Manifesting Urbanism Reciprocal relations between urban manifestos and space: The Athens Charter in Poplar, London
-1-
London School of Economics and Political Science MSc. City Design and Social Science SO449: Independent Project Aron Bohmann August 2015 -2-
Content Introduction 4 1 Challenging Legitimacy
6
2 Debating Modernism Creating the Athens Charter
8
La Charte d’Athèns Evaluating the Charter Overcoming the Charter Concluding Remarks
8 12 14 16 17
3 Planning London MARS Group
22
4 Shaping Poplar
36
5 Living Modernism Lansbury Estate
48
6 Closing the Circle
82
22 23 28 28 32 33 35
MARS Plan for London London Plans County of London Plan Greater London Plan London Development Plan Concluding Remarks
Evaluating Poplar’s history
45
50 60 70 80
Brownfield Estate Robin Hood Gardens Discussing Case Studies
-3-
Introduction I demonstrate the spatial influences of manifestations on the example of the Athens Charter in the distinct of Poplar in London and outline a process of circular discourse on built environment. I argue that manifestos influence built environment but that also the reputation of the respective buildings change over time and influence the manifesto and its effects in retrospective. Poplar was comprehensively rebuilt in line with modernist ideals, shaped by the CIAM discourse. To understand how modernist ideas evolved, I examine the CIAM discourse and the involvement of the MARS-group. In the following I outline how discussions within these groups were translated to London wide plans. Afterwards I explore how three exemplary estates, Lansbury, Brownfield and Robin Hood Gardens, designed by architects active in the discourse, were realised in Poplar. In a final step, I investigate their socio-spatial logics: I show that, diverging from a linear notion of discursive influence, the reputation and experience of inhabitants’ shapes further discourses, and also the retrospective perception of the Athens Charter and the CIAM discourse influences contemporary discussions. This creates a circle of how theory is applied on built space and translated back into discourse again (Fig. 1). With this approach, I show influences of the Athens Charter on Poplar, which proves the point that urban manifestos can influence the built environment. Several findings confirm this claim. Firstly, the Charter is often seen as pars pro toto for the whole CIAM discourse. Nevertheless there was no agreement on this document. But being in opposition or trying to overcome the document also shaped CIAM members and their practise. Secondly, the reconstruction of East-London uses very similar approaches and arguments as developed in the Charter. Thirdly, personal connections exist between members of the theoretical debate and design practice. A further finding is that the lived experience of these built environments is retrospectively projected on the CIAM discourse and the Charter. These reciprocal interpretations additionally shape future manifestos. This unveils a reciprocal relation in the evaluation of influences. -4-
es st ra te gi
manifestos
r ou sc
di se ar le
g
user experience
in
ild
ni
bu
ng
plans
-5-
Fig. 1.1 The circle of manifesto-making in urban studies. Manifestos arise out of discourses. Its claims shape strategic planning that than informs buildings. Based on the performance of the buildings and adaptabiblity there are learning that refer back to the discourse.
1 Challenging Legitimacy There is an on-going debate around improving urban conditions in terms of sustainability, accessibility, justice, distribution of services etc. The interferences of everyday life and built space are too complex to be tackled by single disciplines. Setting up a new value system is one approach to reduce complexity in order to make problems manageable. A powerful tool to “overthrow […] all existing conditions” (Marx and Engels, 1948) are manifestos. According to this statement, manifestos try to establish tabula rasa to provide the Carte Blanche, from where everything is possible. This is valid for the modern genre of manifestos, which challenge the legitimacy of current circumstances (Buckley, 2013, pp. 10–11). As Martin Puchner (Puchner, 2009, p. 18) rightly points out, Manifestos allow the positioning relative to other groups or situations. This demarcation emphasizes a critique of unsatisfying settings. Consequently manifestos flourish in times of rapid change to question present urban conditions (Ryan, 2014, p. 16). In these contexts we observe a proliferation of these documents (Buckley, 2013, p. 11) like in the Serpentine Gallery as a manifesto marathon (Lees and Serpentine Gallery, 2009) or at the Istanbul Design Biennale 2014 (Ryan and Carruthers, 2014). These events explicitly refer to flourishing avant-garde art scenes in the beginning of the last century and in the 1960s. By now manifestos moved from avant-garde to pop-culture. These manifestos often promote claims covered in numbered thesis that are grounded in attacks on prevailing ideas of history with an aggressive attitude towards the audience. They break with the past and often call with exaggerated declarations for an eruptive change towards an alternative future (Puchner, 2009, p. 18). He hereby convincingly argues that manifestos are not only symptoms of social formation but rather “moments of actual or attempted intervention” (Puchner, 2006, p. 2). In the advent of (urban) crises many manifestos address man-made environments in order to shape the cohabitation of mankind towards a better future. Usually they have a -6-
collective authorship or at least multiple signatories in common (Puchner, 2009, p. 18) that can be as manifold as the promoted approaches. There are manifestos from academic debates like Towards an Urban Design Manifesto (Appleyard and Jacobs, 1982), from professionals like Albert Speer’s A Manifesto for Sustainable Cities (Gaines and Jäger, 2009) or from interest groups like the Charter for New Urbanism (Talen and Congress for the New Urbanism, 2013) or from political institutions like the EU’s Leipzig Charter on Sustainable Urbanism (EU, 2007). Sometimes they come as policy recommendations like Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) or as a strategic plan like the London Plan (GLA, 2011). Some of these urban manifestos substantially shaped the discourse on cities and life therein. This at least is the retrospective perception. To exemplify the possible impacts of these documents I focus on the Athens Charter, commonly known as the most influential urban manifesto. Its publication is sufficiently historic that it is possible to analyse its multiple effects. Since no movement can do without a manifesto (Puchner, 2009, p. 18) the Athens Charter might have the symbolic value to brand Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne (CIAM) as a powerful movement. It serves as pars pro toto for the debates that were held over several decades with oscillating participants. Surly its content does not share the opinion of all CIAM members. But in the end it did what a good manifesto does: it “mixes a bit of terror, runaway emotion and charisma with a lot of common sense” (Jencks and Kropf, 1997, p. 5). Once it was published, everyone including detractors, came to rely on it (Puchner, 2006, pp. 3–4) as I will present in the next chapter.
-7-
2 Debating Modernism Creating the Athens Charter
In this chapter I elucidate the creation of the Athens Charter, the content of the document and the later trials to overcome it by the CIAM. The Charter had its origin in the CIAM, whose members where committed to the debate and application of modernism. Part of its activities was the organisation of conferences. While the first three conferences were concerned with housing conditions, in 1933 CIAM IV engaged with the circumstances of the city as a whole. Cities were in crises at the time, shaped by industrialisation and formless urban growth causing unhealthy conditions. Against this backdrop CIAM IV tried to challenge urban planning with the approach of functionalist analysis resulting in comprehensive and modern designs for the city (Gold, 1999, p. 43). The CIAM IV congress was held on board a cruise ship, which went from Marseilles to Athens. The group of participants were mainly elitist architects of the time. J.L. Sert, later CIAM president, describes the cruise as a liberating moment with “no professional or age barriers” (Sert, 1973, p. viii) and with no distinction in terms of accessibility. The passengers were “a community of interest, eager to discuss everything related to the search for a better urban environment” (Sert, 1973, p. vii).
Fig. 2.1 Le Corbusier opens the CIAM IV conference that debated the functional city.
-8-
The core of the debates were analyses of cites that were prepared in advance by participants. An initial outcome of the congress was a series of numbered statements published in the journal of the Technical Chamber of Greece (Sert, 1942, pp. 246–249). According to John Gold (2000, p. 96) they were the product of some working groups but did not represent the consensus of the full congress. This was the basis of what Le Corbusier, architect and founding member of CIAM, started to call the Athens Charter (Mumford, 2002, p. 73). In the process of creating the Charter, the role of the conference is not entirely clear. Le Corbusier supposedly announced the goal of the congress, to establish urban rules that can be prescribed to authorities (Mumford, 2002, p. 79). The term “La Charte d’Athènes” was first mentioned in 1937 (Gold, 1998, p. 238). Sigfried Giedion, the secretary-general of CIAM, and Oscar Niemeyer, key figure of modern architecture, described that the conclusive outcome of the conference made it possible to set the principles for the Charter. Ernö Goldfinger, architect and friend of Le Corbusier, and others disagreed with these viewpoints. In Ernö’s view there was no reference to a document like the Charter. There was neither sufficient time to create such a document nor agreement within the group (Gold, 1998, p. 227). Revealingly, there is an inconsistent historical record of the Charters publication year. Jose Louis Sert cites 1933 as the year of publication in the foreword to the 1976 English version of the Charter (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. vii). However several statements prove that this cannot be the case (see Gold, 1998). Evaluations of the document can only be made with reservations regarding these suspicious circumstances. There are multiple statements of what became the Charter, which were apparently of limited interest when published first. The framing of what later became resolutions in the Charter was already set within the founding statute of CIAM, written in 1928 (Sert, 1942, p. 242). These declarations claimed that the essence of town planning is of a functional nature: it “is the organisation of the functions of collective life” (Sert, 1942, p. -9-
242). The functions that town-planning embraces are: dwelling, work, recreation and transportation. In dealing with these functions the “[t]he chaotic subdivision of urban land as a result of real estate speculation should be corrected” (Sert, 1942, p. 242). The architect can bring harmony to the existing elements. This already incorporates the taming of private ownership and ideas of restructuring the city that we find in the Charter later. Preparations and analyses for the CIAM IV conference were executed in line with this four-fold separation of functions. Participants had to analyse different cities within these categories. Other areas of potential interest, like economic or social conditions, were not mapped (Gold, 1998, p. 231). The restricted method of mapping information into these categories inevitably led to principles and resolutions reproducing these classifications. Consequently a weakness in the analyses is that the observations were already predetermined by the outcomes. Answers were already given even before the conference; they just had to be confirmed by the right questions. In 1942 José Luis Sert finally published the book “Can our Cities Survive?” as an official outcome of CIAM IV. It is grouped around the four functions. Topics mentioned are very similar to the forthcoming Charter and represent the same functionalist perspective (Sert, 1942, pp. v–vi). It can be understood as an introduction of the CIAM debate to the American discourse (Mumford, 2002, p. 131). Sert later corrects his positioning towards the Charter and distanced himself from this functionalist view. When writing the foreword for the 1973 English version of the Athens Charter he admits that it has considerable gaps and is oversimplified. Furthermore “it does not deal deeply enough with economic, sociological and ecological factors and with legal implementations“(Sert, 1973, p. x). Nevertheless he recognised it as a valuable starting point for future manifestos. Le Corbusier ultimately published the Athens Charter in 1943, also claiming the document as being the official outcome of CIAM IV. Nevertheless it was strongly based on his own - 10 -
Fig. 2.2 J.L. Sert determines in his book the four functions of collective life in cities: dwelling, recreation, work, transporation. This four-fold separation of functions was debated long before the Athen Charter was published.
interpretation of the congress. Between the actual conference protocols and Le Corbusier’s text are significant differences (Gold, 1998, pp. 240–243). “The results of this famous shipboard conference were somewhat autocratically ‘codified’ by Le Corbusier as a CIAM ‘doctrine of urbanism’ in his ‘La Charte d’Athèns’” (Mumford, 1992, p. 394). Next to the existing resolutions and Sert’s book, content from the Charter can be found in Corbusier’s earlier book Ville Radieuse with the significant subtitle “éléments d›une doctrine d›urbanisme pour l›équipment de la civilisation machiniste” (Le Corbusier, 1933). The chapter “Mobilisation of the land” (Le Corbusier, 1967, pp. 187–189) contains many statements that appear in the Charter. In respect of this record of events, the origin of the Charter is unclear and especially the role of CIAM IV. The first publication of the Charter in 1943 is attributed to CIAM France (Le Groupe CIAM-France et al., 1943), however, the reprinted version in 1957 only refers to Le Corbusier’s as the author (Le Corbusier, 1957). The architect who also dissolved his own past - 11 -
in changing his name from Charles-Édouard Jeanneret-Gris and denied his earlier buildings (Cazanave, 2015; Colomina, 2013, pp. 59–50). The Charter was not published until 1973 in English, but apparently a translated version existed from 1966 onward (Gold, 2015). Additionally is the cruise itself is a mystery with diverging memories surrounding it. There was never agreement on the functionalist view. Documents with similar content existed before publishing and the publication year is backdated by ten years. These occurrences confirm Beatriz Colomina’s (2014, p. 49) convincing conception that one must destroy the past to create a manifesto. This leads to the assumption that manifestos start to have an impact only years after publishing, once they are history.
La Charte d’Athèns
The Charter reacted to the conditions of its time with technical resolutions. Gold, convincingly points out that most ideas of the conclusions were common sense: “They offered little more than the gentle reformism that would have typified many groups, modernist or otherwise…” (Gold, 1998, p. 235). However, the document, divided into 95 theses like Martin Luther’s approach to reforming the church, makes the general claim that the chaotic cities needed to be reformed.
Content
The Charter responds to the accelerated urbanism of the machinist age (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 48) that creates inhumane living conditions and bad shelter caused “by self-interest and the lure of profit” (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 93). The two basic human constants, biological and psychological health, are under threat from the extensive process of urbanisation (Le Corbusier, 1973, pp. 43–46) These conditions harm contradictory principles of human cohabitation, namely the individual and the collective (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 44). To fix these conditions, the Athens Charter demanded the re-planning of existing cities into an urban fabric of tall, distant apartment buildings, separated by four functions (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 65).
- 12 -
Chapter
Content
Pages
1 Generalities The City and its Region
Two basic human constants, biological and psychological health, are under threat
43-46
The two conditions govern principles of human personality: individual and collective
44
Machinist age correlated with uncontrolled city growth and inhumane living conditions that result in illness, decay and revolt
48-49
2 The Prevailing Conditions of the City - Critical Examination and Remedial Measures Housing
Leisure
Work
Traffic
Heritage
Unhealthy conditions, excessive densities and a lack of maintenance are caused by speculation
53-56
Intolerable and unequal growth of suburbs
59-61
Need for tall structures set apart from another on favourable locations utilising recent construction technologies
61-62
Reasonable density gives space on ground level for other functions
63-64
Open spaces are generally inadequate and lack accessibility
66-67
Diversity of leisure facilities needed
67-68
Unsanitary blocks must be torn down to create open spaces
69-70
Green areas must serve clearly defined purposes
70
Industries are either too close or too far away from dwellings
73-74
Inefficient public transportation
74-75
Increasing need of office spaces in central locations
76
New distribution of functions into separate zones is necessary
76-77
Dangerous for pedestrians, inefficient for vehicles
79-81
Of primary importance but inadequate to mechanical speeds
79-82
Need reconfiguration of all sorts of traffic based on statistical analyses
81-83
Separation of different speeds in hierarchical order
83-85
Protect, demolish, modify or transplant
86-87
Never keep something out of a narrow-minded cult of the past when this prevents social justice
87
Slums surrounding monuments should be removed
88
3 Conclusion - Main points of the Doctrine Formation of new city legislation with strong administrative responsibility to protect human wellbeing and dignity
94
Transformation of the city need to be steered by technicians of building, health and social organisation who enlighten authorities
94-95
Functional planning guarantees individual liberty and collective action
96
Zoning will bring new order and harmony into urban territory
98
Achieve high densities to recover open land
99
Traffic connects three key functions of housing, work and recreation
99
Every city needs a programme and plan and laws that enable it to be carried out
100
Every intervention calibrated to human scale and proportions
101
Architects presides over changes and brings harmony through calculation
102-103
All ground must regulated by legal means
104
Expropriation solves the problem of fragmented land-ownership and small plot size
104
Private interest is subordinated to collective interest
105
Fig. 2.3 The Athens Charter summarised - 13 -
To implement the identified issues, architects should preside over the changes to bring harmony through calculation (Le Corbusier, 1973, pp. 98–103). On this basis it is mandatory to regulate “all usable ground by legal means in order to balance the vital needs of the individual in complete harmony with collective” (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 104). Through expropriation the relationship between fragmented land-ownership and the required size of projects can be solved (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 104). This can be understood as a universal tool, since “private interest will be subordinated to the collective interest” (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 105). To illustrate these issues the Charter contains observations based on four functions and resolutions. The main claims of the documents can be found summarised in the adjoining table (Fig 2.3) Evaluating the Charter
In reading the charter some attributes are especially notable. Ideas of collective action that supersede private interests are profoundly socialist. Nevertheless, the Charter does not elaborate on what individual liberty is. The impersonal detachment to undertake collective attacks was driven by an underlying desire for collectivitiy. Understanding a manifesto as intervention, Puchner appropriately describes this approach as the “wish fulfilment of modernism” (Puchner, 2006, p. 7). However, this totalising wishful utopian view limits the significance of the document as recommendations toward authorities. The city is a canvas that can be filled with functions (Davoudi and Madanipour, 2014, p. 462). There is no qualitative statement as to what these functions have to perform. The document offers only two snap-shots: an inadequate present and a better future. There is no process describing how to reach the future, neither is there any evidence why the imagined future would work better. The architect is the mediating authority who is able to catalyse the forces of mechanisation in order to reach an harmonious equilibrium (Eisinger, 2008, p. 14). This represents a strongly egocentric - 14 -
view, since there is no rationale given for why the architect is the expert of experts and what exactly he does. Even when biological and psychological concerns are mentioned as of outstanding importance, solutions are built forms – not societal reforms. Collective action is enabled through a strong and technocratic authority that justifies its decisions through functionalist analyses. In this narrow framing, nothing is left to chance. The only guideline is the correspondence to human scale, which is comical since modernism is often criticised for inhumanity and anonymity. Overcoming private interests with planning means that the government manages society. The modern idea thus is to create new spheres with “new subjects and subjectivities for them” (Holston, 1999, p. 158). This is especially valid in the phase of envisioning a nation after the Second World War (Hollow, 2012, p. 479). Even if the Charter demands extended analysis, the solutions are already anticipated in the preliminary observations. Addressing societal problems like the conditions of the working class in built form and with the separation of functions is fairly naïve. Nevertheless the approach of a physical re-planning was applied in many places. This strategy was extensively implemented in London’s East-End, as I will illustrate in the upcoming chapter. Moreover, CIAM structures and conventions “became standard practice on professions of such architecture and planning around the world” (Holston, 1999, pp. 160–161). Typologies were applied, but not the social agenda. But actually the CIAM did not argue about aesthetics for years (Mumford, 1992: 392). The model Holston is mentioning is just one interpretation of the discourse. There are implications in the Charter about what the future city should look like: “the individual house of the garden city; the individual house coupled with a small farm; and lastly, the collective apartment building” (Le Corbusier, 1973). Nevertheless modernist practice and ideas, shaped through CIAM debates, were often reduced to the picture of large scale modernist aesthetics shaped by Le Corbusier’s publications (Mumford, - 15 -
2002, p. 412) and his Contemporary City (Fig. 2.4) (see Le Corbusier, 1967,1987; Le Corbusier and Etchells, 1946). This is rooted in the fact that he justifies his typology with the same arguments found in the Charter. The Charter “would become widely regarded as both the key expression of CIAM’s views on town planning and an important statement of Le Corbusier’s thought” (Gold, 1998, p. 240). Overcoming the Charter Fig. 2.4 Le Corbusier’s drawings of the contemporary city shaped the impression of modernism. Ironically, this drawings are in the chapter “The Human Scale”.
There was not much accord around the Charter, especially in the later years of CIAM, different members strongly tried to amend the document. Primarily the English (MARSGroup) and the American participants tried to overcome the functionalist view. The direction of the post-war CIAM became disputed. The French group under Le Corbusier argued for the congress theme “Practical Applications of the Athens Charter” (Mumford, 1992, p. 402). However, since no consensus could be made the congress became a re-union meeting without a
- 16 -
central theme. This indicates heterogeneous positions within the CIAM that could not be aligned in further congresses. The only common ground was to debate about varying understandings of modernism, which was of manifold importance. Within CIAM the conflict on the functionalist perspective intensified at CIAM IX in 1953, when the Smithson’s, members of the English delegation, directly dissented against Le Corbusier. Many younger participants, had the aspiration to replace the Athens Charter with a Charter of Habitat (Mumford, 2002, pp. 235–238). As attempts to replace the Athens Charter were unsuccessful and the functionalist view still dominated, some younger delegates met in 1954 at Doorn in the Netherlands, to issue a manifesto in response to the Charter “in which vital human associations are inadequately expressed” (Mumford, 1992, p. 441). The outcome was a small numbered list, the Doorn Manifesto (Fig. 2.5), which reflected their ideas. It relates the dwelling strongly to a community no matter what the scale. The grouping of dwellings is key to urban cohabitation (Smithson and Team 10, 1974, p. 75). It is revealing that even within this small group no consensus could be found on how to overcome the Athens Charter. This generates the notion that a manifesto of collective authorship is hardly possible. The last real CIAM (X) was held during 1956 in Dubrovnik. The aim of the conference was to transition the leadership to the younger generation of architects. Le Corbusier, who stayed absent, transferred with a written statement the lead to the younger generation. Apparently nobody could or wanted to cope with this. CIAM was officially dissolved in 1959 (Mumford, 2002, pp. 238–265). The CIAM was as an epistemic community in the sense of Haas. It was predominantly a “network of professionals with recognized expertise and competence in a particular domain and an authoritative claim to policy-relevant knowledge within that domain or issue-area” (Haas, 1992, p. 3). The group - 17 -
Concluding Remarks
Fig. 2.5 The Doorn Manifesto was created in order to overcome the Athens Charter.
was characterized by shared principled beliefs in modern architecture, contributing to policy actions in order to improve urban conditions. Nevertheless different opinions existed within the group. Members of the community became “strong actors at the national and transnational level� (Haas, 1992, p.
- 18 -
4). Ideas were spread through the different national origins and the exile of members. By the 1960s after the CIAM dispersed the modernist movement or individuals that were involved, “controlled the academics” (Jencks, 2011, p. 33). Even if most of the members came from an architecture practice, their ideas were not necessarily tied to one academic discipline. Especially with the call for other experts it created “a field of substantive concerns” (Healey, 2010, p. 2)”. The profession began to dominate debates and claimed that they fulfilled the demands of sociology and social policy with their design (Glendinning and Muthesius, 1994, p. 95). An extended role of the architect became strongly realised in 1950s England, as I show later on. There was rejection of the functionalist view from the outset. But once it was published one had to cope with it even if the agenda was already superseded (Gold, 2000, p. 96). The direction of the discussion could not be reversed. Thus, the debates became manifest into one document which became indelibly linked with the whole Congress. Therefore, this document played a key role in the failing of CIAM. Since there was no agreement how to overcome it, the congress dissolved. For an elaborate treatise on the CIAM congresses see Gold (Gold, 2007, 1997), Mumford (Mumford, 2009, 2002) or Evelien van Es (van Es and Chapel, 2014) When Harvey writes that the Charter defined what modernist architectural practice was about for the next 30 years (Harvey, 1990, p. 32) this is not true to the full extent. According to Mumford “the post-war CIAM debates about community centres, the synthesis of the arts, and popular versus modernist architectural expression have been totally forgotten, buried under successive layers of urbanistic revisionism” (Mumford, 1992, p. 413). The Charter summarised of a set of ideas, which made them more accessible and easier to promote. In retrospect it had great symbolic value and indirectly materialised impact through peoples interpretations. Nevertheless “CIAM became associated with a kind of technocratic architectural idiocy, insensitive to climate, local culture or human scale” (Mumford, 1992, p. 413). - 19 -
In relation to manifestos, the story of this document exemplifies that a collective authorship is hardly possible. Furthermore the complexity is reduced to such a degree that its scope is very limited. Interpretations can be that variant that they have nothing in common with the author’s intention anymore.
- 20 -
CIAM Conferences Related Publications
London Plans
plan voisin 1925
CIAM I, La Sarraz
founding statement
CIAM II, Frankfurt CIAM III, Brussels
1930
Ville Radieuse
CIAM IV, Athens
Technical Chamber Greece
1935 CIAM V, Paris Mars Plan 1940 Can our Cities Survive?
Mars Plan
Athens Charter
County Plan Greater Plan
1945 CIAM VI, Bridgewater CIAM VII, Bergamo 1950 CIAM VIII, Hoddeson CIAM IX, Aix-en-provence 1955 CIAM X, Dubrovnik Athens Charter Reprint CIAM dissolution, Otterloo 1960 1973
Athens Charter English
- 21 -
Development Plan
Fig. 2.6 The timeline shows the years of the CIAM congresses as well as publications containing statements of the later Athens Charter. The Athens Charter was published during the war, while there were no CIAM activities. At the same time tmultiple plans with modernist ideas were published in London.
3 Planning London The wide-ranging discussion about modernism influenced notional planning. Being aware of the intricacy in tracking down the history of ideas, I will present ideological and personnel interrelations between MARS (the British chapter of CIAM), and LCC (London County Council) that manifested into different London Plans.
MARS Group
The CIAM influence on the Modern Architectural Research Group (MARS) was extensive. Its principles were directly derived from the CIAM statues (Gold, 2000, pp. 81–82) shaping “the structure of its activities, their content, and the networks that were formed” (Gold, 2013, p. 266). With its style of analyses that conceived the city into components, the group showed support to the functional imperative of planning (Gold, 1993, p. 371). Nevertheless the group in later years questioned the relation to CIAM and its political outlook (Gold, 2013, p. 252). After the war the group grew to almost 100 members. It was no longer in the pre-war condition a small avant-garde group, “it had become a large clublike institution with prominent members well within the mainstream of British architecture and town planning” (Mumford, 2002: 170), with only loose connections to the actual CIAM. Nevertheless they were at least familiar with the discourse. Members were, for example, working in the town-planning department of the LCC, in the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and other state departments as well as in the AA (Architectural Association), RIBA (Royal Institute of British Architects) and the University of London (Mumford, 2002, pp. 160–161). By holding these positions there was a strong modernist agenda shaping the English architecture and planning scene. These circumstances and the unique situation of reconstruction provided the opportunity to put CIAM ideas into practice (Mumford, 1992, p. 401). MARS Plan for London
- 22 -
The MARS Groups prepared for the CIAM debates a plan, which represented London as a linear city with spines of residential development placed north and south of a central corridor (Gold, 2000, p. 92). The first version of the plan, exhibited in 1938, established the notion of the linear city while adopting the neighbourhood unit as a key element (Marmaras and Sutcliffe, 1994, p. 434). The later famous 1942 plan extended these notions in further detail (Gold, 1995, p. 264). Arthur Ling and Percy Johnson-Marshall, both MARS members and at the LCC, were among the authors of the 1942 Plan (Crinson et al., 1994, p. 118). They designed the residential areas as neighbourhood units – a planning concept that described the provision of housing and social services. (Fig. 3.1–3.4) Arthur Ling developed the basis of the concept in his Diploma, supervised by the town-planner Patrick Abercrombie (Gold, 2000, p. 88). Further features included, the four-fold separation of functions and an attention towards transport infrastructures. It was “recalling the Athens Charter itself ” (Marmaras and Sutcliffe, 1994, p. 434). The design of the blocks were influenced by Le Corbusier’s Unité (Gold, 2000, p. 89). When critiqued also within the MARS-group, the authors defended the plan as a “theoretical exercise that illustrated design principles” (Gold, 2000, p. 94). Nevertheless the plan, a direct exercise derived from CIAM impacted later considerations of the County of London Plan. This is a considerable link of the CIAM shaping London’s planning.
- 23 -
MARS Plan for London
Fig. 3.1 & 3.2 (opposite page) The different dwelling units of the MARS plan that were later the basis for the neighbourhood planning in the London development plans. 3.1 Tall free-standing buildings with verdant spaces in between constitute a neighbourhood unit. It acommodates 6,000 inhabitants and provides necessary social infrastructure. On top of the plan is a section that gives a sense of scale. 3.2 The drawing represents a borough with around 50,000 inhabitants. The top right corner shows the size of a neighbourhood.
- 24 -
- 25 -
- 26 -
Fig. 3.3 (opposite page) & 3.4 3.3 This regional unit, next to the Lee Valley, inhabits 500,000 people. A borough unit is highlighted 3.4 London as linear City, imagined by the MARS Group for 5 million people. - 27 -
London Plans
Even if the subsequent plans were not as radical as the MARS Plan, the London Plans show the distinct separation of functions. The LCC published under Patrick Abercrombie in short periodicals two very influential advisory plans for post-war improvements: The County of London Plan (1943) and The Greater London Plan (1944). The mandatory Administrative County of London Development Plan of 1951 later continues these thoughts. The destruction of the war is taken as an opportunity for larger development to build up a better London (Carter and Goldfinger, 1945, pp. 10–11; Keene, 1945). Especially in the eastern districts were targeted for complete reconstruction. (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943: 9,101)
County of London Plan
The County of London Plan defines primarily five different problems with London: traffic congestion, depressing housing, inadequate open space, indiscriminate mixed development and architectural squalor (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943, pp. 3–5). A “coherent architectural development” (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943, p. 5) should guide the structuring of the four functions. Terms were used slightly different than in the Charter. Decentralisation for instance discusses the separation of functions like work places and housing (fig. 3.6 & 3.6) (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943, pp. 30–35) Arthur Ling, leader of the research unit, stated that elements of the plan were already found in the MARS discussions. Further he sees his involvement in the MARS group as “useful in considering the problems of London” (Arthur Ling quoted in Gold, 1997, p. 180) The Plan exemplifies certain “reconstruction areas” (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943, pp. 99–121) that give space to implement modernist planning, like it was en vogue in the discourse orbiting CIAM and MARS. The programme planned to rehouse the current stock into neighbourhoods equipped with all necessary services. This model followed the MARS-Plan (Glendinning and Muthesius, 1994, p. 97). These self-contained communities are laid out in the Athens Charter (Le Corbusier, 1973, pp. 69–70, 101–102). Nevertheless the organisation of - 28 -
communities is not an original idea and it principles can be found in the detailed predecessor model of Howard’s Garden City (Howard, 1902, pp. 22–127) Main roads should be incorporated into planning whereas minor roads were to be rearranged (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943: 147). Factories were to be moved according the proposed zoning. Open spaces should be provided in relation to the amount of housing. A strong authority plans for communal interests and has ways and means to overrun private interests. Therefore public authorities must enlarge its legal and financial powers to create “[a] properly planned capital [that] would eliminate unnecessary labour and result in a saving of time, energy and money for London and the nation” (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943: 144). In order to make the plan more accessible, Ernö Goldfinger published in cooperation with the LCC an explanatory book that illustrates the visions of the 1943 plan (Carter and Goldfinger, 1945). Fig. 3.5 (left) & 3.6 (right) 3.5 The unhealthy city with all functions mixed. 3.6 A better future: functions are “decentralised”.
- 29 -
- 30 -
Fig. 3.7 & 3.8 (opposite page) Planning approach of the county of London Plan: 3.7 Basis of the County of London Plan 1943 were existing neighbourhood units. 3.8 The neighbourhoods in the reconstruction area, which should be included in the reconstruction of the East-End. Fig. 3.9 & 3.10 (this page) 3.9 A typological example of how Stepney’s future was imagined. Poplar (not on the map) is the adjacent area in the east. Density and typology were to be the same. 3.10 A visualisation of the County of London Plan. Modernist building slabs should constitute most of the district. - 31 -
Greater London Plan
Fig. 3.11 & 3.12 The new town Ongar represents a smaller scale modernism than Le Corbusier proposed. Next to building slabs should be maisonettes row houses.
The later published Greater London Plan recognised the regional interconnection of London. In line with the Charter the city is seen as a unit within its region (Le Corbusier, 1973, pp. 43–49). The plan challenges the same issues and with similar principles as the 43 plan on a bigger scale (Abercrombie, 1945, pp. 2–3; Gold, 1997, p. 180). In order to achieve a moderate density in London, the plan proposed fully planned communities beyond the Green Belt (Hall, 1966, p. 50) The plan contains similar thematic principles but distances itself against big scale modernism in form of illustrations of Ongar (Fig 3.11, 3.12), a new town development (Gold, 1997, p. 181). These plans lay out similar ideas as the Charter but in greater detail. The fact that they were published at the time gives the impression that the Charter juts offered obvious solutions
- 32 -
for problems of the time. But it also proves that the time and condition of publishing the Charter were right. When CIAM debated in earlier years about modernism, there was only little audience. But after the war there was the need for big plans and visions in order to imagine a better future (see Hollow, 2012). Planning institutions needed guidance and easy solutions for the immense scale of re-construction work which suddenly made the Charters idea applicable. The mandatory Development Plan of 1951 (London County Council, 1951a) determines the planning of London for the upcoming 20 years. 95 Statements of how to proceed in terms of planning (London County Council, 1951a) are based on statistical analyses (London County Council, 1951b). Finally zoning is applied and plans are drawn (London County Council, 1951c). Principles are similar to the previous plans. Again there is the approach of planning on basis of existing communities that should be as self-contained as possible (London County Council, 1951a, p. 2) Moreover decentralisation is pushed forward together with the reduction of the population density as proposed in 1943 (London County Council, 1951b, p. 43). Core topics are among others housing, education, open space. It also includes statements on architectural character, planning control and standards of public services. Especially for the reconstruction areas a more ambitious language is used. Similar to the Charter, the plan shows a very authoritarian approach towards comprehensive redevelop of the area: “Proposals involve provision for relocation of population and industry and other users and the replacement of open space in the course of redevelopment� (London County Council, 1951a, p. 26). This includes also the simplification of the road system as well as the provision of flats, houses and services (London County Council, 1951a, p. 2).
- 33 -
London Development Plan
Fig. 3.13 Zoning and temporal distinction for Poplar in the 1951 development plan. Striking is how few original streets are included in the planning. Uncolored areas are existing housing stock. This is interesting in regards of Brownfield estate and Robin Hood Gardens, which replaced the previous housing stock.
0 - 5 years 5 - 10 years 10 - 15 years 15 - 20 years over 20 years Lansbury Estate
Brownfield Estate Robin Hood Gardens
- 34 -
The plans, which share many attributes of manifestos, defined the reconstruction-areas as de facto urban laboratories. Caused by the war, planning takes place on tabula rasa. This made the application of functionalist design principles of the modern movement possible (Docter, 2000, p. 200). Especially “the younger architects [‌] chose the high building in the mode of Le Corbusier as the symbol of the modern urban formâ€? (Mumford, 1964, p. 28). Moreover, it can be assumed that non-CIAMmembers shared propositions of the Charter without endorsing them explicitly. There are influences in architecture and urbanist practise even if the Charter is not specifically mentioned in their work (Silva, 2003, p. 329). Ideals of modernism could be put into plans and practice through certain circumstances, I illustrated. The Athens Charter and the MARS plan were theoretical exercises. Their legacy is the transitions of ideas into the London plans and later into built form. This happened often through the agency of individuals that hold influential positions and were part of the debate. Nevertheless was the built outcome often answer to pressing problems and thus implemented in a repetitive and cheap way, causing unwanted results. This will be visible in the next chapter.
- 35 -
Concluding Remarks
4 Shaping Poplar
Fig. 4.1 Poplar in the end of 1945. The area is especially damaged in the area that will be the Lansbury Estate. The east of the district is still fairly intact and was repaired after the war. Nevertheless the buildings were replaced by modernist estates, among others Brownfield and Robin Hood Gardens.
In order to see the influence of these plans, which represent the discourse at the time, I trace the history of Poplar in relation to their implementation. The build structure of Poplar was predominantly shaped by row-houses. In pre-war times this working-class area was designated for slum clearance, which changed during through the war. During the war 24% of the buildings were destroyed or seriously damaged (Fig. 4.1) (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 212–223). The plans stipulated that Stepney and Poplar’s population should be reduced to 42% of its pre-war state. The targeted average density was 136 persons per acre (Fig. 4.2, 4.3) (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 37–54). The County plan gives examples of how to achieve the densities required, while providing immense open spaces (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943, p. 37). Similar architectural styles are associated with CIAM urbanism.
Lansbury
Brownfield Estate - 36 -
Robin Hood Gardens
The immediate reconstruction of Poplar started without recognition of plans –too big was the need for the rapid provision of dwellings. Almost 1300 pre-fabricated bungalows were erected by 1947. (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 37–54) Local authorities were given stronger powers of compulsory purchase through the Town and Country Planning Acts of 1944 and 1947 to realise faster developments. Guided by the 1943 and 1951 plans, Poplar almost totally transformed from the 1950s onwards (Fig. 3.13).
200 136 100 70 1943
1951
75 persons per acre
100 persons per acre
136 persons per acre
200 persons per acre
- 37 -
Fig. 4.2 - top Proposed densities per acres were very similar in the 1943 and 1951 Plans. Poplar were to have 136p.p.a. Fig. 4.3 - below Goldfinger and Carter explain what the densities mean in terms of housing.
The LCC, committed to modernism, followed its own plans in terms of building style. Members of the architectural department travelled, among other locations, to Marseille to see Le Corbusiers Unité. Influenced by travels and debates, the department became one of the most progressive offices for housing in Europe with a reputation of architectural innovation (Harnack, 2012, p. 29). “[A]fter the war every young man with MARS group sympathies wanted to be part of Leslie Martin’s (chief architect of LCC – editor’s note) team” (John Summerson quoted in Gold, 2007, p. 44). Its employees were committed to modernism. In the mid 1950s the LCC architectural department had around 3000 members of staff. Additionally it was responsible for a large labour force and building maintenance staff. It could handle all aspects of design and construction in-house (Gold, 2007: 44). They were in the comfortable situation to be client, contractor and executing company all at once (Harnack, 2015). However, the rebuilding was shaped through compromises, opportunism and different expediency. There were problems in allocating building materials and assembling suitable development sites that were not interspersed. The councils were not able to enforce the development as proposed in the plans that tried to overcome the overall street layout of the time (Fig. 4.4 -4.9). The immediate rebuilding with bungalows partially blocked coherent developments. Moving industrial users resulted in a lack of local employment, which was aggravated by the decline of the docks. (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 37–54). Fig. 4.4 - 4.9 Map analyses of street grid. The series of maps shows the intrinsic change of Poplar’ spatial structure based on the modifications of streets, that go along with the replacement with buildings. The London plans aimed for a complete restructuring of minor roads. Visible in these maps is the amount of change by decades and how resilient the DNA of the city is. - 38 -
Fig. 4.4 During the 1950s readjustments happend mainly the the cenral Lansbury Estate.
existing streets replaced streets new streets Lansbury estes
Fig. 4.5 The dissolvment of streets in the 1960s are mainly done in areas that were damaged during WW2. New estates could be basically be build from scratch.
- 39 -
Fig. 4.6 In the 70s were most of the reconstructions were done. A focus is now on the carfriendly extension of roads. The Robin Hood Gardens as well as Balfron Towere were build.
existing streets replaced streets new streets Brownfield (top) Robin Hood
Fig. 4.8 Until the 1990s massive high-way structures were built in order to connect Canary Wharf (south of the highligted roads). The increased traffic had also impact on Poplar.
- 40 -
Fig. 4.9 By today a big interjection links the northern approach of the Blackwell Tunnel with Poplar and Canary Wharf. This worsens especially the situation for aligning estates like Brownfield and Robin Hood.
Fig. 4.10 This map shows all road modifications from the 1950s until today. While the major roads were extended, the network of minor roads was subject to extensive modifications.
- 41 -
Fig. 4.10 Administrative boundaries of the different administrative entities.
The London Government Act of 1963 restructured administrative boundaries (Fig. 4.10). The LCC was succeeded by the Greater London Council (GLC). Poplar, Bethnal Green and Stepney were merged to Tower Hamlets. The new Borough became the main housing authority while the GLC dealt with London-wide strategic matters (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 37–54). In addition to Brownfield Estate, the Robin Hood Gardens and Lansbury extension the authority finished several other estates. In the 70s high-rise buildings came out of favour (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 37–54) through recurring vandalism but especially through one specific event. The system built tower block at Ronan Point partly collapsed after a gas explosion. A subsequent investigation blamed the execution of construction for the structural failure and not the system building. Nevertheless building regulations were changed and the confidence in highrise buildings was gone (Harnack, 2012, p. 35).
Greater London Council London County Council Tower Hamlets Poplar (former Parish) - 42 -
Today Poplar’s housing stock is a mixture of flats and maisonettes. These typologies are a compromise between the authority’s need to build flats and the inhabitant’s wishes for houses. In the 70s and 80s most of the housing stock owned by the GLC was transferred to Tower Hamlets. The Borough founded the housing association Poplar HARCA, where it transferred most of its stock to. While HARCA renovated its stock, Tower Hamlets chooses to replace older buildings. The district is currently experiencing a “social polarization as a consequence of deindustrialization, economic restructuring and neoliberal welfare policies” (Watt, 2006, p. 776). This is the result of divergent handling of the modernist housing stock, which is partially privatized, and also due to the location of the district, still relatively close to the inner city and north of Canary Wharf.
London Tower Hamlets Poplar
unemployment rate 18-64
unemployment rate 18-64
Unemployment Rate
Fig. 4.11 The unemployment rate is significantly higher than in London and Tower Hamlets. The decline of the docks and moving industries during reconstruction led to higher un-employment rates in this working class area. Fig. 4.12 The high amount of unqualified and the low section of high qualified inhabitats are legacy of the workingclass past of the area.
other other level iv qualification level iv qualification
Poplar
Tower London Hamlets High and no qualification
no qualification no qualification
- 43 -
Fig. 4.13 80% of Poplar’s inhabitatns rent. But only 20% are in social renting conditions. The high amount of private renters might be appeared through stock transfer form social housing to housing associations.
owner occupied private rent social rent rent free Poplar
Tower London Hamlets Tenure structure Fig. 4.14 About 40% of the inhabitants are muslems, this is more than the Tower Hamlets or London average. The amount of people without religion is lower in comparission.
other other Christian Christian Hindu Muslem Muslim Hindu no noreligion religion
Poplar Religion Fig. 4.15 Poplar is an area shaped by migration. It is home for a big bangladeshi Population, who make 40% of the inhabitatns. The White British Population represents only on fifth of the dwellers.
Tower London Hamlets
Not notstated stated
White British White Other Mixed Bangladeshi Black Poplar Ethnicity
Tower London Hamlets
All Other
Fig. 4. 11 - 4.15 When considering Poplar’s location, the tensed housing market in London and the social structure of the district changes towards a gentrification are to expect. This already happens with new buildings or with the renovation of buildings like Balfron Tower. Nevertheless, is it unforseeable how the district that provides predominantly unpopular modernist housings struture will evolve. - 44 -
Following CIAM IV the congress defined itself as a building movement with the idea of a functional city that was “available to any modernizing “Authority” willing to risk its application” (Mumford, 2002, p. 94). This LCC was definitely willing to apply these principles. In the glory days of Poplar public authorities owned 96% of the building stock. This is exactly what the Charter and the London Plans demanded. Through expropriations and the building of newly designed neighbourhoods post-war London proved that collective welfare weights more than private interests. Socialist modernism was tested out in the east. Nevertheless the implementation of new developments or neighbourhoods within the existing city can be interpreted as strategy of “decontextualization, defamiliarization, and dehistoricization” (Holston, 1999, p. 160) since two third of the building stock was still intact after the war. Nevertheless, the urban fabric was changed more than in comparable periods in history (Gold, 2014, p. 28). Today the position of all participating actors changed and the state has lost considerable strength. Through the dismantling of the GLC and later austerity policies governmental powers have been hollowed out. The housing stock that was once built by public authorities was mainly transferred to housing associations, which now allow to acquire leaseholds (Tull, 2015). In today’s context, the planning approaches of the Charter are no longer applicable. Nevertheless they were quite successfully executed for about three decades. Modernist ideology was effective in solving the post-war housing crisis. Big parts of the population were provided with housing by the welfare state. But the buildings of the modern movement lasted not even 40 years. What was once an ideal city became today’s avoided areas. Often the symptoms of decaying infrastructure, ethnic tensions, high unemployment, high crime rates occur in these areas. Additionally is there not much public appreciation, the areas are often regarded as ugly (Docter, 2000, p. 201).
- 45 -
Evaluating Poplar’s history
Poplar has a variety of modernist interpretations. Nevertheless many buildings are repetitive or of poor quality.The implementation of theory was limited through multiple constrains of real life. But exactly this step of materialising concepts leads to judgments on theory. This will be visible in the examination of three case studies in the following chapter.
Fig. 4.16 - opposite page New neighbours to the Robin Hood Gardens. Extensive developments happen around Poplar. - 46 -
- 47 -
5 Living Modernism This chapter shows how theory finally is translated into built forms. The performance of the buildings reciprocally a) shapes the manifestos it arose off and b) shapes further discourse. Both features can be examined through analyses of case studies. Guided by the 43 and 51 plans the East End, London’s biggest reconstruction area, became “a totally new world, dominated by the tall blocks of flats and by the lower terraces of the threeand four-storey maisonettes, standing in spacious gardens and landscaped squares” (Hall, 1966, p. 41). In this time the estates of Lansbury, Brownfield and Robin Hood Gardens were constructed. They represent various modernist interpretations. They were shaped by the same intellectual origins but developed in completely different ways. All of them were directly commissioned by the LCC to private architecture practices and frequently had MARS group figures involved in their development (Fig. 5.1).
- 48 -
CIAM
Balfron
Athens Charter
Fig. 5.1 Diagram of involved key actors. Shown are their personnel and ideological links between CIAM, MARS and finally LCC, which produced documents strongly shaped through modernist ideas. People involved in the debate further impacted Polar. in relation shaping
Ernรถ Goldfinger
Le Corbusier
Lansbury
MARS Robin Hood
MARS Plan
Alison & Peter Smithson
Arthur Ling
LCC
1943 1944 Plan 1951 Plan Plan Patrick Abercrombie - 49 -
Percy JohnsonMarshall
Lansbury Estate
- 50 -
- 51 -
- 52 -
- 53 -
Lansbury Estate Lansbury estate had two stages of development. I focus on the first part that was built between 1949 and 1951. It was a showpiece estate by the LCC, exhibited at the Festival of Britain. It comprised of 444 dwellings and additional services. The second, northern part was not finished until the late 1980s (Fig. 5.2). Throughout the extended construction period the whole estate had a hotchpotch appearance. (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 239–246). The different styles show a big variety of forms in modernist social housing (Fig 5.3). Narrative
The initial idea to have a built exhibition came from the MARSmember Frederick Gibberd (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 212–223). Arthur Ling was leading the development of the Lansbury Estate for the LCC. Under Ling, Percy Johnson-Marshall had direct responsibility for estate. They set up a multi-disciplinary planning team with the first ever-appointed sociologist in planning in the UK. A large number of preliminary surveys were accomplished to ensure the proposals meet the area’s needs. (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 212–223). The estate was planned as
Fig. 5.2 The inner line shows the first stage of Lansbury build for the festival. The outer line is the wider Lansbury build until the 1980s. Lansbury original Lanbury extension
- 54 -
a self-contained or as town in a town with all the necessary community buildings and social infrastructure (Ravetz, 2001, p. 138). This reflected exactly LCC’s approach of creating neighbourhood units (Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943, p. 4). The different plots were later given to independent architects. Neither the architecture exhibition, nor the assigned architects had a significant impact on design matters (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 212–223). The complete reconfiguration of the street pattern could not be realised, nor the maintenance of existing communities. 533 people were displaced and rehoused to the next available lettings. Nominations for housing in Lansbury were handed over the LCC waiting lists, which were prioritised by need not by place (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 212–223). When completed, the estate only had a density of 87 persons per acre instead of the required 136. Since there was still a serious lack of dwellings, the fast provision of housing became the main-objective. This resulted in the construction of higher buildings, after the festival (Fig 5.6). In Lansbury the density was increased to 154 inhabitants per acre through additional tower blocks (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 239–246). Opinions about the estate were contrary. J.M Richards, leader of the MARS Group from 1947 who shifted the group more towards aesthetic appeals (Atkinson and Banham, 2012, p. 185), and editor of The Architectural Review (Bullock, 2002, p. 280) was disappointed. In his opinion the estate was not progressive enough, it “appears as a pale imitation of the old” (Richards, 1951). Lewis Mumford, early critic of functionalism, on the opposite end praised the estate and its neighbourhood approach. In his opinion Lansbury was “perhaps the best thing that has yet been done for lower-income groups anywhere” (Mumford, 1964, p. 30). It appreciates “human interests and needs” and the “necessities of neighbourhood living”, rather than abstract principles (Mumford, 1964, p. 33). - 55 -
After Completion
Evaluation Fig. 5.3 The Lansbury estate already underlied diverse modifications. Several buildings were replaced. Lansbury Estate replaced buildings services
One gets the impression that a chance to learn from Lansbury was missed. After the festival the interdisciplinary team was broken up and no attempt were undertaken to monitor results. The later development was focused on high numbers of dwellings. Over time buildings were adapted and replaced (Fig 5.4 –5.9). In general services were extended, also on behalf of surrounding areas (Fig 5.7). It serves as a town-centre for aligning dwellings.
- 56 -
Fig. 5.4 The original market was replaced by a bigger one, additional cabins were built proving essential demand.
Fig. 5.5 All entraces to the buldings got securitised over the years, indicating security issues.
Fig. 5.6 The density was increased and buildings were partly replaced. This shows an adaptability but also leads to the assumtion of low building quality of the original buildings.
Fig. 5.7 Additional social infrastructures provide various social services for the whole district, but also lead to the assuption that these services are necessary. They are concentrated around the market, which functions as district centre. - 57 -
Fig. 5.8 Renovations were only partially undertaken, mainly on behalf of the tenants. This might have been caused by different ownereship models.
Fig. 5.9 The general appearance of the estate was upgraded with aesthetic measures.
Modernist practise and theory worked and was adaptable. The estate and layout could have been created within the claims of the Athens Charter. Nevertheless it is of a smaller scale and has a higher porosity than large-scale modernism. What used to be criticised by J.M. Richards is its strength. Ordinary and small-scale architecture seems to bring enough adaptability. Nevertheless, this goes along with the threat of being replaced bit by bit.
- 58 -
- 59 -
Brownfield Estate
- 60 -
- 61 -
- 62 -
- 63 -
Brownfield Estate The Brownfield estate consists of several four-storey maisonettes and is famous for the brutalist ensemble of Glenkerry House (1967-70) , Carradale House (1967-70) and Balfron Tower (1965-67) by Ernö Goldfinger. Together they form the Balfron Tower Preservation Area providing 303 flats (5.11). (Glenkerry Co-Operative Housing Association, 2010; Historic England, 2000, 1996) Narrative
Goldfinger was well positioned with the LCC, which enabled him direct assignments at the Brownfield Estate and at other projects. The later demise of the LCC and the reduced provision of flats ended his practice (Gold, 2007, pp. 59–60). Ernö was strongly influenced by Le Corbusier and his work of the Radiant City (Le Corbusier, 1967) and Towards a New Architecture (Le Corbusier and Etchells, 1946) that he called a “terrific revelation” (Design Museum, 2006). Building housing for the masses, satisfied his the idea of collective action, which we find in the Athens Charter. The layout of the flats is reminiscent of Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation. The apartments cover two floors and are entangled. This increases the hours of sun exposure per flat and allows better cross-ventilation. This concept is direct response to the dense and unhealthy housing conditions in pre-war slums. Its narrative can be found in Corbusier’s work (Le Corbusier, 1967, pp. 190–192) but also in the Athens Charter (Le Corbusier, 1973, pp. 55–64). The buildings fit well in the re-construction scheme of Poplar since they offer high population densities with high quality flats, while allowing verdant spaces. The buildings are complemented by a subsidiary group of buildings that include flats for the elderly and local services (5.12). The additions were carried in line with Goldfinger’s design (Macdonald and English Heritage, 2001, p. 174). Nevertheless they are located on the edge of the district, cut off by the Northern Approach of the Blackwell Tunnel, which is major spatial disadvantage because of noise and air pollution (Fig 5.16, 5.17). - 64 -
When Balfron Tower was finished Goldfinger and his wife moved in for two months (Fig. 5.10) (Daily Telegraph, 1968). His stay convinced him that his building was of high quality. Being critiqued for a lack of community, he argued that he created nine streets where people could meet. In his opinion community spirit indeed could evolve in high-rise buildings (East London Advertiser, 1968).
In the 1970s criticism arose about anonymity and physical isolation in the tower, vandalism and a lack of maintenance (Fig. 5.13)(East London Advertiser, 1978). After years of decay and perhaps with the approval of listing the building, inhabitants started to appreciate living there again (Ravetz, 2001, p. 107). Nevertheless, they have a dubious fame. Once seen as a potential answer to the housing crisis they had fallen from favour and were described as “shoddy, squalid and monotonous” (Design Museum, 2006), connected with the notion of anti- 65 -
After Completion
Fig. 5.10 Ernö and his wife when living in Balfron Tower. They were convinved of high-rise buildings.
Fig. 5.11 Goldfinger’s ensemble frames the Brownfield Estate, consisting mainly of maisonette buildings. The estates is enclosed by big roads and rails. This may create the feeling of isolation but also of community. Brownfield Estate BT Preservation area complementary flats services
social behaviour. Due to tight funding restrictions on housing authorities the buildings experienced a consistent lack of adequate maintenance and a repair regime. English Heritage saw high value in the “building group [that]constitute[s] a major achievement of full-blooded modern architecture in the post-war period. It demonstrates that a social housing programme can be achieved with dramatic and high-quality architecture� (Macdonald and English Heritage, 2001, p. 174).
- 66 -
Fig. 5.12 Complementary premises with additional offer of flats and social services were built over time. Thus the estate was constantly adapted when initial planning did not forsee the needs of inhabitants.
Fig. 5.13 Retrofitted security measures create the feeling of the estate being unsafe. This is the first response to vandalism.
Fig. 5.14 A well served appearance of recently renovated open spaces.
Fig. 5.15 Traffic calming within the estate is offering a comfortable neighbourhood feeling - even though the estate is cut off by big roady on its edges
- 67 -
HARCA is about to sell Balfron in order to cross-finance other stock and maintenance works (5.14, 5.15). The renovation Balfron is too expensive for HARCA since it is Grade II listed. Most of the Flats are already empty; remaining inhabitants have to leave their homes by mid September 2015 and will be re-housed in other buildings. Apparently there will be no way to return for the inhabitants (Mortimer, 2015). The sell off flats represents a push towards gentrification of iconic modernist buildings as described by Maren Harnack (Harnack, 2012). But it also represents the limited scope of housing associations due to tight funding restrictions. Evaluation
The iconic architecture was resilient enough to survive political changes and the lack of maintenance. Indicative of this is the Grade II listing and the possibility to renovate and sell these on the open market Nevertheless this practice does not represent in any way the intentions of social housing or the ideals od the Charter. Its iconic form is backfiring by creating a distinct image that is valorised on the market. Private interests and speculation win in this case, which is a definite loss of modernist ideals.
Fig. 5.16 & 5.17 opposite page The Blackwell Tunnel Approach cuts off the estate and causes noise and air pollution. - 68 -
- 69 -
Robin Hood Gardens
- 70 -
- 71 -
- 72 -
- 73 -
Robin Hood Gardens The Robin Hood Gardens are two slab blocks with 213 apartments built in 1972 by Alison and Peter Smithson. An landscaped area and playgrounds between the buildings solve the deficiency of open space. In order to avoid inconvenience from noise that is created by main-roads surrounding the estate, living rooms face the verdant space in the inside. Furthermore noise barriers were constructed around the buildings, which unfortunately create unusable spaces and isolate the estate even more (Fig. 5.20, 5.24) Narrative
Fig. 5.18 Grid presented by the Smithon’s at CIAM 9. It highlights the importance of street life and neighbourhoods ...
The LCC decided to replace the disreputed buildings that were in the area before with new housing (Powers et al., 2010). Due to a shortage in staff and 52,000 people on the waiting list for re-housing, an assignment was given out directly to the Smithson’s (Porter et al., 1994, pp. 37–54). They simply received an instruction letter in order to build, without any competition involved. (Gold, 2007, p. 59) The Smithson’s highlight, as the Charter does (Le Corbusier, 1973, pp. 47–48, 76), the importance of pedestrian accessibility. In the Robin Hood Gardens, they try to implement this
- 74 -
approach into built form. Influenced by anthropologist friends who studied the life of working-class neighbourhoods, they tried to integrate street-life into the building (Fig. 5.18, 5.19) (Mumford, 2002, pp. 233–235). They argued for “the reidentification of man with his house, his community, his city” (Mumford, 1992, p. 409). In their opinion it is the role of the architect to create communities, since they understand the social and psychological necessities of dwellers (Glendinning and Muthesius, 1994, p. 122). They proposed maisonette units as houses along streets in the air (Fig. 5.25), which is a variation of Le Corbusiers residential block (Mumford, 1992, p. 409). The streets were intermediate spaces, neither fully private nor public and allow inhabitants to meet (Powers et al., 2010). They see this concept in opposition to Corbusier, where corridors serve only the access to flats (Smithson and Team 10, 1974, pp. 76– 78). Robin Hood Gardens was rather car oriented. 70% of the flats were provided with garages on the outside of the building (Powers et al., 2010). Nevertheless the buildings “combined a Corbusian prototype with a new awareness of local culturalities” (Mumford, 1992, p. 409).
- 75 -
Fig. 5.19 ... and tries to translate an approach of community design to different scales.
After Completion Fig. 5.20 A spatial marginalisation is enhanced though the disadvantaguous location, surrounded by roads and commercial users. Robin Hood Gardens Blackwall Reach services commercial use
Over the years the estate gained the reputation of a decayed and unsafe place (Fig. 5.21). Only little maintenance works done (Fig 5.23) so several units suffered from leaks (bdonline. co.uk, 2009). Tower Hamlets Council owns the buildings and is about to tear them down. Many of the flats are already empty. The estate is embedded in a bigger master-plan the “Blackwell Reach Regeneration Project�. Robin Hood Gardens are going to be replaced with an estate of 242 flats, which is a higher density than today (Clark, 2015). Interestingly, the south plot is planned as freestanding building blocks surrounded by verdant areas.
- 76 -
Fig. 5.21 The dismissive aesthetic of securitisation reinforces the fear of crime and vandalism.
Fig. 5.22 The materiality of the play facilities discourages its use. Nobody likes to play soccer on rough asphalt. Thus the estate does not appear lively.
Fig. 5.23 A lack of maintenance is visible at the building and in the open space. This reproduces and intensifies the notion of a deprived estate.
Fig. 5.24 The estate is locked in betwee roads, creating spaces that are barely usable.
- 77 -
Due the threat of demolition a group of supporters gathered to campaign for the preservation of the building and pushed the debate into a larger public discourse. The C20 Society managed to get many signatories for the campaign, including famous architects like Richard Rogers and Zaha Hadid (Croft, 2008). A second attempt to attain listed status failed (Historic England, 2015). The local MP calls for the demolition as soon as possible (Dezeen, 2015). Evaluation
Even if the Smithson’s tried to oppose the functionalist approach of the Charter, Robin Hood Gardens reflects modernist ideas in scale and style. The reputation of the buildings is shaped through stories of inadequate maintenance or the character of the neighbourhood, which are partly projected on a failing architecture. The campaign gained lots of attention and a re-evaluation started. Nevertheless the space is attached to what Rob Shields calls a place myth. A set of images and associations stick to a place, which create an over-simplified picture of the place or the group of inhabitants (Shields, 1991, pp. 60–62). This became visible by talking to craftsmen on the estate who warned me about “crack-heads and criminals” (Anon., 2015). The debate reflects the shaping of modernism through a lack of maintenance or aesthetic value – not about its principles of offering high quality social housing for the collective. Since the building is in a bad shape, the aesthetics and its possible historic value does not count. Nevertheless would there have been more maintenance work or sanitation, the outcome of the debate might have been different. Still 80% of the inhabitants want the estate retained and refurbished (bdonline.co.uk, 2009). In this case modernist architecture and ideas seem to have failed. But here we clearly see that these two parameters are not the only ones. As a result of legal restraints, the Borough of Tower Hamlets has to go a different way in the provision of social housing than HARCA.
- 78 -
- 79 -
Discussing Case Studies
All estates have a completely different appearance although they are rooted in modernist ideas that are inevitably connected to the Athens Charter. These buildings could be interpreted as the physical manifestation of a discourse between involved actors of differing opinion. The examples show evidently that modernism does not have a singular form. In fact there “was never a single and unified philosophy but rather a diverse collection set of philosophies, ideologies, visual imageries and practices that become ever-more disparate with closer scrutiny” (Gold, 2014, p. 25). Once powerful public authorities built social housing for virtually the entire area. Today private interest and speculation provide the opposite ideal. By now we have “a society in which the inalienable rights to private property and profit rate trump any other conception of inalienable rights” (Harvey, 2003, p. 940). Through the neo-liberal logic social housing gets privatised and resold on the market. This results in a mono-culture of residents. The successive over-representation of residents with lower financial opportunities reduces the potential of revitalisation. “[T]he non-profit housing associations can only re-valuate their properties in these districts if an economic basis is present, while districts that have expanded successfully are being commercially exploited by private developers” (Docter, 2000, p. 202). Poplar is in a favourable area between inner city and later expanded districts, close to Canary Wharf. This is success-factor for developers. The Charter’s approach of modernist socialism did not survive. Collective action, which enables individual freedom, is not only dependent on architecture. It is about the political system, maintenance of the building, additional infrastructures and services or job offers etc. Especially in Robin Hood Gardens and Balfron Tower “council housing has become a residual ‘tenure of last resort’ catering for the economically deprived and socially marginalized” (Watt, 2006, p. 779). Both cases offer no secure future for the inhabitants. Tenants from BT are going to be re-housed, but there is not security of returning to the tower. In RHG the demolition is almost certain, but inhabitants do not know if they will be able - 80 -
to come back to the same neighbourhood. Many Residents already left the buildings, which are half empty behind, reproducing the socially marginalised situation. With an increasingly complex structure of ownership in single buildings (lease holder, free holder, Tower Hamlets, HARCA, housing associations or other registered social landlords) the management of buildings and open spaces have become more complicated. Different strategies are utilised to keep the buildings in shape. HARCA renovated major parts of its stock but failed in keeping Balfron Tower because of high expenses. Whereas Tower Hamlets, possibly due to budget-cuts, did not invest in the Robin Hood Gardens. In order to provide social housing, registered social landlords will build some buildings. These flats are cross-financed with an even higher density and flats on the private market. Housing thus becomes a tricky number game or a product whereas ideals from modernist times do not count anymore. The support obligations of public authorities are carved out. Fascinating in this context is how often debates about social housing or the legacy of modernism are held on aesthetic value or the listing of heritage (Hopkirk, 2015). This could be a last effort to save an estate (RHG), but also could make them unaffordable (BT). Listing the building would surely lead to privatisation of flats (Hopkirk, 2015). Stigma is than superseded by appreciation. The three examples show that physical appearance of an estate is almost arbitrary. More important are external factors. They were created beyond the ideology of speculation as demanded in the Charter, but societal ideals failed. The Charter might have influenced the design and ideals of these buildings. But once they were build ideas behind them were completely overthrown by reality. The Athens Charter argued against “the narrow-minded cult of the past� (Le Corbusier, 1973, p. 87). According to this statement its authors would have voted for the demolition of Robin Hood Gardens.
- 81 -
6 Closing the Circle As this paper has shown, the Charter stands as a pars pro toto for CIAM urbanism and a discourse on modernism. Nevertheless, it was rather one person’s autocratic publication, which used the CIAM as mouthpiece. Since the document could not keep up with evolving debates, CIAM dissolved. Nevertheless, the urbanism proposed by the Charter and CIAM provided a significant housing stock in a short period of time. This is not the result of the one document, but of larger debates and specific circumstances, like the situation of post-war welfare state that made the implementation of these ideas possible on a large scale. This reciprocally means that the Charter is not applicable to today’s situation anymore. Its ideas need to be updated to consider present problems. The expiration date is exceeded, the manifesto asks for a response. However, the document created a solid starting point for debates, which is probably its greatest value. The Charter enhanced debates, which affected many people who left their traces in plans and buildings. Undoubtedly the Charter was not the only influence. More impactful were implemented interpretations of individuals who had a mandate to do so. These interpretations are visible in Poplar through the planning approach of the London Plans as well as through buildings. Nevertheless without the Charter and the debates it triggered, the district would look different today. The evaluation of the Charter on basis of a manifested outcome is only a snapshot of todays perception on todays legacy and therefore always incomplete. Furthermore one cannot see the Charter in isolation; it is always in a theoretical, temporal and personnel context. If people were impactful with their interpretations of the modernist discourse, the judgements on them shapes the manifesto in retrospect. Therefore the Charter grew to hold robust symbolic value, even when the document was neither original nor precise. The impreciseness actually enabled manifold projections on the document.
- 82 -
In this context it is revealing how modernist practice and theory is judged as we saw in the case studies. In a positive sense it happens in the appreciation of architectural value. In a negative sense the ideology gets blamed for a lack of maintenance, missing social infrastructures, and general political conditions. The failing of estates does not necessarily prove a failing of modernism. Today the life spans of many of modernist buildings are exceeded but this happens to all typologies. When considering the reciprocal influence of theory and practice, this work showed that the application of theory always limited through multiple constraints. Other way around discourse always reacts on practice and on the manifested outcome of former debates. constrains
Theory
Practice
reflects
- 83 -
Fig. 6.1 Theory that can only be implemented under multiple constraints into practise. Than again practice always feeds into theory.
Bibliography •
Abercrombie, P., 1945. Greater London plan 1944. H.M.S.O., London.
•
Anon., 2015. in person. 5 August
•
Appleyard, D., Jacobs, A.B., 1982. Toward an urban design manifesto. Institute of Urban & Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley.
•
Atkinson, H., Banham, M., 2012. The Festival of Britain a land and its people. I.B. Tauris & Co., London; New York; New York.
•
bdonline.co.uk, 2009. Council “running down” Robin Hood Gardens. Building Design. URL http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/ council-“running-down”-robin-hood-gardens/3149459.article (accessed 8.8.15).
•
Buckley, C., 2013. After the Manifesto, in: Buckley, C. (Ed.), After the Manifesto. Graduate School of Architecture, New York, pp. 6–23.
•
Bullock, N., 2002. Building the post-war world: modern architecture and reconstruction in Britain. Routledge, London; New York.
•
Carter, E.J., Goldfinger, E., 1945. The County of London Plan. Penguin Books, West Drayton, Middlesex.
•
Cazanave, J., 2015. Le siècle de Le Corbusier. Documentary. URL http://www.arte.tv/guide/de/052750-000/das-jahrhundert-des-lecorbusier
•
Clark, T., 2015. Bid to list Robin Hood Gardens fails. Building. URL http://www.building.co.uk/news/bid-to-list-robin-hood-gardensfails/5076904.article (accessed 8.5.15).
•
Colomina, B., 2013. Manifesto Architecture, in: Buckley, C. (Ed.), After the Manifesto. Graduate School of Architecture, New York, pp. 40–61.
•
Colomina, B., Hirsch, N., Miessen, M., 2014. Manifesto architecture: the ghost of Mies. Sternberg Press, Berlin.
•
Corbusier, L., 1967. The Radiant City: Elements of a Doctrine of Urbanism to be Used as the Basis of Our Machine-age Civilization. Orion Press, New York.
•
Crinson, M., Lubbock, J., Prince of Wales’s Institute of Architecture, 1994. Architecture. Art or Profession?: three hundred years of architectural education in Britain. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK.
•
Croft, C., 2008. Robin Hood Gardens — The Twentieth Century Society. URL http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/robin-hoodgardens/ (accessed 8.5.15).
•
Daily Telegraph, 1968. High living sampled by architect. Daily Telegraph, Tower Hamlets Archive, London.
•
Davoudi, S., Madanipour, A., 2014. Two Charters of Athens and Two Visions of Utopia: Functional and Connected. Built Environment 38, 459–468. - 84 -
•
Design Museum, 2006. Ernö Goldfinger / Designing Modern Britain. URL http://design.designmuseum.org/design/ernogoldfinger (accessed 7.15.15).
•
Dezeen, 2015. Politician calls for immediate demolition of Robin Hood Gardens after listing bid fails. Dezeen. URL http://www. dezeen.com/2015/08/05/politician-calls-immediate-demolitionrobin-hood-gardens-listing-bid-fails-historic-england-brutalism/ (accessed 8.5.15).
•
Docter, R., 2000. Post-war town planning in its mid-life crisis. Dilemmas in redevelopment from a policy point of view., in: Deckker, T. (Ed.), The Modern City Revisited. Routledge, London, pp. 197–213.
•
East London Advertiser, 1978. Sue Roalman. East London Advertiser, Tower Hamlets Archive, London.
•
East London Advertiser, 1968. East End’s tallest block of flats make “ideal homes.” East London Advertiser, Tower Hamlets Archive, London.
•
Eisinger, A., 2008. Stop Making Sense, in: Geiser, R. (Ed.), Explorations in Architecture. Teaching. Design. Research. Birkhäuser, Basel; Boston; Berlin, pp. 14–25.
•
EU, 2007. Leipzig Charter on Sustainable European Cities.
•
Forshaw, J.H., Abercrombie, P., 1943. County of London Plan 1943, First Edition edition. ed. Macmillan, London.
•
Fry, M., 1944. Fine building,. Faber and Faber Ltd., London.
•
Gaines, J., Jäger, S., 2009. Albert Speer & Partner: a manifesto for sustainable cities : think local, act global. Prestel, Munich; New York.
•
GLA, 2011. The London plan: spatial development strategy for Greater London, July 2011. Greater London Authority, London.
•
Glendinning, M., Muthesius, S., 1994. Tower block: modern public housing in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Published for the Paul Mellon Centre for Studies in British Art by Yale University Press, New Haven.
•
Glenkerry Co-Operative Housing Association, 2010. Glenkerry House. URL http://www.glenkerry.org.uk/ (accessed 8.15.15).
•
Gold, J.R., 2015. CIAM Urbanism and the MARS Group. in person. 22 July
•
Gold, J.R., 2014. Modernism, Narratives of Renewal and the Historiography of Urban Regeneration, in: Leary, M.E., McCarthy, J. (Eds.), Companion to Urban Regeneration. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, pp. 23–32.
•
Gold, J.R., 2013. “A Very Serious Responsibility”? The MARS Group, Internationality and Relations with CIAM, 1933-39. Architectural History 56, 249–276.
•
Gold, J.R., 2007. The Practice of Modernism Modern Architects and Urban Transformation, 1954-1972. Taylor & Francis, Hoboken. - 85 -
•
Gold, J.R., 2000. Towards the Functional City? MARS, CIAM and the London Plans, 1933-1942, in: Deckker, T. (Ed.), The Modern City Revisited. Routledge, London, pp. 81–99.
•
Gold, J.R., 1999. In Search of Modernity: the urban projects of the Modern Movement, 1929-1939, in: Peto, J., Loveday, D., Powers, A. (Eds.), Modern Britain: 1929-1939. Design Museum, London, pp. 40–51.
•
Gold, J.R., 1998. Creating the Charter of Athens: CIAM and the functional city, 1933-43. The Town Planning Review 69, 225.
•
Gold, J.R., 1997. The experience of modernism: modern architects and the future city, 1928-53. E & FN Spon, London; New York.
•
Gold, J.R., 1995. The MARS plans for London, 1933-1942: plurality and experimentation in the city plans of the early British Modern Movement. Town Planning Review 66, 243–267.
•
Gold, J.R., 1993. “Commoditie, firmenes and delight”: Modernism, the mars group’s “new architecture” exhibition (1938) and imagery of the urban future. Planning Perspectives 8, 357–376.
•
Haas, P.M., 1992. Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization 46, 1–35. doi:10.1017/S0020818300001442
•
Hall, P., 1966. The world cities. McGraw-Hill, New York.
•
Harnack, M., 2015. Gentrifying Modernism. in person, 30 July
•
Harnack, M., 2012. Rückkehr der Wohnmaschinen: sozialer Wohnungsbau und Gentrifizierung in London. Transcript, Bielefeld.
•
Harvey, D., 2003. The right to the city. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27, 939–941.
•
Harvey, D., 1990. The condition of postmodernity : an enquiry into the origins of cultural change. Blackwell Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
•
Healey, P., 2010. Introduction: the transnational flow of knowledge and expertise in the planning field, in: Upton, R., Healey, P. (Eds.), Crossing Borders: International Exchange and Planning Practices. Routledge, London, pp. 1–26.
•
Historic England, 2015. Robin Hood Gardens Estate. URL http:// historicengland.org.uk/news-and-features/news/robin-hoodgardens (accessed 8.6.15).
•
Historic England, 2000. 1246931 - The National Heritage List for England | Carradale House. URL http://list.historicengland.org.uk/ resultsingle.aspx?uid=1246931&searchtype=mapsearch (accessed 8.6.15).
•
Historic England, 1996. 1334931 - The National Heritage List for England | Balfron Tower. URL http://list.historicengland.org.uk/ resultsingle.aspx?uid=1334931&searchtype=mapsearch (accessed 8.6.15).
•
Hollow, M., 2012. “Utopian urges: visions for reconstruction in Britain, 1940–1950.” Planning Perspectives 27, 569–585. - 86 -
•
Holston, J., 1999. Cities and citizenship. Duke University Press, Durham.
•
Hopkirk, E., 2015. Put Robin Hood Gardens out to market, says Cabe. Building Design. URL http://www.bdonline.co.uk/news/ put-robin-hood-gardens-out-to-market-says-cabe/5076181.article (accessed 8.8.15).
•
Howard, E., 1902. Garden cities of to-morrow (being the second edition of “To-morrow: a peaceful path to real reform”). S. Sonnenschein & Co., London.
•
Jencks, C., 2011. The story of post-modernism: five decades of the ironic, iconic and critical in architecture. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex.
•
Jencks, C., Kropf, K., 1997. Theories and manifestoes of contemporary architecture. Academy Editions, Chichester, West Sussex.
•
Keene, R., 1945. The Proud City. A Plan for London. Documentary. URL http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/davehillblog/2014/ mar/22/london-county-plan-abercrombie-forshaw
•
Le Corbusier, 1987. The city of to-morrow and its planning. Dover, New York.
•
Le Corbusier, 1973. The Athens charter. Grossman Publishers, New York.
•
Le Corbusier, 1967. The radiant city; elements of a doctrine of urbanism to be used as the basis of our machine-age civilization. Orion Press, New York.
•
Le Corbusier, 1957. La charte d’Athènes. Éditions de Minuit, Paris.
•
Le Corbusier, 1933. La ville radieuse: éléments d’une doctrine d’urbanisme pour l’équipment de la civilisation machiniste. Editions de l’Architecture d’Aujourd’hui, Boulogne.
•
Le Corbusier, Etchells, F., 1946. Towards a new architecture. Architectural Press, London.
•
Lees, N., Serpentine Gallery (Eds.), 2009. Serpentine Gallery Manifesto Marathon. König, London; New York.
•
Le Groupe CIAM-France, Giraudoux, J., Le Corbusier (Eds.), 1943. La Charte d’Athènes. Plon, Paris.
•
London County Council, 1951a. Administrative County of London. Development plan 1951; statement. London County Council, London.
•
London County Council, 1951b. Administrative County of London. Development plan 1951; analysis. London County Council, London.
•
London County Council, 1951c. Administrative County of London. Development plan 1951; programme maps. 1 : 2,500. London County Council, London.
- 87 -
•
Macdonald, S., English Heritage, 2001. Preserving post-war heritage: the care and conservation of mid-twentieth century architecture. Donhead Pub., Shaftesbury, England.
•
Marmaras, E., Sutcliffe, A., 1994. Planning for post‐war London: The three independent plans, 1942–3. Planning Perspectives 9, 431–453.
•
Marx, K., Engels, F., 1948. URL https://www.marxists.org/archive/ marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf (accessed 24.06.15)
•
Mortimer, B., 2015. How Balfron Tower tenants lost their homes. East End Review. URL http://www.eastendreview. co.uk/2015/03/24/balfron-tower-poplar-harca/ (accessed 2.8.15).
•
Mumford, E., 1992. CIAM urbanism after the Athens charter. Planning Perspectives 7, 391–417.
•
Mumford, E.P., 2009. Defining urban design: CIAM architects and the formation of a discipline, 1937-69. Yale University Press, New Haven.
•
Mumford, E.P., 2002. The CIAM Discourse on Urbanism, 19281960. MIT Press.
•
Mumford, L., 1964. East End Urbanity, in: The Highway and the City. Secker & Warburg, London, pp. 26–34.
•
Porter, S., Hobhouse, H., Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England), 1994. Survey of London. Vols. 43-44, Vols. 43-44,. Athlone Press, London.
•
Powers, A., Lousada, S., Marinescu, I., 2010. Robin Hood Gardens re-visions. Twentieth Century Society, London.
•
Puchner, M., 2009. Manifesto = Theatre, in: Lees, N., Serpentine Gallery (Eds.), Serpentine Gallery Manifesto Marathon. König ; Distribution, outside Europe D.A.P. / Distributed Art Pub., London; New York, pp. 17–32.
•
Puchner, M., 2006. Poetry of the revolution Marx, manifestos, and the avant-gardes. Princeton University Press, Princeton.
•
Ravetz, A., 2001. Council housing and culture. Routledge, London; New York.
•
Richards, J.M., 1951. Lansbury. Architectural Review December.
•
Ryan, Z., 2014. The Future is..., in: Carruthers, M., Ryan, Z. (Eds.), The Future Is Not What It Used To Be The. 2nd Istanbul Design Biennial. Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern, pp. 12–47.
•
Ryan, Z., Carruthers, M., 2014. The Future Is Not What It Used To Be The 2nd Istanbul Design Biennial. Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern.
•
Sert, J.L., 1942. Can Our Cities Survive?: An ABC of Urban Problems, Their Analysis, Their Solutions. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
- 88 -
•
Sert, J.Ll., 1973. Foreword, in: Le Corbusier, International Congresses for Modern Architecture (Eds.), The Athens Charter. Grossman Publishers, New York, pp. vii–x.
•
Shields, R., 1991. Places on the margin: alternative geographies of modernity. Routledge, London; New York.
•
Silva, C.N., 2003. Urban Utopias In The Twentieth Century. Journal of Urban History 29, 327–332.
•
Smithson, A.M., Team 10, 1974. Team 10 primer. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
•
Talen, E., Congress for the New Urbanism, 2013. Charter of the new urbanism. McGraw-Hill Education, New York, NY.
•
Tull, D., 2015. HARCA and Lansbury Estate.
•
UNCED (Ed.), 1992. Agenda 21. UNCED, Conches, Switzerland.
•
van Es, E., Chapel, E. (Eds.), 2014. Atlas of the functional city: CIAM 4 and comparative urban analysis.
•
Watt, P., 2006. Respectability, Roughness and “Race”: Neighbourhood Place Images and the Making of Working-Class Social Distinctions in London. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30, 776–797.
- 89 -
Fig. x.1 Banksy comment on Poplar: “Sorry! the lifestyle you ordered is out of stock” Whoever painted it over left “Sorry! order” Both sayings ironically represent Poplar’s development and the submission to neo-liberal logics that shapes the district.
Bibliography Fig. 1.1 - own graphic Fig. 2.1 - van Es and Chapel, 2014 Fig. 2.2 - Sert, 1942 Fig. 2.3 - own table deducted from Le Corbusier 1973 Fig. 2.4 - Le Corbusier and Etchells, 1946 Fig. 2.5 - Smithson and Team 10, 1974. URL http://www.team10online.org/ Fig. 2.6 - own graphic Fig. 3.1 & 3.2 - Fry, 1944 Fig. 3.3 & 3.4 - Fry, 1944 Fig. 3.5 - Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943 Fig. 3.6 - Carter and Goldfinger, 1945 Fig. 3.7 & 3.8 - Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943 Fig. 3.9 & 3.10 - Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943 Fig. 3.11 & 3.12 - Abercrombie, 1945 Fig. 3.13 - London County Council 1951c Fig. 4.1 - The GeoInformation Group via Google Earth Fig. 4.2 - Forshaw and Abercrombie, 1943; Abercrombie, 1945 Fig. 4.3 - Carter and Goldfinger, 1945 Fig. 4.4 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 4.5 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 4.6 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 4.7 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 4.8 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 4.9 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 4.10 - own graphic based on Ordnance Survey data Fig. 4.11 - own graph based on Census 2011 data Fig. 4.12 - own graph based on Census 2011 data Fig. 4.13 - own graph based on Census 2011 data Fig. 4.14 - own graph based on Census 2011 data Fig. 4.15 - own graph based on Census 2011 data Fig. 4.16 - own photo Fig. 5.1 - own graphic, own photos, portraits from http://www.npg.si.edu/ Fig. 5.2 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 5.3 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 5.4 - own photo Fig. 5.5 - own photo Fig. 5.6 - own photo Fig. 5.7 - own photo Fig. 5.8 - own photo Fig. 5.9 - own photo Fig. 5.10 - East End Advertiser 1968, Tower Hamlets Archive Fig. 5.11 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 5.12 - own photo Fig. 5.13 - own photo Fig. 5.14 - own photo Fig. 5.15 - own photo Fig. 5.16 & 5.17 - own photo Fig. 5.18 - own photo from Tate Britain Fig. 5.19 - own photo from Tate Britain Fig. 5.20 - own graphic based on EDINA Digimap Ordnance Survey Service Fig. 5.21 - own photo Fig. 5.22 - own photo Fig. 5.23 - own photo Fig. 5.24 - own photo Fig. 6.1 - own graphic Fig. x.1 - own photo
- 90 -
5 8 11 13 16 18 21 24 26 29 29 31 31 32 34 36 37 37 39 39 40 40 41 41 42 43 43 44 44 44 46 49 54 56 57 57 57 57 58 58 65 66 67 67 67 67 68 74 75 76 77 77 77 77 83 89
- 91 -