Architecture and interior design thread

An elusive one at that.

http://www.architectmagazine.com/exhibitions/le-corbusier-at-last.aspx

You are right about Robin Hood btw.

Tenacious bugger in't he?

A lot of these buildings were built as a result of the slums after WW2. The idea behind them is genraly very good. Giving people nice views, easy access to aminaties, lots of green space. Unfortunatly, they became slums themselves. Some of them have worked and others have been made to work (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadwater_Farm I know Wiki is sometimes (often) wrong but this is pretty impreasive).

I think redevelopment of RHG is a good idea, starts to give people a little pride in where they live rather than moving them all to some other shit hole. Or maybe it just becomes a pollished turd and every one just stabs each other up.

An elusive one at that.

http://www.architectmagazine.com/exhibitions/le-corbusier-at-last.aspx

You are right about Robin Hood btw.

Also, MoMA is the worst designed gallery I have EVER been in. No flow to the exhibitions. One ends up missing half the art due to being half lost most of the time. The Gugenhiem up the road works perfectly, start at the top and wind down through the whole musium seeing everything (if only the one in Bilbao was like that).

Le Corbusier - what a cunt.

You say that, but I don't hear many people discussing the 'failure' of the Alton Estate in Roehampton, so clearly some of his ideas have stood the test of time.

You don't hear anyone discussing the Alton Estate as a perfect social Utopia though do you? Plenty of negative references to the place on tinternet.

Then there's Corbusier designed/inspired type stuff in places like the poor suburbs of Paris (see 'La Haine). I don't think anyone can claim those are a resounding success.

A lot of these buildings were built as a result of the slums after WW2. The idea behind them is genraly very good. Giving people nice views, easy access to aminaties, lots of green space. Unfortunatly, they became slums themselves. Some of them have worked and others have been made to work ( Broadwater_Farm I know Wiki is sometimes (often) wrong but this is pretty impreasive).

There was a massive need in large cities, to provide large-scale social housing. There were some well-meant ideas and projects. Unfortunately, many of these projects have failed to deliver on all promises. Fair enough, experimental solutions were tried. But too often, the planners and architects had little or no idea of how to effectively address the real needs of people, and failed to consult the potential residents/do adequate research into potential issues. And al too often, the residents of such projects aren't deemed sufficiently worthy of genuinely effective investment. Hence the widespread failure of such projects, not just in the UK but throughout the entire globe.

You can't just cram people into concrete boxes, forget about them and expect everything to be wonderful.

And alternatively projects in Berlin and Marseille that are successful.

Therefore what does that suggest? That the problem is a political one, rather than an architectural. The Parisian suburbs are a perfect case in point.

And alternatively projects in Berlin and Marseille that are successful.

Which ones?

That the problem is a political one, rather than an architectural.

The typical architects' cop-out. Oft spouted when one of their 'wonderful visionary designs' has bin proven to be a failure.

From living on nasty estates, I can tell you that such architecture is oppressive, restrictive and depressing. Such buildings seldom, as is claimed in the plans, bring people together in one lovely warm 'community', but instead isolates and divides. One major problem is the lack of personal space such as a garden; people are expected to share communal spaces at all times. These spaces, instead of belonging to 'everyone', end up belonging to no-one. A communal space is fine if you also have your own private space too. Forcing people to share the same space means that the problems of individuals become the problems of the entire 'community'.

Also, as I have learned through my own experience (rather than some pretentious flowery academic waffle), many designs actually restrict and prevent social interaction; tower blocks are terrible for this. You rarely get to see your neighbours. And when you do, they're either coming in or going out; you don't get to chat in the street over the garden fence or owt. Plus the designs often create dark corners for nefarious types to hide away in; this creates a very intimidating environment which makes people rush in to shut their front doors against the scary world outside.

Recent redevelopments have seen the demolishun of large blocks, replaced by lower level housing often with some sort of garden/private space. As this is seen as the better model for social housing. What does that tell you about previous ideas?

Prole has a point, it's politics that have failed the people, I think highlighting Berlin, Marseilles and Paris are about as accurate as it comes and when you look at Singapore where the government is heavily involved in public housing you see what a positive effect this type of housing can have on people's lives.

The banlieues of Marseilles, Lyon and Paris as these have recently ('80's) become a hub of discontent because the politicians opted to forget about the people that lived there.

^^ Repped

http://hdbflatforsale.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/PMO-day-9-292.jpg

As an example of how high rise could be done. Providing government is willing to put in the money and energy to make it work.

Prole has a point, it's politics that have failed the people

The architecture is part of the politics, not separate from it.

Re Berlin: I've just bin reading about Gropiusstadt. Once hailed as the answer to Germany's post-war housing problems, it's not exactly the utopia the architects/planners envisaged. And in former East Berlin, much of the huge swathes of massive Soviet housing blocks have bin replaced by lower level lower density housing.

I grew up in Old Ford, Bow E3. I lived in Sandall House on the Ranwell estate. Ranwell East was vast interconnected estate rife with crime; the many interconnecting walkways allowed criminal activity to flourish unseen. Large bits of it were demolished in the early 90s to be replaced with low level housing, many with gardens. The estate is much better than it used to be.

Visit many of London's large estates, with Corbusierian/Brutalist architecture, and you will find problems. Social issues are exacerbated by such architecture. Time to rethink things.

Which ones?

The typical architects' cop-out. Oft spouted when one of their 'wonderful visionary designs' has bin proven to be a failure.

From living on nasty estates, I can tell you that such architecture is oppressive, restrictive and depressing. Such buildings seldom, as is claimed in the plans, bring people together in one lovely warm 'community', but instead isolates and divides. One major problem is the lack of personal space such as a garden; people are expected to share communal spaces at all times. These spaces, instead of belonging to 'everyone', end up belonging to no-one. A communal space is fine if you also have your own private space too. Forcing people to share the same space means that the problems of individuals become the problems of the entire 'community'.

Also, as I have learned through my own experience (rather than some pretentious flowery academic waffle), many designs actually restrict and prevent social interaction; tower blocks are terrible for this. You rarely get to see your neighbours. And when you do, they're either coming in or going out; you don't get to chat in the street over the garden fence or owt. Plus the designs often create dark corners for nefarious types to hide away in; this creates a very intimidating environment which makes people rush in to shut their front doors against the scary world outside.

Recent redevelopments have seen the demolishun of large blocks, replaced by lower level housing often with some sort of garden/private space. As this is seen as the better model for social housing. What does that tell you about previous ideas?

On the other hand, don't think any kind of architecture would solve the problem when there's no money for upkeep and maintenance. Both has to be there for it to work.

I have never lived in a brutalist/highrise environment. I don't ever want to. Even the 'well maintained' ones like Barbican or Trellick I understand is now hip and is being looked after, or that place in Bloomsbury that was crumbling is now Des Res, they're just not nice places to be. I have spent a lot of time in the Barbican, and even that shining example of how communal spaces could be OK, and how buildings that might get concrete cancer can be maintained well, still is a soulless, alienating, antisocial place, full of tight lipped snobs who can hardly get eye contact let alone greet you.

The other end of the spectrum, places like the North Hull Estates (where in the late 80s 50% of Hull's population were crammed into an outlying, isolated area that was only 10% of the space of the city), and places around Bow and all over British inner cities, will one day be seen to be a crime against humanity.

I'm with the 'reactionary'.

As an example of how high rise could be done

Zat Singapore? Do you think that's a fair comparison with London?

Looks like my idea of Hell, personally. I wouldn't live there. I grew up on the 19th floor of a tower block. As a small child, I din't get to play out as much as I wanted, because there was no way my mum could keep an eye on me (she'd be busy with household stuff, my dad would be at work). The lifts often broke down. They constantly stunk of piss. As did the stairs, which were favoured by heroin addicts and other even less savoury characters. We seldom saw any of our neighbours. The building wasn't suitable for those with young children, the elderly and disabled. By the 80s, tower blocks were deemed to be a bad idea.

What do we now see shooting up around London, in private developments?

Do you genuinely believe the architects really give a fuck about potential residents? But then, the architects don't have to live there....

I should add that I grew up in a place where the next trend in housing, the mock neo faux georgian-doored dull yellow brick nothing box Barratt hell on earth cul-de-sac home, was being unleashed by 'the free market' in Milton Keynes, aint much better.

Any place that hasn't appeared organically due to demand, will have its downsides. As soon as some kind of committee sits down to solve a problem, there will be compromises. The best way for a any village / town / city to grow is organically, where people themselves choose where and how to live. Unfortunately everyone isn't in a position to do so, hence someone else tries to 'solve' it for them. And then it fails.

PS any of you architecty types coming to the launch of Block Magazine issue 3 tonight? Let me know if you'd like the address.

AJ Review of issue two here
http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/culture/new-little-magazines-ii-block-magazine/8617892.article

I'm only propping it as my beloved is the designer and I'm excited as we're both going to be there (are rare event, never seem to get a babysitter when we want one).

Zat Singapore? Do you think that's a fair comparison with London?...

Singapore indeed, and whether you might like it or not the system seems to work, local authorities are heavily involved in neighborhood activities and creating leisure facilities nearby. Whether it's a fair comparison with London, I guess so. Both are immensely rich cities and have a high need for social housing.

I'm not here to defend whether high rise is better or worse than low rise. I've lived on an estate that was designed by Artizans, Labourers & General Dwellings Company and it's two up two down cottages for about 80% of the estate. The rest of it is low-rise council housing which was formerly known as crack city. If dealers want to hide they can hide whether it's high rise, low rise or whatever.

The failure and success of social housing is in hands of the local governments and the associations. If you're going to put people who are on the margins of society into one building or area than the outcome will most likely be that it's going to fail.

For every Robin Hood Gardens there is a Hufeisensiedlung.

Block is a rare flower in a field of weeds, what time?

Also, MoMA is the worst designed gallery I have EVER been in. No flow to the exhibitions. One ends up missing half the art due to being half lost most of the time. The Gugenhiem up the road works perfectly, start at the top and wind down through the whole musium seeing everything (if only the one in Bilbao was like that).

Never been there, but the Musée d'Orsay in Paris is a fucking awful place to view art.
I appreciate they started with a station, but to see wonderful works of art crammed into narrow dark corridors is a crime.

Now the Monet room in the Orangerie on the other hand took my breath away.

Whether it's a fair comparison with London, I guess so.

Really? You think so?? You think Singapore can be compared directly to London? Singapore is riding the crest of an economic wave. Let's see what happens when that wave crashes. I wonder what mental state many Singaporeans are in, considering how densely packed in they seem to be. A quick google suggest mental health treatment in Singapore falls well short of other services provided...

Using Singapore as a distraction from the argument against high-density, low quality social housing, is to invoke a straw man. The discussion here concerns housing here in London, specifically, and I see no examples of where such architectural design and planning has worked well. Indeed, another quick google of London housing estates throws up myriad images of narsty council estates. Which kind of proves my original point re RGH.

I've bin to many of the places depicted in this collection, and all of them have bin narsty in one way or another:

http://www.flickr.com/groups/londonsocialhousing/pool/36177319@N04/

You keep arguing, but with who? Don't we all kind of agree? Social housing tends to be shit holes, though Singapore seems to be better at it.

I doubt it is just social housing in Singapore.