating this idea back to memory theory further supports an evident dichotomy regarding the accessibility of the archive; the degree of control can be measured by its participation, the constitution belonging to the archive and its interpretation.⁶⁹ With the V&A in control of its reception, one could argue that the exhibition of the fragment at the Venice Biennale not only disrupted recollection of the Estate in its physical context, but also deemed it inaccessible to those who call (and called) it home. Regardless of its aesthetic, Robin Hood Gardens was significant in its aspiration to provide the best housing standards for its residents.⁷⁰ Now separated from its residents and social context, it is difficult to perceive how a fragment of the Estate could infer the significance of the Smithsons’ ethical manifesto. Thus, these typological differences alter the fragment’s memory beyond the remits of conventional preservation.

Saving streets in the sky

Social framework 2: the listing campaign

The contested campaign for Robin Hood Gardens to be heritage listed forms the second social framework of this analysis. In England the first example of post war architecture to be listed was in 1988; the Willis Faber and Dumas headquarters in Ipswich designed by Foster Associates (Grade I listing).⁷¹ Two attempts were made to get Robin Hood Gardens listed, both of which were refused, in 2007 and 2009, by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport following advice from English Heritage.

There are numerous reasons as to why conservation policy has been tested by examples of post war architecture; two of which are particularly pertinent to the Estate’s listing campaign. The first regards time, as increasing the scope of what is currently defined as heritage raises issue with the balancing of demands for preservation and change.⁷² Second to this is the traditional notion of preserving what is perceived of ‘exceptional’ architectural quality.⁷³ This value has dictated which styles on behalf of design merit are worth conserving since the Arts and Crafts movement. It could be assumed that the latter value was more pertinent to Robin Hood Gardens. Building upon the prevailing rhetoric of social housing, English Heritage advisors concluded that Robin Hood Gardens ‘fails as a place for human beings to live’.⁷⁴

Although aesthetic perceptions sealed the Estate’s fate, time has more relevance to the stability of this social framework. Halbwachs proposes that in cities, while their social groups might evolve, the architectural configuration of the space changes at a slow pace, however any significant change to the composition will have a drastic impact to the social group.⁷⁵ Acknowledging these drastic changes has specific relevance to the listing case due to economic and political tensions extrinsic to the otherwise architectural conclusion, most notably the plans for the redevelopment of the site itself. If the Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project had not demanded a ‘Certificate of Immunity’ from heritage listing, then the verdict could have perhaps waited until a more consistent method of evaluation and research was established.⁷⁶

This past instability created a sense of emergency. Conservation is considered an ethical process; it requires consistent reviews of its regulations and processes to act in the best public interest and avoid controversy.⁷⁷ In the case of Robin Hood Gardens, the first verdict was considered ‘erroneous in several respects’⁷⁸ and the Twentieth Century Society, a British charity, seized the opportunity to appeal its refusal.⁷⁹The campaign drew on alternatives to demolition, including reports by Lipton and Robinson on the feasibility of refurbishing the Estate,⁸⁰ but its state of decay did not help efforts to save it. Indeed, the degradation of the Estate sparked a press campaign. Following a petition to save the Estate in Building Design Magazine,⁸¹ articles in national newspapers acted as a catalyst. They were given titles, such as ‘This Frog would become a Prince’ and ‘To the Rescue of Robin Hood’,⁸² which in Li’s opinion raised the Estate ‘from relative obscurity to monumental status, seemingly overnight’.⁸³ These headlines refer to a sad and neglected depiction of the Estate, yet one could argue that despite their focus on one example their fundamental aim was to highlight polarised views of twentieth century architecture.⁸⁴

Little of this social framework regards the architectural significance of the fragment, suggesting that the fragment’s physicality is reduced to a semantic contribution representative of such writings. In support, Li also makes this point: ‘one might argue that the corporeal presence of the building was rendered negligible within these debates, reduced to inert backdrop that quickly outgrew its material origins’.⁸⁵ The value of a fragment of Robin Hood Gardens only became significant when the Estate was on the verge of physical erasure, following almost a decade of contention before the V&A’s acquisition.

Salvaged from the Estate’s ruins, the fragment acquisition builds upon Pailos’ theory that if buildings ‘fail to satisfy the traditional categories of historical disappearance’ than their partial preservation infers that ‘condemned in the horror of disappearing, [they] are beautiful in their act of disappearance’.⁸⁶ It follows that the museum could have been exploiting further instability arising from the demolition of the Estate. This is of relevance to the timing of the Venice Biennale exhibition, occurring simultaneously with the demolition of the Estate’s western block. It might have been perhaps less contentious to have exhibited the fragment after the demolition process was over,⁸⁷ as the Venice Biennale coincided with a ‘temporal overlap’⁸⁸ in the Estate’s history, constituting of concurrent processes of premature remembrance, pleas for refurbishment and its eventual demolition.

Conventional conservation processes create discontinuity by freezing time and reversing architecture back to a prior state.⁸⁹ This act of reversal cannot be achieved through museum preservation as the fragment is taken out of its original context. In the case of Robin Hood Gardens, the acquisition removed the fragment from its east London surroundings, which was critical to the reading of its architecture. Campaigns to refurbish Robin Hood Gardens described the relationship between building and landscape as the most integrated of any social housing estates dating to the post war period,⁹⁰ highlighting the importance of the form and orientation of the blocks in sheltering the residents from traffic and noise pollution. The concrete façade became a barrier between the road and a series of undulating green mounds integral to improving the ‘open space deficiency’⁹¹ in the area (Figure 4). Once exhibited, the fragment alone will not enable recall of this memory or convey an understanding of its situational context to a museum visitor. This supports the diminishment of the fragment’s physical value.

Figure 4. Robin Hood Gardens: Historic photograph of the Estate’s former landscape. Source: Image: The Smithson Family Collection © Photo Sandra Lousada.

Thus, the absence of context becomes a recurring theme when relating the fragment acquisition back to collective memory theory. Bilsel offers some explanation to why this is significant;⁹² he describes that the unthinking of architectural uses amounts to a ‘top-down imposition of amnesia’,⁹³ destroying the continuity of its memory. The new alien museum context of the V&A will perhaps amplify its semantic representation of the listing campaign as without its associated place, the fragment presents itself as an obscure paradox to the Estate’s destruction.

Fragments of a lost future

Social framework 3: the present

Discussing Halbwachs’ theory of collective memory, Jordan and Weedon highlight the importance of the present framework to understanding meanings of the fragment’s physicality. They state that artefacts as social products signify ‘narratives of past experience constituted by and on behalf of specific within where they find meaningful form of identification that may empower’.⁹⁴ Hence, the fragment’s conveyance of past associations of the Estate is very much dependent on what is considered critical to the present.

Two ideas can be derived from past social frameworks in relation to recent controversy. First, the inherent issues arising from the retention of traditional conservation values, and second the current lack of social housing. The latter was the crisis in which the V&A intended to reflect through its Venice Biennale exhibition; Curator Horsfall-Turner described ‘Ruin in Reverse’ as an ‘attempt to encourage broader discussion about the market forces affecting property prices in cities around the world and the urgent need for affordable housing’.⁹⁵ Its past ethical agenda represent a nostalgic longing for more socially focussed developments in a current context where plans akin to Blackwall Reach value ‘profit over people’.⁹⁶

Considering the V&A’s aspiration, the fragment’s physicality could refer to the Smithson’s bold response to a past housing crisis. Thoburn speculates that the future exhibition of the fragment will represent a sympathetic representation of historical council housing,⁹⁷ with issues of post war council housing, brutalism and design accompanying the reconstructed maisonette. Heathcote is also in support of the archival of a pivotal architectural landmark, yet he states that the museum’s principles of ‘decent housing for ordinary people remain unrealised’.⁹⁸ This suggests issues with the museum intentions, and perhaps this is because very little of their aspiration is associated with the reading or physical qualities of the fragment; especially what it can communicate about the current housing crisis. Perhaps it could be said that the V&A always intended the fragment’s instantiations to be semantic.

Heathcote’s questioning of the fragment’s contribution to the current housing crisis is further supported by a return to Bachelard’s memory theory; its recollection of the beginnings of the first social framework of post war optimism, are considered unachievable in the present. A true depiction of the Estate’s history through the artefact would require forgetting all the social relationships and experiences that currently frame its memory.⁹⁹ One could therefore argue that the multiplicity of meanings provided by subsequent frames following the Estate’s construction supersede the retrospective representation of its architectural origins in relation to the housing crisis context; the original memory cannot be recollected.¹⁰⁰

The crux of the present controversy can be moreover derived from the fragment conveying an ideological response to the destruction of post war architecture; this has been represented previously by the image of the Estate.¹⁰¹ It relates to the questioning of traditional conservation values, namely age and architectural value in the second social framework, but on a wider scope. Most of the present building stock in the UK was constructed in the 1900s and thus the volume to be considered for preservation now exceeds anything previously.¹⁰² It could be argued that Robin Hood Gardens was demolished due to an imbalance of the demands for preservation and change¹⁰³ over the Blackwall Reach site, where the latter ruin out in confliction with the sociological desire to prevent erasure.

Social housing estates are rarely protected as they do not meet the current listing criteria of being ‘exceptional’ and therefore do not warrant listing. Hence, another semantic representation of the fragment is found within a resistance to this conservation value. Campaigns for preservation have a comparison between Robin Hood Gardens and Park Hill, a Sheffield Estate with similar characteristics, which was successfully regenerated following listing in 1998 (Grade II*). Park Hill was opened in 1961 and although it drew on the writings of the Smithsons it was considered a greater example of the street deck concept due to its earlier date and greater extent compared to the Smithsons’ own building.¹⁰⁴ It was deemed to have sufficient architectural quality, whereas Robin Hood Gardens, somewhat ironically, failed to fit the same listing criteria. This brings the initial contradiction into play: that the Estate was not of exceptional quality to be preserved; yet it merited collection by the V&A.

While the discussion around values may be situated in conventional architectural preservation, the notion of the ‘exceptional’ pertains to a broader idea of selective preservation. This can be obtained from Nora’s 1989 writings on the difference between memory and history.¹⁰⁵ Provided by Verovšek is a summary of this theory: ‘history is about facts, while collective memory is popular and subjective’.¹⁰⁶ It infers that both choice and its consequences are key to understanding the fragment’s acquisition. Although traditional conservation values can be questioned, museum preservation is perhaps not regulated to the same ethical standards as the listing process, hence it can be perceived as moreover selective than the preservation of the whole.

The differences between conventional building preservation and museum preservation, memory, and history, again highlight the issue of context in this final framework. Whereas museum preservation of Robin Hood Gardens somewhat lifted the Estate’s physicality out of its conflictual present and into a fixed and sanitised museum object,¹⁰⁷ conventional preservation would have allowed a perhaps more regenerative approach, extending the Estate’s memory by preserving aspects of the building for future generations. This observation in the case study supports the notion that the constitution of collective memory is most importantly a political terrain,¹⁰⁸ due to the motivations that opposed its listing campaign. After all, redevelopment of the site was symptomatic with a desire to erase the mistakes of the past and replace it with a higher density development. Thus, the fragment represents a resistance to the political decision that would, on a conventional basis, have ended its ability to convey collective memory.

With this key motivation acknowledged, the acquisition of a fragment during the Estate’s demolition relates to ongoing fragmentation of public memory and thus, the current crisis of architecture’s ability to enable recall of a collective past.¹⁰⁹ Perhaps a more documented and broader of social housing by the V&A would have been less contentious in this present framework, instead of disrupting the memory and past connotations of Robin Hood Gardens through selective preservation. Open to shifting interpretations in the future, the implicit nature of its physicality questions what can be viewed as cultural architectural heritage going forward.

Conclusion

The fragment of Robin Hood Gardens embodies a series of complex and multifaceted narratives that align to the three social frameworks discussed in this paper. It is acknowledged that it can be difficult to gauge implicit meaning to all social groups concerned; however, the application of collective meaning has provided clarity to their significance. This is due to the theory’s chronological nature; earlier narratives will always be superseded. While its physical attributes align with the Smithsons’ ideologies and the demise of social housing, it can be concluded that the fragment of Robin Hood Gardens is more semantic in its contribution to conservation, representing the social and political turmoil related to the Estate’s destruction. Taking a fragment of Robin Hood Gardens and placing it in a museum disrupted both the memory and its accessibility beyond the normal remits, leading to further controversy that further amplified its symbolic representation.

Bachelard’s variation of Halbwachs’ original theory provides the necessary grounds to construct the focus of the present framework, key to understanding recent contention. Through the analysis of two ideas, the current social housing crisis and the retention of traditional conservation values, the discussion provided effective closure to the idea that the fragment alone could convey the V&A’s intentions, hence diminishing its value as a museum exhibit. Moreso, it supports the idea that the fragment’s acquisition is part of a much wider sociological inclination to prevent the erasure of the Estate entirely, a resistance perhaps deriving from the institution’s archival interests. Its symbolic meaning resonates with a wider crisis of collective memory.

The wider objective of this discussion was to disentangle what the fragment’s interpretations conveyed about the ongoing preservation debate. The answer to this was found in the idea of selective preservation, both choice and consequence. The preservation of post war architecture has become a dilemma because often only one perception is considered due to the application of traditional, rather subjective conservation values. This verdict in turn highlights the significance of collective memory theory to the ongoing debate about preservation and conservation. The built environment is a product of society; its connection to memory should be accounted for in future conservation values.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Lynsey Hogarth

Lynsey Hogarth is an architectural designer who completed her Part I and Part II studies at the University of Bath. During her studies she has gained experience in several international practices, mainly focussed in London and the North East, in housing, education, retrofit and heritage projects. As a student her academic interests are theoretical, with a focus on preservation, ethics and the relationship between memory and architecture.

Stephen Emmitt

Stephen Emmitt is an architect and Professor of Architectural Practice at the Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, University of Bath. As an architect he was involved in a wide range of projects, including conservation and adaption of historic buildings. As an academic his research interests primarily include architectural technology and the management of design.

Notes

1 Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition, 2nd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1998), 10.

2 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 9.

3 John Furse, ‘The Smithsons at Robin Hood’ (PhD thesis, University of Plymouth, 1982), 3.

4 Ibid., 173.

5 V&A, ‘The V&A at the 2018 Architecture Biennale’, V&A, www.vam.ac.uk (accessed October 24, 2022).

6 Tristam Hunt, ‘Displaying the Ruins of Demolished Social Housing at the Venice Biennale is not ‘Art Washing’’, The Art Newspaper, https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2018/05/28/displaying-the-ruins-of-demolished-social-housing-at-the-venice-architecture-biennale-is-not-art-washing (accessed October 4, 2022).

7 Crystal Bennes, ‘What Installing a Demolished London Estate in Venice Says About Our Housing Crisis’, Frieze, https://www.frieze.com/article/what-installing-demolished-london-estate-venice-says-about-our-housing-crisis (accessed November 5, 2022).

8 Tom Ravenscroft, ‘V&A Director Defends Robin Hood Gardens Display at Venice Biennale Against Claims of “Art Washing”’, Dezeen, https://www.dezeen.com/2018/05/31/va-tristram-hunt-defends-robin-hood-gardens-venice-architecture-biennale/ (accessed October 1, 2022).

9 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 163.

10 Peter Verovšek, ‘Collective Memory, Politics and the Influence of the Past: The Politics of Memory as a Research Paradigm’, Politics Groups and Identities, no. 4 (2016): 530.

11 Ang Li, ‘Raised by Association: Robin Hood Gardens and Its Interpretations’, Thresholds, no. 43 (2015): 110–299.

12 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Concrete and Council Housing’, City, no. 22 (2018): 612–32.

13 Oliver Mould, ‘Brtualism Redux: Relational Monumentality and the Urban Politics of Brutalist Architecture’, Antipode, no. 49 (2017): 701–20.

14 Ibid., 701.

15 John Boughton, Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing (London: Verso, 2018), 3.

16 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Salvage Brutalism: Class, Culture and Dispossession in the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Fragment of Robin Hood Gardens’, Oxford Art Journal, no. 1093 (2022): 1–19.

17 Edwin Heathcote, ‘Brutalism Breakdown in Robin Hood Gardens’, Financial Times, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1980695977?pq-origsite=primo&accountid=17230 (accessed September 27, 2022).

18 Crystal Bennes, ‘What installing a Demolished London Estate in Venice Says About Our Housing Crisis’, Frieze, https://www.frieze.com/article/what-installing-demolished-london-estate-venice-says-about-our-housing-crisis (accessed November 5, 2022).

19 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Salvage Brutalism: Class, Culture and Dispossession in the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Fragment of Robin Hood Gardens’, Oxford Art Journal, no. 1093 (2022): 3.

20 Owen Hopkins, Lost Futures, The Disappearing Architecture of Post War Britain (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2017).

21 Ibid., 27.

22 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 34.

23 Elissa Rosenburg, ‘Walking in the City: Memory and Place’, The Journal of Architecture, no. 12 (2012): 121–49.

24 Mieke Bal, Jonathan Crewe and Leo Spitzer, Acts of Memory: Cultural Recall in the Present (Hanover: University Press of New England, 1999), 8.

25 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 32.

26 Maurice Halbwachs, On Collective Memory, 3rd ed. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1992).

27 Can Bilsel, ‘Architecture and the Social Frameworks of Memory: A Postscript to Maurice Halbwachs “Collective Memory”’, International Journal of Architecture and Planning, no. 5 (2017): 4.

28 Ibid., 1.

29 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 76.

30 Can Bilsel, ‘Architecture and the Social Frameworks of Memory: A Postscript to Maurice Halbwachs “Collective Memory”’, International Journal of Architecture and Planning, no. 5 (2017): 4.

31 Gaston Bachelard, The Dialectics of Duration, 3rd ed. trans. (Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000).

32 Conrad Russell, ‘Fictive Time: Bachelard on Memory, Duration and Consciousness’, Kronoscope, no. 5 (2005): 14.

33 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 179.

34 Edwin Heathcote, ‘Brutalism Breakdown in Robin Hood Gardens’, Financial Times, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1980695977?pq-origsite=primo&accountid=17230 (accessed September 27, 2022).

35 Ibid.

36 Owen Hopkins, Lost Futures, The Disappearing Architecture of Post War Britain (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2017), 21.

37 Tom Avermaete, Dirk van den Heuvel and Mark Swenarton, Architecture and the Welfare State (Oxon: Routledge, 2014), 12.

38 Owen Hopkins, Lost Futures, The Disappearing Architecture of Post War Britain (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2017), 21.

39 John Boughton, Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing (London: Verso, 2018), 171.

40 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘Thoughts on Progress’, Architectural Design, April 1957, 113.

41 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Concrete and Council Housing’, City, no. 22 (2015): 617.

42 Reyner Banham, The New Brutalism, Ethic or Aesthetic (London: The Architectural Press, 1969), 10.

43 Oliver Mould, ‘Brtualism Redux: Relational Monumentality and the Urban Politics of Brutalist Architecture’, Antipode, no. 49 (2017): 711.

44 Alison and Peter Smithson, ‘Thoughts on Progress’, Architectural Design, April 1957, 113.

45 Susannah Grossman. ‘Demolition Men: Contemporary Britain and the Battle of Brutalism, CUREJ: College Undergraduate Research Electronic Journal, no. 49 (2010): 10.

46 Alan Powers. ‘Introduction’, in Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 15.

47 Edwin Heathcote, ‘Brutalism Breakdown in Robin Hood Gardens’, Financial Times, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1980695977?pq-origsite=primo&accountid=17230 (accessed September 27, 2022).

48 John Furse, ‘The Smithsons at Robin Hood’ (PhD thesis, University of Plymouth, 1982), 3.

49 Ibid., 200.

50 Oliver Mould, ‘Brtualism Redux: Relational Monumentality and the Urban Politics of Brutalist Architecture’, Antipode, no. 49 (2017): 717.

51 Crystal Bennes, ‘What installing a Demolished London Estate in Venice Says About Our Housing Crisis’, Frieze, https://www.frieze.com/article/what-installing-demolished-london-estate-venice-says-about-our-housing-crisis (accessed November 5, 2022).

52 Tom Avermaete, Dirk van den Heuvel and Mark Swenarton, Architecture and the Welfare State (Oxon: Routledge, 2014), 4.

53 Peter St. John, ‘Support for the Campaign’, in Robin Hood Gardens Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 118.

54 Ang Li, ‘Raised by Association: Robin Hood Gardens and its interpretations’, Thresholds, no. 43 (2015): 114.

55 Ibid., 114.

56 Conrad Russell, ‘Fictive Time: Bachelard on Memory, Duration and Consciousness’, Kronoscope, no. 5 (2005): 13.

57 John Furse, ‘The Smithsons at Robin Hood’ (PhD thesis, University of Plymouth, 1982).

58 Ibid., 6.

59 Ibid., 195.

60 Owen Hopkins, Lost Futures, The Disappearing Architecture of Post War Britain (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2017), 115.

61 John Boughton, Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing (London: Verso, 2018), 143.

62 Paul Spicker, ‘Poverty and Depressed Estates: A Critique of Utopia on Trial’, Housing Studies, no. 2 (1987): 293.

63 John Boughton, Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing (London: Verso, 2018), 180.

64 Alice Coleman, Utopia on Trial: Vision and Reality in Planned Housing (London: Shipman, 1985), 22.

65 Owen Hopkins, Lost Futures, The Disappearing Architecture of Post War Britain (London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2017), 18.

66 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Concrete and Council Housing’, City, no. 22 (2018): 614.

67 Dickon Robinson, Fit For Purpose, in Robin Hood Gardens Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 127.

68 Crystal Bennes, ‘What installing a Demolished London Estate in Venice Says About Our Housing Crisis’, Frieze, https://www.frieze.com/article/what-installing-demolished-london-estate-venice-says-about-our-housing-crisis (accessed November 5, 2022).

69 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 25.

70 Crystal Bennes, ‘What Installing a Demolished London Estate in Venice Says About Our Housing Crisis’, Frieze, https://www.frieze.com/article/what-installing-demolished-london-estate-venice-says-about-our-housing-crisis (accessed November 5, 2022).

71 Alan Powers. ‘Introduction’, in Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 15.

72 Aidan While, ‘The state and Controversial Demands of Cultural Built Heritage: Modernism, Dirty Concrete, Postwar Listing in England’, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, no. 3 (2007): 645.

73 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 164.

74 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Concrete and Council Housing’, City, no. 22 (2018): 620.

75 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 34.

76 Alan Powers, ‘A Critical Narrative’, in Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 28.

77 John Mansfield, ‘The Ethics of Conservation: Some Diliemmas in Cultural Built Heritage Projects in England’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, no. 15 (2008): 270.

78 Alan Powers, ‘A Critical Narrative’, in Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 44.

79 Link to charity’s website: https://c20society.org.uk/.

80 Dickon Robinson, ‘Fit For Purpose’, in Robin Hood Gardens Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 123.

81 Alan Powers, ‘A Critical Narrative’, in Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 43.

82 Ang Li, ‘Raised by Association: Robin Hood Gardens and Its Interpretations’, Thresholds, no. 43 (2015): 118.

83 Ibid., 114.

84 Amanda Ballieu, ‘Support for the Campaign’, in Robin Hood Gardens: Re-visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 115.

85 Ang Li, ‘Raised by Association: Robin Hood Gardens and Its interpretations’, Thresholds, no. 43 (2015): 114.

86 Jorge Otero-Pailos, ‘Editorial: Chance Architecture’, Future Anterior, no. 3 (2006): 5.

87 Tom Ravenscroft, ‘V&A Director Defends Robin Hood Gardens Display at Venice Biennale Against Claims of “Art Washing”’, Dezeen, https://www.dezeen.com/2018/05/31/va-tristram-hunt-defends-robin-hood-gardens-venice-architecture-biennale/ (accessed October 1, 2022).

88 Ang Li, ‘Raised by Association: Robin Hood Gardens and Its interpretations’, Thresholds, no. 43 (2015): 297.

89 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 167.

90 Alan Powers, ‘A Critical Narrative’, in Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 37.

91 Ibid., 28.

92 Can Bilsel, ‘Architecture and the Social Frameworks of Memory: A Postscript to Maurice Halbwachs “Collective Memory”, International Journal of Architecture and Planning, no. 5 (2017).

93 Ibid., 2.

94 Glenn Jordan and Chris Weedon, ‘Collective Memory: Theory and Politics’, Social Semiotics, no. 22 (2012): 143.

95 Crystal Bennes, ‘What Installing a Demolished London Estate in Venice Says About Our Housing Crisis’, Frieze, https://www.frieze.com/article/what-installing-demolished-london-estate-venice-says-about-our-housing-crisis (accessed November 5, 2022).

96 John Boughton, Municipal Dreams: The Rise and Fall of Council Housing (London: Verso, 2018), 6.

97 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Salvage Brutalism: Class, Culture and Dispossession in the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Fragment of Robin Hood Gardens, Oxford Art Journal, no. 1093 (2022): 19.

98 Edwin Heathcote, ‘Brutalism Breakdown in Robin Hood Gardens’, Financial Times, https://www.proquest.com/docview/1980695977?pq-origsite=primo&accountid=17230 (accessed September 27, 2022).

99 Conrad Russell, ‘Fictive Time: Bachelard on Memory, Duration and Consciousness’, Kronoscope, no. 5 (2005): 13.

100 Stamatis Zografos, Architecture and Fire (London: UCL Press, 2019), 165.

101 Ang Li, ‘Raised by Association: Robin Hood Gardens and its interpretations’, Thresholds, no. 43 (2015): 114.

102 Theodore Prudon, ‘Preservation, Design and Modern Architecture: The Challenges Ahead’, Journal of Architecture, no. 23 (2017): 27.

103 John Mansfield, ‘The Ethics of Conservation: Some Diliemmas in Cultural Built Heritage Projects in England’, Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, no. 15 (2008): 270.

104 Dickon Robinson, ‘Fit For Purpose’, in Robin Hood Gardens Re-Visions, ed. Alan Powers (London: Twentieth Century Society, 2010), 128.

105 Glenn Jordan and Chris Weedon, ‘Collective Memory: Theory and Politics’, Social Semiotics, no. 22 (2012): 146.

106 Peter Verovšek, ‘Collective Memory, Politics and the Influence of the Past: The Politics of Memory as a Research Paradigm, Politics Groups and Identities, no. 4 (2016): 533.

107 Nicholas Thoburn, ‘Salvage Brutalism: Class, Culture and Dispossession in the Victoria and Albert Museum’s Fragment of Robin Hood Gardens, Oxford Art Journal, no. 1093 (2022): 5.

108 Glenn Jordan and Chris Weedon, ‘Collective Memory: Theory and Politics’, Social Semiotics, no. 22 (2012): 145.

109 Can Bilsel, ‘Architecture and the Social Frameworks of Memory: A Postscript to Maurice Halbwachs “Collective Memory”, International Journal of Architecture and Planning, no. 5 (2017): 4.