Conservation of Buildings from the Recent Past

An Investigation into England’s Legacy of Post-War Social Housing and its

Heritage Value

Julie Moss
PhD Submission
Leicester University, Dept. History of Art and Film
January 2016
Julie Moss PhD Submission: Abstract

Conservation of Buildings from the Recent Past: An Investigation into England’s Legacy of
Post-War Social Housing and its Heritage Value

After World War II (WWII) Britain was responsible for much of the early pioneering, multi-
storey architecture and British architects designed some of the best social housing in the
world. This formed part of an extraordinary drive for modernisation and it was an important
instrument in comprehensive architectural reform. Although multi-storey housing accounted
for only 20% of all approvals between 1963-7, it has come to epitomise the post-War era and
'modem living’. 1 These buildings are now a paradox. Rather than being at the forefront of a
new ideology they now form part of our built legacy. Their consideration as heritage appears
highly contentious and has resulted in differing public, professional and political opinion.
Despite both the Government and English Heritage recognising that they are facing acute
redevelopment pressures, their heritage designation is vastly under-represented and without
heritage classification they have no protection against the perceived threats.

This thesis proposes that there are underlying factors hindering the heritage protection of
Post-WWII social housing and that for the few that have attained heritage classification there
is an inconsistent approach to their protection basis. It aims to identify, therefore, the
problems associated with its conservation so that action can be recommended to help improve
its protection. This will be achieved by examining a series of case studies that will show how
Modern post-WWII social housing is being preserved and brought into the conservation arena;
it will highlight the perceived threats that are hindering its conservation; it will assess whether
it presents different conservation requirements and demands an alternative methodology
than that for buildings from earlier periods; it will evaluate how Modernism’s origins and
objectives have a bearing on the conservation aims; and it will analyse how these buildings are
being conserved to preserve their architectural and historical significance and also ensure they
remain economically and socially viable to meet society’s current needs.

1
Glendinning M. & Muthesius S. (1994) Tower Block, p.2
Acknowledgements

First I would like to thank the Arts and Humanities Research Council for their funding which
has enabled me to undertake this research. I am also indebted to Leicester University for
allowing me to be a graduate member of the University with access to the wide range of
research services and activities that the University has to offer. I would also like to thank my
PhD Supervisor, Simon Richards, for his steer in the right direction and his valuable and honest
input and feedback on my work. As well as the excellent library facilities on the Leicester
University campus, valuable information was also obtained from Sheffield University Library at
Western Bank, Sheffield City Library and Archives and Tower Hamlets Local History Library and
Archives. I would like to thank, therefore, the staff at all these locations for their help in
guiding me to their wealth of information, especially the archived architectural journals and
other information of the period, to help with my work.

In conducting my detailed research I have spoken to a number of individuals who have been
very generous with their time including: Clive Cornwell, Senior Planning Officer, City of London
Corporation for his tour and information regarding Golden Lane Estate; Tom Laurence, Urban
Splash Development Manager for his tour and information regarding Park Hill; Gwyneth Mark,
Sheffield resident and wife of Park Hill architect, Tony Mark, for her insight into the history of
Park Hill and the work of her husband; Morn Capper, for information on what is was like to be
a Park hill Resident in its darker days; Camden London Borough Council Planning Officers
Catherine Bond and Malcom Dickson for their wealth of information regarding Alexandra Road
Estate and its conservation; Eleanor Fawcett, Balfron Tower flat owner, Balfon and Carradale
Residents Committee member and Head of London Legacy Development Corporation and Paul
Augarde, Poplar HARCA, Head of design and Innovation, for their information regarding
Balfron Tower and the Brownfield Estate’s renovation; and Henrietta Billings, C20 Society
Senior Conservation Advisor for her talk on Trellick Tower’s renovation. I would also like to
thank the residents of the housing estates that I studied for their time and input and also for
the very kind opportunity to look around their homes, particularly: Golden Lane Estate
residents Levent Kerimol and Daniel Burn; The Brunswick, Foundling Court resident Selina
Bolton; Alexandra Road Estate resident and estate listing campaigner Elizabeth Knowles, and
Trellick Tower flat owner Stephen Goodchild. And finally, I would like to thank my husband,
Steve Moss, for his help, patience and understanding whilst I have been undertaking this
project.
List of Contents

Chapter 1 Introduction: A Change in Tense from Present to Past

Chapter 2 Preservation of a Model Estate: Golden Lane Estate, an Urban Village
Chapter 3 Substance Verses Essence: Park Hill, Sheffield
Chapter 4 Design Verses Built Reality: The Brunswick Centre, Bloomsbury
Chapter 5 Conserving the Fabric of Modern Buildings: Alexandra Road Estate, St John’s Wood
Chapter 6 Windows, Facades and Space: The Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates and Towers
Chapter 7 Preservation without Designation: Robin Hood Gardens and Wynford House
Chapter 8 Conclusions
Chapter 9 Recommendations
Annex: Key Listed Modern Post-War Social Housing
Annex: Summary of Key Themes
Annex: Comparison of Case Study Statistics (CD)
Bibliography
Glossary
List of Figures

Chapter 1 Introduction: A Change of the Tenses from Present to Past

Figure 1: Park Hill, 2014
Figure 2: Lawn Road Flats and Highpoint One
Figure 3: Kensal House, c.1937
Figure 4: The Ronan Point Disaster
Figure 5: Euston Arch and Coal Exchange
Figure 6: EH Guidance on Evidential Value
Figure 7: EH Guidance on Historical Value
Figure 8: EH Guidance on Aesthetic Value
Figure 9: EH Guidance on Communal Value
Figure 10: Keeling House, c.1959
Figure 11: Spa Green Aerial View, c.1959; Churchill Gardens, Accumulator Tower and
Battersea Power Station in Background, c.1950
Figure 11: Alton East Estate, Aerial View, c.1950
Figure 12: (clockwise from top left) Morant Place, Stoneleigh Terrace, The Dorset Estate,
staircases from Dorset and Cranbrook Estates, Sivill House
Figure 13: The Gleadless Valley Estate, c.1968
Figure 14: Contemporary Images of the Gleadless Valley Estate

Chapter 2 Preservation of a Model Estate: Golden Lane Estate, an Urban Village

Figure 15: Golden Lane Estate Model
Figure 16: City of London Aerial View, c.1945
Figure 17: Pre-War Map Showing Location of Proposed Golden Lane Redevelopment
Figure 18: Plan Showing Pre-War Golden Lane Street Layout and Extent of Competition Brief
Figure 19: Powell’s Competition Entry
Figure 20: Pieter de Hooch, Musical Party in a Courtyard; The Courtyard of a House in Delft
Figure 21: Le Corbusier’s Maisons Jaoul
Figure 22: Golden Lane Estate Plan
Figure 23: Golden Lane Estate Surrounded by War Detritus
Figure 24: The Main Piazza and Community Centre
Figure 25: Bowater, Great Arthur and Stanley Cohen Houses
Figure 26: The Recreational Court, Crescent and Hatfield Houses
Figure 27: The Inner Court
Figure 28: Six-Storey Maisonette Block Perspective Section
Figure 29: Typical Maisonette Layout
Figure 30: Clockwise (top left): Basterfield, Bayer, Cuthbert Harrowing and Bowater Houses
Figure 31: Stanley Cohen House
Figure 32: Great Arthur House
Figure 33: Great Arthur House’s Roof Garden
Figure 34: Great Arthur House Flat Layout
Figure 35: Cullum Welch and Hatfield Houses
Figure 36: Crescent House Goswell Road Façade
Figure 37: Crescent House’s Open Corridor
Figure 38: Crescent House and the Public Court
Figure 39: Golden Lane Interiors
Figure 40: CPB’s Detailing, Access from the Sunken Courts
Figure 41: Golden Lane Estate Aerial View
Figure 42: Renovated Crescent House Flat
Figure 43: The Original Screen and Replacement
Figure 44: Residents’ Images of ‘Inappropriate Repairs’
Figure 45: Lawn Area Appropriated for Biodiversity
Figure 46: The New Ball Court

Chapter 3 Substance Verses Essence: Park Hill, Sheffield

Figure 47: Park Hill, c.1963

Figure 48: Park District’s Back to Back Courts Figure 53: Park Hill, c. 1963
Figure 49: Park District Plan, Prior to Redevelopment
Figure 50: Park District’s Streets
Figure 51: Park Hill’s Construction
Figure 52: Demolition of Bungay Lane
Figure 53: Plan of the Whole Development
Figure 54: Sheffield City Plan Showing Park Hill’s Location
Figure 55: Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse Model
Figure 56: Park Hill Plan
Figure 57: Park Hill, c.1960
Figure 58: Plan showing Decks in Relation to Dwellings
Figure 59: Building Density Plans, Former 34%, New Development 17%
Figure 60: Park Hill, c.1963
Figure 61: Park Hill, c.1963
Figure 62: Park Hill Standard Dwelling Types
Figure 63: Life on the Decks and Flat Living Room, c.1960
Figure 64: Park Hill Housing Project, c. 1962
Figure 65: Park Hill, 2002
Figure 66: Park Hill Poem
Figure 67: Urban Splash Visualisation
Figure 68: The Stripped Back ‘H’ Frame
Figure 69: Concrete ‘Patch’ Repair and Internal Dwelling Stair ‘H’ Frame
Figure 70: Park Hill’s New Streets
Figure 71: Phase One Aug. 2011
Figure 72: Park Hill’s City Elevation, New Helix Stair, Lifts and Entrance, Feb. 2012
Figure 73: The New Amphitheatre
Figure 74: Phase One Show Flat Interiors
Figure 75: Comparison of Original and Revised Dwelling Layout
Figure 76: Park Hill’s Kitchen relegated to Sheffield’s Western Park Museum
Figure 77: The Old and the New, 2014
Figure 78: Park Hill Poem

Chapter 4 Design Verses Built Reality: The Brunswick Centre, Bloomsbury

Figure 79: The Brunswick, c.2010
Figure 80: 1870’s Bloomsbury Area Map
Figure 81: Former Georgian Terrace on The Brunswick Centre Site
Figure 82: Map Showing the Development Proposal
Figure 83: Hodgkinson’s 1963 Plans: ‘Outline Plan’ (top) and ‘Speculative Plan’
Figure 84: Harvey Court
Figure 85: Site Map Showing the Development
Figure 86: Early Images of The Brunswick Centre
Figure 87: Site Plan Showing Extent of Hodgkinson’s Proposal
Figure 88: The Brunswick Centre’s Stepped Section and Internal Court
Figure 89: Standard Flat Plans and Sections for One, Two and Three Room Dwellings
Figure 90: Flat Interiors, Winter Garden and Balcony
Figure 91: The New Brunswick
Figure 92: The New Shopping Street
Figure 93: The Brunswick Following Refurbishment
Figure 94: Precinct Cross Section showing Revised Layout
Figure 95: Repair of The Brunswick’s Balconies and Winter Gardens
Figure 96: Aerial View of The New Brunswick
Figure 97: The Brunswick’s Christmas Festivities
Figure 98: The Shopping Street and Waitrose Store under Construction
Figure 99: The Existing and Proposed Renoir Cinema Entrance
Figure 100: Massing Study of the ‘Eyecatcher’ Proposal
Figure 101: Residents’ Unpainted Entrance Galleries

Chapter 5 Conserving the Fabric of Modern Buildings: Alexandra Road Estate, St John’s Wood

Figure 102: Alexandra Road Estate and Rowley Way

Figure 103: 1870’s Area Map
Figure 104: 1960’s Area Map showing Location of Proposed Redevelopment
Figure 105: Alexandra Road’s Buildings Predevelopment
Figure 106: 1980’s Map showing the Redevelopment
Figure 107: The Alexandra Road Estate Site Plan
Figure 108: Alexandra Road Estate’s Park
Figure 109: The Park’s Linked Garden Spaces
Figure 110: Rowley Way and Blocks A and B
Figure 111: Flats’ Access and Terraces on Rowley Way
Figure 112: The Public Plaza, Community Hall Roof and Boiler House Stacks
Figure 113: Brown in his Dunboyne Estate, 2010
Figure 114: Wadsworth, Abstract Composition; Dazzle-ships in Drydock at Liverpool
Figure 115: Block A’s Cantilevering North Face
Figure 116: North-South Section through the Estate
Figure 117: Typical Dwelling Layout Types in Block A
Figure 118: Images of the Dwellings after Construction
Figure 119: Wall Section showing Dark Patch Repairs
Figure 120: The LBMG’s Concrete Conservation Entry
Figure 121: The LBMG’s External Render Conservation Entry
Figure 122: Rowley Way’s Residents

Chapter 6 Windows, Facades and Space: The Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates and
Towers

Figure 123: Goldfinger Talks to Children on the Cheltenham Estate

Figure 124: 1890’s Area Map
Figure 125: 1960’s Area Plan showing Location of Redevelopment
Figure 126: 1970’s Area Plan showing Stages I and II
Figure 127: Early View of Phases I and II
Figure 128: Site Plan Phase I and II
Figure 129: Goldfinger’s Drawings of Balfron Tower’s Elevations
Figure 130: Goldfinger’s High Rise Living Vision, Drawing of a Modern Urban Enclosure, 1942
Figure 131: James Dunnett’s Compositional Breakdown of Balfron Tower’s Façade
Figure 132: Balfron Tower with Elderly Persons’ Housing in Foreground
Figure 133: Carradale House
Figure 134: Balfron Tower from Carradale House
Figure 135: Balfron’s Rear Elevation
Figure 136: Typical Balfron Flat Layout
Figure 137: Goldfinger in his Balfron Flat
Figure 138: The Brownfield Estate in the 1990’s
Figure 139: Balfron Tower Conservation Area
Figure 140: Brownfield Estate CMP Conclusions
Figure 141: Actual and Proposed Views of Glenkerry and Balfron from Willis Street, 2009
Figure 142: Brownfield Estate Regeneration Plan showing Location of Willis Street Tower
Figure 143: Glenkerry and Balfron from Willis Street, Panoramic Tower in Foreground, 2014
Figure 144: Computer Image of Panoramic Tower and Built Reality, 2014
Figure 145: View of Glenkerry with Panoramic Tower in Background, 2014
Figure 146: New Homes on the Brownfield Estate, Panoramic Tower in Background
Figure 147: Refurbished Carradale House
Figure 148: The Old and the New, Carradale and Balfron, Aug. 2014
Figure 149: Balfron, Prior to Refurbishment, Aug. 2014
Figure 150: Balfron’s Service Tower, Podium and Lower Service Areas, 2014
Figure 151: 1870’s Area Map
Figure 152: 1950’s Area Map before Redevelopment
Figure 153: 1980’s Area Map showing the Cheltenham Estate
Figure 154: The Cheltenham Estate Site Plan
Figure 155: Early view of Trellick Tower from Hazelwood Crescent
Figure 156: Goldfinger’s Axonometric of the Cheltenham Estate
Figure 157: Children Playing outside Trellick and View of the Estate from the Tower
Figure 158: Cutaway Model showing Flat Layout and Interlocking Stairs
Figure 159: Plans and Section showing Typical Flat Layout
Figure 160: Trellick Common Area Interiors
Figure 161: Trellick’s Southern Elevation
Figure 162: Trellick’s Main Entrance
Figure 163: Trellick’s Iconic Image against the Horizon
Figure 164: Trellick’s Residents Masterplan
Figure 165: Renovated Trellick Flat Interiors
Figure 166: Avanti Architect’s Masterplan options

Chapter 7 Preservation without Designation: Robin Hood Gardens and Wynford House

Figure 167: The Smithsons’ RHG City

Figure 168: Site Map c.1870
Figure 169: Grosvenor Buildings
Figure 170: Typical Construction in the Bazely Scheme
Figure 171: 1960’s Site Plan, showing Grosvenor Buildings and the Bazely Scheme
Figure 172: The Smithsons’ College of the Manisty Street Scheme
Figure 173: Site Plan Post-development, c.1972
Figure 174: RHG Aerial View, c.1972
Figure 175: The Smithsons’ Drawings ‘visual connectedness’ and ‘desire routes of tenants’
Figure 176: The Smithsons’ Golden Lane Project
Figure 177: The Smithsons’ Golden Lane City
Figure 178: The Smithsons’ Axonometric Drawing
Figure 179: RHG Site Layout
Figure 180: RHG’s Cantilevered Deck
Figure 181: The Smithsons’ ‘Reasoning for Disposition of Accommodation
Figure 182: Children Playing on RHG’s Grass Mounds, c.1970
Figure 183: Newly Constructed Flat Interiors
Figure 184: Typical Flat Layout
Figure 185: Block Section showing Dwellings and Service ‘Moats’
Figure 186: The Elderly People’s Club Entrance with Alison Smithson’s Mural
Figure 187: Aerial View of The Blackwall Reach Project
Figure 188: RHG Site and Extent of New Proposal
Figure 189: Swan Housing & Countryside Properties Scheme Visualisation
Figure 190: RHG Community Gardens
Figure 191: RHG Cotton Street Block, 2008
Figure 192: RHG Blackwall Block, 2008
Figure 193: The New Site Proposals
Figure 194: Indicative Tenure Mix
Figure 195: The Old and the New, RHG and Blackwall Reach
Figure 196: The Busaco Street Site, Pre-development
Figure 197: The Busaco Street Site, Post-development
Figure 198: Priory Green Estate Site Plan showing Lubetkin’s Landscaping Proposals
Figure 199: The Priory Green Estate, Aerial View, c.1952
Figure 200: Early Images of the Priory Green Estate
Figure 201: Early Estate Views
Figure 202: Spa Green Estate, Tecton’s Interpretation of the Zeilenbau Site’ Layout
Figure 203: Finsbury Health Centre
Figure 204: Typical Flat Layout, showing Deck Access and Balcony
Figure 205: Map of the Estate, from Tenant’s Handbook
Figure 206: Early Views of Wynford House
Figure 207: Wynford House and the Finsbury Family Relief
Figure 208: Wynford House Front Elevation 2007
Figure 209: Typical Refurbished Priory Heights’ Flat
Figure 210: The Priory Green Estate, north from Collier Street, 2007
Figure 211: Priory Heights, 2010
Figure 212: The Priory Green Estate, 2012

Photographs contained in this thesis are the author’s own unless stated.
Chapter 1 Introduction: A Change in Tense from Present to Past

Figure 1: Park Hill, 2014

‘The preservation of significant works of art, presents a demanding economic and physical
problem. The continued life of both the icon and the ordinary as elements of an
economically driven world depends first on a shared recognition of their cultural and social
value and second upon their continuing economic viability. The reconciliation of these two
key facts lies at the core of the international crusade’.

Hubert-Jan Henket, founding Chair, Docomomo1

‘Modernity is no longer a matter of combat, the fight has been fought, now the issue is
rather how to deal with a modernity that has implanted itself. This new stage of modernity
brings along a certain historical consciousness which embraces modernity itself’.

Hilde Heynen2

This chapter considers the development of social housing in England and how Government
policies throughout the 20th Century have effected its provision. It also analyses the growth of
the heritage conservation movement in this country within the last century and the legislative
framework that has been put in place to identify and secure heritage protection. It examines
the effects of Modernism on the design on Britain’s post-WWII social housing, how buildings
from this period are being drawn into the conservation arena and Governmental responses to
its designation and protection as heritage. It further analyses the issues associated with the
historicism of Modernism and how application of contemporary values to its conservation can
affect attitudes to its being classified as heritage.

1
Henket H. & Heyman H. (2002) Back from Utopia: The Challenge of the Modern Movement, p.16
2
Heynen H. (1998) ‘Transitoriness of Modern Architecture’ in Modern Movement Heritage, p.34

1
Housing the Nation - The Modern Way

The onset of industrialisation in the second half of the 19th Century brought with it Modernism:
a new art and literary movement for the machine age. Modernism rejected past styles,
emphasising instead innovation and experimentation in forms, materials and techniques in
order to create artworks that reflected a new, modern society. It was also driven by various
social and political agendas, which were utopian in nature and associated with an ideal vision
of human life. A belief in progress and the future drove architectural Modernism. The Modern
Movement in architecture, as it was also known, attempted to reconcile the principles
underlying architectural design with rapid technological advancement and modernisation of
society. It emerged in many Western countries after WWI and focussed on the rational use of
new materials, the principles of functionalist planning, and the rejection of historical
precedent and ornament. Their visual aesthetic was largely inspired by the machine and
abstract painting and sculpture. Architectural Modernism arrived on our shores in the 1920’s,
but its impact was fairly narrow. Key housing schemes of the period were Lawn Road Flats,
built 1934 (designed by Wells Coates); Highpoint One, built 1935 (designed by Berthold
Lubetkin); and Kensal House, built 1937 (designed by Maxwell Fry).

Figure 2: Lawn Road Flats and Highpoint One3

Unlike the former two, which were inhabited by middle-class intellectuals, Kensal House
reflected the social and political ideals of the early Modernists. The flats were commissioned
and financed by the Gas, Light and Coke Company to show how a new building could run
cheaply and safely on gas power. It was built to house the working classes and Fry, assisted by
social reformer Elizabeth Denby, aimed to offer its inhabitants healthier, safer and more
fulfilling lives in light, spacious flats with social and communal facilities. Residents were also

3
<http://design.designmuseum.org/design/wells-coates>; <http://www.themodernist.co.uk/modernist-of-the-month-berthold-lubetkin-architect>
[retrieved 9 Nov. 2015]

2
represented on the committees that managed the estate. Kensal House was one of the first
examples to show what Modernist architecture could do for the working classes and it was
hailed as a prototype for modern living.4

Figure 3: Kensal House, c.19375

It was after WWII that architectural Modernism was widely adopted in Britain and it became
the dominant architectural style for many public and institutional buildings and none more so
than for Britain’s council house building programmes. Council housing was named as a result
of the historic role that local authorities had in building and managing it. Its underlying
principle was that the private sector was unable to meet the demands of providing adequate
housing and state intervention was required to ensure there was good quality, affordable
housing available, especially for the working classes. Its growth has been largely determined
by central Government policies and legislation throughout the 20th Century and its
development has responded to the requirement to build more houses, due to shortages
especially in the post-war periods, and the need to replace old, dilapidated areas of towns and
cities. Its building on a massive scale started in the 1920’s as a result of the 1919 ‘homes fit for
heroes’ Housing Act, that gave give local councils subsidies for building new homes for those
displaced and returning home after WWI. The devastation left in the aftermath of WWII once
again brought it to the forefront of the political agenda. A large-scale building programme was
needed to replace the 458,000 houses that the War had destroyed and both of the main
political parties agreed that, at least in the short-term, the private sector would not be able to
deliver this. Due to a growing birth rate and concerns about the large numbers of returning
soldiers a public house-building programme was also seen as a way of helping to secure
employment as well as satisfying the huge housing demand. During the middle of the 20th
Century housing became the key electoral issue, with both political parties making

4
From Here to Modernity: Kensal House <http://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/heritage/kensal-house> [retrieved 9 Nov. 2015]
5
<http://photos.wikimapia.org/p/00/01/45/95/18_big.jpg>; http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/images/conway/c4b56a5b.html [retrieved 9 Nov.
2015]

3
commitments to build particular levels of housing. Under Labour’s Attlee Government (1945-
51), local authorities built over 80% of new dwellings and the estates built were planned as a
welfare right with high-quality rented housing for all sections of the community.6 The
incoming Conservative Government continued this trend with Macmillan’s ‘Great Housing
Crusade ‘of 1951, delivering a record 220,000 council homes in 1953. Of the 2.5 million
dwellings built between 1945 and 1957, three-quarters was public housing.7 A legislative
framework to better control reconstruction had also been put in place by a series of acts, the
most important being: the New Towns Act (1946), which initiated fourteen new towns to
relieve urban congestion; and the Town and Country Planning Act (1947) which created the
framework for the land use planning system in England and Wales, making all new
development subject to permission by planning authorities within an overall development
plan. According to Elwall (2000) the 1950’s was a decade when reconstruction afforded the
architect unparalleled opportunities. Approximately half of the nation’s architects were
employed by local authorities and most of the remainder survived on commissions by public
offices that were over-stretched.8 Although many architects entered public practice because
these were the only available employment sources, Elwell considers that we should not
underestimate the idealism of the post-WWII years which motived architects to believe that
they should look beyond mere reshaping of the physical fabric to help create a more just
society. Local councils, acting under slum clearance powers, compulsorily purchased inner,
urban land for redevelopment. These derelict sites were cleared and pioneering new schemes
were planned. There was an increase in multi-storey dwellings in order to achieve higher
densities and freeing-up of surrounding land for productive and/or leisure use. Elwall
considers the achievement of much public housing during this decade was such that it can be
justly considered among the finest in the world.9

Whilst there was a consensus on the need for additional supply, as the 1950’s progressed, the
two main political parties began placing differing emphasis on public versus private building,
with the Conservative Government preferring the latter. The 1960’s also saw a shift in the
political debate away from housing supply. The 1967 sterling crisis caused reductions in public
spending and, with housing needs now mostly being met public concern began focusing on the
potential damage caused by large-scale developments and high-rise housing.10 As Elwall

6
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013) The Politics of Housing, p.19; originally Malpass P. ‘Wartime planning for post-war
housing in Britain: the Whitehall debate, 1941-5’, Planning Perspectives, 2003, 18(2), p. 177-96
7
Elwall R. (2000) Building a Better Tomorrow Wiley & Sons: London, p.41
8
Elwall R. (2000), p.12
9
Elwall R. (2000), p.42
10
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013), p.21

4
stated, the 1960’s rush for growth would see the achievements attained in many of the
previous decade’s housing sacrificed for the sake of quantity through the extensive adoption
of system built towers with lower standards. The growing tendency also to house families in
these blocks resulted in worsening social problems and widespread disillusionment with the
supposed benefits of the vertical city.11 This had disastrous consequences for one such tower,
Ronan Point, that was one of nine, twenty-two storey, residential blocks built by London
Borough Newham Council between 1965-8. The tower had been constructed using a
technique known as Large Panel System (LPS) which involved casting large concrete
prefabricated sections off-site and bolting them together to construct the building. It had only
been occupied for two months when, on 16 May 1968, resident Ivy Hodge lit a match to light
her cooker in the kitchen of her flat on the 18th floor. This sparked a gas explosion that blew
out the load-bearing flank walls and the structural supports of the flats above.

Figure 4: The Ronan Point Disaster 12

The flank walls fell away, leaving the floors above unsupported and causing the progressive
collapse of the south-east corner of the building. The structure of the LPS buildings relied on
gravity to hold them together and it was thought that a failure to join the panels correctly had
contributed to the collapse.13 Four of the tower’s 260 residents were killed and seventeen
others injured. Although the casualties were relatively light, the spectacular nature of the

11
Elwall R. (2000), p.42
12
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronan_Point>; ‘Precast Disaster’ in Building design 18 may 2007 <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/precast-
disaster/3087206.article> [retrieved 19 Nov. 2015]
13
English Heritage (2013) Practical Building Conservation: Concrete, p.320; The Aberdeen Group (1969) Failure of a high-rise system
<http://www.concreteconstruction.net/Images/Failure%20of%20a%20High-Rise%20System_tcm45-345047.pdf> [retrieved 19 Nov. 2015]

5
disaster led to widespread loss of public confidence in high-rise, residential buildings and
major changes in UK building regulations resulted. In 1985 all of the estate blocks were
demolished along with many other similar LPS buildings. In the 1970s, rising inflation and
interest rates put further pressure on Government spending and the question of how public-
sector interventions into housing were financed, rather than the number of houses built, came
to dominate housing politics. This period saw an increase in private, rather than public sector
building and although housing continued to have a high election profile, the political debate
turned instead to home ownership. The Thatcher Conservative Government’s Right to Buy in
1980 gave tenants the right to purchase their homes at a discount on its market value of at
least 33%. Nationally one million houses were sold within 10 years. This led to many of the
better quality council properties being purchased by tenants, and more houses rather than
flats, so not only was the total council housing stock reduced, but also the type of dwelling that
was available. Spending restrictions also prevented local councils from building new houses in
large numbers.14 The Conservative Government (1979-97) also deregulated rents in both the
private and public sectors, thus encouraging rental prices to be closer to that in a functioning
market and supply to respond to higher levels of demand. Housing Benefit was given to those
who could not afford the market rents. The early years of the New Labour Government (1997-
2010) saw a continuation of these polices when lack of council housing was not a dominant
issue. Alternatively low demand on some unpopular estates was perceived to be a problem,
resulting in the Housing Market Renewal Programme in 2002. Rising house prices and
concerns about affordability at the turn of the last century, however, prompted new
Government policies and commitments to various house building completions, driven largely
by the private sector, but these came to an end with the financial crisis in 2007-8. 15

Council house ownership and management has also gradually moved away from local
authorities through Large Scale Voluntary Transfers (LSVT) of stock to Housing Associations
(HAs) and Registered Social Landlords (RSL), and then via an Arms-Length Management
Organisation (ALMO), where the housing stock stays with the local authority but is managed by
a not-for-profit organisation. Initiated in the 1980s, these have been widely taken up as the
nation’s stock of aged council houses’ maintenance costs increased. Local councils who have
transferred their housing do not have responsibilities, such as rent collection or repairs and
maintenance, but they remain in law the local housing authority with the responsibility for
providing a strategic housing policy within their locality. Housing retained by the local council

14
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013), p.24
15
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013), p.24-6

6
together with that now owned and managed by a HA or an ALMO is known collectively as
social housing. The New Labour Government also introduced the Decent Homes Programme
in 2000, which was a capital fund to help bring all social housing up to an acceptable physical
standard. The inability of council landlords to access this fund directly also contributed to the
increased transfer of management and/or ownership of council housing to an ALMO or HA.
The make-up and demographic of council estates has changed over the years and the impact
of Right to Buy has turned many of them into mixed tenure areas of tenants and homeowners.
In some towns and cities, however, there is a division between the more successful, mixed
tenure estates and less popular ones, where a greater sense of social deprivation is apparent.
When the public sector emerged as a major supplier of housing in the middle of the last
century, its housing tended to be high quality compared to other available housing and it was
not concentrated purely on low income families. Both before and after WWII, council house
rents were generally too high for the poorest families and council housing tended to cater for
the better-paid working classes. However, changes in pricing structures and allocation systems
have resulted in an increased focus of those on lower incomes, the homeless and those with
no alternative form of accommodation who are unable to afford adequate housing in the
private rented sector. It has moved, therefore from being a mainstream housing provision to a
residual housing tenure for a narrow section of the population, thus reducing the general
public’s interest in it.16 In 1979, 20% of households in the top decile of the income distribution
lived in council housing, but by 2004-05 it was close to zero.17 The effects of Right to Buy
further reduced the total stock of council housing, leaving greater concentrations of low
income families in the social housing sector.18 In 1971, just over 32% of households rented
from local authorities or RSLs. Today the social rented sector only makes up 17.4% of total
housing stock, with local authorities in London having some of the highest social housing
percentages.19 A gradual reduction in new house building, rising house prices and the recent
economic recession has meant that lack of housing is once again an acute problem with
approximately 1.4 million households currently on social housing waiting lists in this country.20
However, the Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation considers that there
is a different housing problem, compared to that in the 20th Century. The visible indicators of
the housing shortages, such as slum housing and overcrowding, have been reduced
significantly and homeownership has dramatically increased (from 23% of households in 1918

16
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013), p.46; originally Fitzpatrick and Pawson ‘Welfare Safety Net’
17
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013), p.6
18
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013), p.6
19
<http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/regional-analysis/housing-statistics-portal/housing-summary-measures/rpt.html#tab-13--Social-Housing-Stock>
[retrieved 19 Nov. 2015]
20
DCLG, Table 600 Rents, lettings and tenancies: numbers of households on local authorities' housing waiting lists
<https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-rents-lettings-and-tenancies> [retrieved 18 Nov. 2015)

7
to around two thirds of households today), so Government policy increasingly focuses on
homeownership issues. There has also been an ideological shift in housing policy, with belief
in the market over reliance on the state, so social housing now has a much narrower role than
it did previously and, with general needs housing now being delivered principally through the
private market, state funding has switched from supply-side capital grants to demand-side
subsidies to the individual.21 So although house building is back on the political agenda it is
unlikely that we will see a return to the large-scale public house building programmes of the
last century.

The Campaign to Conserve and the Politics of Heritage

The era that advocated a new beginning and the sweeping away of the past, is also the one
that laid the foundations of the heritage conservation movement. Pressure to protect the past
had antiquarian and scholarly beginnings. It was essentially as an elitist cause driven by the
creation of organisations, such as The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB), in
1877 and the National Trust, in 1895. Heritage also had a much narrower definition in these
early days. The first statutory list, complied as a result of the Ancient Monuments Protection
Act in 1882, made arrangements for the 'guardianship' of some fifty prehistoric sites and
appointed a single inspector of ancient monuments.22 Its scope has gradually widened
throughout the 20th Century as an interest in saving the nation’s past has increased, prompting
the formation of other groups, such as the Georgian Group, in 1937, and the Victorian Society,
in 1958. Globally, interest has developed and the International Council on Monuments and
Sites (ICOMOS) was established in 1965, as a non-governmental, international organisation
dedicated to the conservation of the world's monuments and sites. Today there are a vast
number of groups concerned with heritage conservation and The Heritage Alliance is the
biggest coalition of heritage interests in this country, representing over ninety, non-
governmental heritage bodies. As Delfons (1997) states the word ‘heritage’ has now become a
very ‘capacious portmanteau’ and extended to cover a diversity of sites, buildings and
artefacts.23 There are currently about 376,000 listed buildings in England as well as other
heritage categories including: registered battlefields, scheduled monuments, registered parks
and gardens and protected wreck sites.24 Heritage is now seen as all-encompassing

21
Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation (2013), p.4
22
<http://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/towncountry/landscape/overview/historicsites> [retrieved 18 Nov. 2015]
23
Delafons J. (1997) Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882–1996, p.1
24
<https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/listed-buildings> [retrieved 18 Nov. 2015]

8
comprising: ‘all inherited resources which people value for reasons beyond mere utility’.25 It
has developed into a populist movement and is part of a wider and more complex aspect of
modern life that involves questions of national identity and personal psychology. ICOMOS
defines heritage as: ‘a broad concept and includes the natural as well as the cultural
environment. It encompasses landscapes, historic places, sites and built environments, as well
as bio-diversity, collections, past and continuing cultural practices, knowledge and living
experiences. It records and expresses the long processes of historic development, forming the
essence of diverse national, regional, indigenous and local identities and is an integral part of
modern life. It is a dynamic reference point and positive instrument for growth and change.
The particular heritage and collective memory of each locality or community is irreplaceable
and an important foundation for development, both now and into the future.’26

The desire to protect and conserve and the need to change obviously creates conflict and
planning and conservation are often portrayed as having different aims. Conservation,
however, is an integral part of planning and related to it through the desire to protect the
significance of the existing character of a locality in relation to proposed new development.
Conservation is defined as: ‘all efforts designed to understand cultural heritage, know its
history and meaning, ensure its material safeguard and, as required, its presentation,
restoration and enhancement’. 27 It first became assimilated into the planning system in the
1947 Planning Act (Clauses 26 and 27 respectively gave ministerial powers to issue building
preservation orders and the requirement for Government to compile a list of buildings of
special architectural or historic interest).28 Although it was only a small component of the act,
it established the system of conservation as we know it today. Government’s response to the
development of the heritage conservation movement in the 20th Century has been well
documented by Delafons (1997).29 He indicates, since its beginnings as a cause, heritage
conservation has not been an issue that Governments have always adopted with enthusiasm.
They have particularly showed a reluctance to intervene in saving public buildings, especially
where there are potential conflicts between planning and conservation interests. This was
dramatically highlighted in the 1960’s with two landmark cases: Euston Arch and the Coal
Exchange which were being demolished to make way for new public works schemes. Whilst
these two mid-19th Century buildings had been the subject of scholarly work and were

25
English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles <http://historicengland.org.uk/imagesbooks/
publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-managementhistoric-environment> [retrieved 18 Nov. 2015]
26
<http://www.icomos.org/tourism/charter.html, 1999> [retrieved 18 Nov. 2015]
27
ICOMOS (1994) Nara Document on Authenticity, http://www.icomos.org/charters/nara-e.pdf
28
Delafons J. (1997) Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882–1996, p.59-60
29
Delafons J. (1997)

9
championed by the Victorian Society, they had not yet acquired a large popular following.
Government remained unmoved about their demise, despite enormous public opposition and
repeated appeals to save them.30

Figure 5: Euston Arch and Coal Exchange 31

Although both buildings had been listed at Grade II, at the time there was no requirement for
listed building consent for their destruction. The only action available to secure their
protection was issue of a building preservation order, but neither the Government nor the LCC
was prepared to do this.32 These two cases did mark a turning point in Government attitudes
to conservation and for the next twenty years or so there was a new impetus to save the
nation’s heritage. The European Architectural Heritage Year in 1975 also marked the
awakening of conservation in the public conscientiousness and much interest and activity at a
local level, and with public support, heritage conservation was gaining increased political
significance.33 It was the Thatcher Conservative Government, however, that pushed it to the
fore, with the aim of instilling a business approach to heritage and conservation through the
1983 National Heritage Act. The Government considered that change was needed to bring
more professional expertise to the promotional and commercial element of heritage
management in order to improve its performance and also the nation’s enjoyment and
education of it. This Act created the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, a non-

30
Delafons J. (1997), p.82-3
31
Delafons J. (1997), p.83; <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9b/Euston_Arch_1896.jpg> [retrieved 10 Nov. 2015]
32
Delafons J. (1997), p.84-5
33
Delafons J. (1997), p.110-15

10
 34
departmental public body, more commonly known as English Heritage (EH). EH acts as the
Government’s advisor on the historic environment in respect of policy issues and it assesses
buildings put forward for listing or de-listing (In April 2015, EH was renamed Historic England
and a separate charitable trust retains the EH title and the responsibility of managing the
Government owned historic sites. Due to the timing of this, for the purposes of this study
Historic England is referred to as EH). An important role for EH, in addition to handling
casework, is that of advocacy and this has the potential to create an ambiguity between its
role as agent of Government policy and its tendency to ally itself with the respective
conservation groups. In taking on the mantle as the guardian of the nation’s heritage, EH adds
substantial weight to the voices of the conservation lobby and although it is by no means the
only voice in the conservation arena, it is certainly one with influence and there is a danger of
this role bringing it directly into conflict with the Government’s planning interests.35 Current
planning legislation is consolidated in the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (the Principal
Act).36 The 1990 Planning, Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act, (the 1990 Act) sets out
the process for authorisation of works affecting listed buildings and the requirement for the
Secretary of State to compile or approve a list of buildings of special architectural or historic
interest. The designation of heritage enables the planning system to protect it through Listed
Building Consent and Conservation Area Control.37 Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and
their replacements, Planning Policy Statements (PPSs) were prepared by Government to
explain the statutory provisions and provide planning guidance. Local authorities were
required to take their contents into account in preparing their plan documents. In 1994,
Planning Policy Guidance Note 15: Planning and the Historic Environment was published to
provide guidance on implementing the provisions of the 1990 Act and explain the protection
afforded to listed buildings and conservation areas. This was replaced in 2010 by Planning
Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment (PPS5). At the time of writing
England’s heritage protection and land planning systems are under reform. The National
Heritage Protection Plan (NHPP) sets out how EH and its heritage partners will ensure that:
‘England’s vulnerable historic environment is safeguarded in the most cost-effective way’. It
aims to identify those elements of heritage that matter to people most and are at greatest risk,
so that effort can be concentrated on saving them.38 The National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF) also makes provision for the protection and conservation of England’s historic

34
Delafons J. (1997), p.136-7
35
Delafons J. (1997), p.144-5
36
The Planning and Compensation Act, 1991, made alterations to the Acts provisions and parts of Acts were replaced or amended by the Planning
and Compulsory Purchase Act, 2004
37
1990 Act, Section 7; Enforcement action through the Principal Act, Section 172 and 1990 Act, Section 38
38
NHPP 11-15 Framework, April 2013, p.3

11
environment. One of its core planning principles is to ‘conserve heritage assets in a manner
appropriate to their significance, so that they can be enjoyed for their contribution to the
quality of life of this and future generations’. 39 Whilst the NPPF superseded PPS5 as
Government policy, the PPS5 Practice Guide remains a valid and Government endorsed
document pending the results of a review of guidance supporting the NPPF.40

As Harrison (2010) has noted, the sense of a nation’s heritage is also created as items are
classified for inclusion on a heritage list. Things also tend to be classified in the light of some
risk to their loss, destruction or decay. This may or may not be an imminent danger, but even
when it is not, its inclusion on a list implies some potential threat to its existence at a later date
in the future.41 And, as the type and range of proposals being put forward for listing has
increased so has the need to prioritise the heritage that needs conserving. A series of value
judgements has to be made, therefore, about what is important and hence worth conserving
and what is not and there is a direct relationship between the effect of listing something as
heritage and its perceived significance and importance to society.42 Selection ultimately
means that some elements of the past representing different aspects of society could be
excluded from the heritage lists. This problem was highlighted by the Victorian Society in the
1980’s. They thought the types of buildings covered by the lists were too limited and that
some municipal and educational buildings, and also those of a more complex social nature,
such as hospitals, asylums and prisons were not adequately represented. They thought it more
difficult to get larger buildings listed and that ‘practical considerations over reuse, social
anxieties and on occasion political factors’ sometimes prevented a building being listed. They
also thought that problems over the listing of Victorian buildings had arisen because those
responsible for the lists were mostly ‘traditional (pre-industrial) archaeologists or art
historians, with the former tending to emphasise the principle of antiquity, while the architects
and art historians assuming that important buildings and objects should be visually attractive’.
The Society urged that ‘values of technical, social or community interest’ should also be
included in the assessment for listing purposes.43 Some academics have also criticised the
Government’s more recent responses to heritage management. Hewson (1987), for example,
considered the moves were an attempt to ‘sanitise and commercialise the past’. In the late
1980’s he also coined the phrase ‘heritage industry’ to describe what he considered a heritage
structure largely imposed from above to capture a middle-class market and nostalgia for the

39
NPPF, March 2012, 17, p.6
40
PPS 5, 6, paras. 149-80
41
Harrison R. (2000) Understanding the Politics of Heritage, p.13
42
Harrison R. (2010), p.10-11
43
Delafons (1997), p.151

12
past with the aim of improving social cohesion in the context of a climate of decline. 44 This
theory has also been investigated by Smith (2006) who considers there is a dominant set of
ideas about heritage, which she calls the Authorised Heritage Discourse (AHD). Smith feels
AHD is integrally bound up in the creation of lists that represent the canon of heritage for a
particular nation. It is a set of ideas that works to normalise a certain way of thinking about
the nature and meaning of heritage and it is focussed on aesthetically beautiful and/or
monumental things. As a result, the AHD can exclude a whole range of popular ideas and
practices relating to heritage. Smith also sees the AHD as being positioned so that it privileges
heritage professionals and the state and so it can only be viewed passively by the general
public. She considers that the policies and practices that govern heritage and the designated
experts and ‘legitimate spokespeople for the past’ tend to promote the experiences and values
of the elite social classes and that the idea of heritage is contained within objects and sites that
are more easily able to be delineated and managed as heritage.45 Waterton (2010) similarly
believes that the acquisition of heritage on behalf of ‘the nation’ is ultimately guided by the
values and interests of the white, middle and upper-classes and the images and symbols that it
ultimately portrays are those of these classes. This she feels leads to ‘derisory marginalisation
of the working class and ethnically different senses of heritage…this is not a vision of the past
capable of accommodating multiculturalism or critical class commentary...nor, ironically, is it
one capable of conceiving of active engagements with the past by anyone other than
experts’.46

The Development of Modern Movement Heritage Protection

The impetus for conservation of buildings from the recent past came primarily with the
establishment of groups, such as the C20 Society and DoCoMoMo (The International
Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighbourhoods from
the Modern Movement). The C20 Society was founded as the Thirties Society, in 1979, when
the need for a specialised conservation group was identified to safeguard the heritage of
architecture and design covering the period after 1914 (the limit of the scope of the Victorian
Society). At this time a greater understanding and appreciation of 20th Century design was
developing and some Modern buildings from the pre-WWII period had already been listed,
including the Lawn Road Flats (Grade II in 1974). The catalyst for establishing the Thirties
Society was the proposal to replace Sir Edwin Cooper’s Classical building for Lloyds of London

44
Hewson R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline
45
Smith L. (2006) Uses of Heritage
46
Waterton E. (2010) Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain, p.208-10

13
with Richard Rogers’ new structure.47 The Society’s founders felt that it represented a whole
body of architecture of the period that deserved more sympathetic assessment. The Society
indicates its first serious case, was an Art Deco building, the Firestone Factory by Wallis Gilbert
& Partners, which was unexpectedly demolished, in 1980, by its owners in anticipation of
listing. This outrage was to them, what the destruction of the Euston Arch had been to the
Victorian Society and it began campaigning for greater protection of 20th Century buildings.
This led to 150 examples of inter-War architecture being listed. By the late 1980s, however,
the Society felt many good examples of post-WWII architecture were starting to be threatened
and the date limit of 1939 for listing was proving illogical, so they pressed for adoption of the
‘Thirty Year Rule’.48 This was, as the Society acknowledges, at a time when Modern
architecture of the post-WWII years was widely perceived as an ‘irredeemable failure in both
human and structural terms’ so the extension of the scope of conservation was considered a
threat to progress, with the press eager to ‘latch on to stories of a lunatic fringe trying to
preserve concrete monstrosities’.49 The principle for the listing change was the approval, in
1987, of Bracken House, a post-WWII classical building, occupied by the Financial Times
newspaper group in the City of London. The Thirties Society and EH then conducted research
surveys of post-WWII architecture in England and approval of a few post-1939 buildings took
place in 1988 and again in 1991. As the Society’s work was no longer so exclusively pre-WWII,
in 1992 it was renamed The C20 Society. Along with the other amenity societies, it receives
support from EH for casework and comments on an increasing number of statutory listed
building applications. (DoCoMoMo) is an international, non-profit organisation initiated in
1988 by Hubert-Jan Henket and Wessel de Jonge, from the Technical University in Eindhoven.
DoCoMoMo considered that at the end of the 1980’s, the architectural heritage of the Modern
Movement appeared more at risk than during any other period. Many buildings had already
been demolished or changed due mainly to the fact that ‘many were not considered to be
elements of heritage, their original functions had substantially changed and their technological
innovations have not always endured long-term stresses’. DoCoMoMo’s mission is to: ‘act as
watchdog when important Modern Movement buildings anywhere are under threat; exchange
ideas relating to conservation technology, history and education; foster interest in the ideas
and heritage of the modern movement; elicit responsibility towards this recent architectural
inheritance’.50

47
Cooper’s original Lloyd’s building was listed in 1977
48
Statutory Instrument (DoE Circular 8/87)
49
C20 Society, A Brief History <http://www.c20society.org.uk/about-us> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2015]
50
DoCoMoMo Mission <http://www.docomomo.com/mission> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2012]

14
As these buildings were drawn into the heritage arena the means of conserving them created
much discussion amongst heritage professionals. Macdonald (2001) indicated that as EH’s
post-WWII listing programme was one of the first in the world, policies had only just started to
be developed.51 The principles of repair that formed the basis of EH’s approach to
conservation of buildings of ‘special architectural or historical significance’ were outlined in
Brereton’s The Repair of Historic Buildings: Advice on Principles and Methods. This was
written, however, before post-WWII listing and thus gave no specific reference to Modern
buildings.52 Macdonald also highlighted that acceptance of post-WWII buildings as heritage
was also still being questioned and in a draft of the British Standard on Principles of Building
Conservation it was ‘ridiculed and denigrated and considered to have no cultural value’.53 As
the British guides made no reference to any conflicts that might arise when applying existing
principles to the conservation of Modern buildings EH had worked on a case by case basis
referring to existing international codes, like the Venice and Burra Charters for direction.
These indicate that key aids to good conservation are a detailed knowledge and understanding
of the building concerned and ‘a conservation management plan which identifies the building’s
significance and provides a forward policy for managing future changes’.54 Macdonald also
considered the discipline offered by this methodology was invaluable as it required a building’s
significance to be determined at the outset and that future works retain, restore or enhance
those values. She also considered that the value of post-WWII heritage required a
reassessment of existing conservation philosophies with new methodologies to tackle the
specific problems of protecting these buildings and to think ‘more creatively about how to care
for them’ in order to develop a coherent and consistent approach. Henket (1998) considered
that even before thinking about a conservation approach it was important to establish a
preservation strategy for Modern buildings because conservation, with its levels of
intervention, was only one aspect of building preservation. He argued that for a building to be
included in DoCoMoMo’s Preservation Register it needed be ‘innovative in its social, technical
and aesthetic intentions’ at ‘the time of its conception and thereafter’. He also thought there
was a need to be selective, to recognise that not everything had to be preserved physically and
that proper documentation might be an equally effective means. Henket also considered a
‘hierarchy of interventions’ necessary as not all buildings have to be conserved to the same
degree of authenticity and a more pragmatic approach could be acceptable provided
alterations or additions are designed with ‘great respect for the original’, are worthwhile in

51
Macdonald S. (2001) Preserving Post-war Heritage: The care and conservation of mid-twentieth century architecture, p.33-40
52 th
Brereton C. (1991) 4.15, gives guidance for reinforced concrete repair but only with reference to late 19 Century structures
53
BS 7913:1998 replaced by BS 7913:2013 Guide to the Conservation of Historic Buildings
54
Kerr J. S. (1990) The Conservation Plan DUAP: Sidney

15
themselves and can make the building suitable again for new functional requirements.55
According to Feilden (1994) the conservation, adaptation, reuse and subsequent maintenance
of Modern buildings involves the same principles as traditional ones in terms of aesthetics,
philosophy and historical research but it presents different challenges in respect of commercial
judgement and estate management. Also, traditional buildings made of earth, brick and stone
have survived because they were made to last, but materials used in Modern Movement
construction pose new problems. Reinforced concrete’s vulnerability, especially to
chloridisation, was not known at the time and it now needs new methods to conserve it. The
behaviour and durability of materials such as glass, aluminium, resins and plastics also have to
be studied in order to provide effective conservation. Furthermore, unlike traditional
buildings, Modern buildings were often structurally determinate which means the failure of
one element could impact on the whole building, so conservationists have to distinguish the
various construction methods and their interdependencies.56 Baxter (2001) similarly
highlighted that modern materials often had short lives and were often highly stressed so
decay became serious unlike traditional materials which have much greater generosity and
redundancy.57

How Modern buildings should be conserved was the subject of a 2006 conference sponsored
jointly by EH and the Architectural Review.58 At this EH Chairman, Simon Thurley described
how EH’s Conservation Principles were being introduced to help understand the historic
significance of a building and enable judgements to be made on whether and how to conserve
it. Underpinning statutory advice, they formed the basis of EH’s Constructive Conservation
approach to managing the historic environment providing ‘much greater consistency and
transparency of action’. 59 The Conservation Principles are based on the premise that ‘places
should be managed to sustain significance and that understanding the heritage values of
places is vital’. To this end EH has adopted four values to evaluate the historic significance of a
place: evidential, historical, aesthetic and communal. Evidential value may be in the physical
record of innovative construction and building materials. Historical value may lie in a building
being the first of its kind, it being illustrative of a pivotal point in history or associated with
certain events, institutions or people. Aesthetic value designates places with rigorous design
values and communal value can be seen in places such as post-WWII town centres that

55
Henket H.J. (1998), ‘The Icon and the Ordinary’ in Modern Movement Heritage, p.13-16
56
Fielden B.M. (1994) Conservation of Historic Buildings, p.327-57
57
Baxter A. (2001) ‘Twentieth-Century Buildings’ in Journal of architectural conservation, July 2001, p.332
58
Mending Modernism, conference at the Royal College of Physicians' headquarters, Regent’s Park 14 Dec. 2006 <http://www.english-
heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 4 Aug. 2012]
59
Thurley S. ‘The Constructive Approach to Conserving Modernist Buildings’ speech given at Mending Modernism conference 14 Dec. 2006

16
promoted the social value of pedestrian shopping areas, integrated parking and experiments in
social housing. These are the values EH feels encapsulate heritage value and that can be
applied to any development of any age to help make a judgement on its significance so
decisions can be made on what to keep, what to adapt, whether to repair, and if so, how
authentically. Other values, such as utility, economy and environmental sustainability, may be
employed at some stage in the planning process and weighed against heritage value. EH
published guidance on understanding these heritage values is shown below:

Figure 6: EH Guidance on Evidential Value60

60
EH (2008) Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance, p.28

17
 Figure 7: EH Guidance on Historical Value61

61
EH (2008) Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance, p.28-9

18
 Figure 8: EH Guidance on Aesthetic Value62

62
EH (2008) Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance, p.30-1

19
 Figure 9: EH Guidance on Communal Value63

The value of the fabric of a structure is usually a key principle in a listing decision and
conservation philosophy has been based on the premise that retention of the original fabric is
paramount. Indeed in traditional building conservation three basic principles apply:
reversibility, where treatment should normally allow the artefact to be returned to its pre-
treatment state (although not always possible where the artefact’s survival rests on the action
being taken); minimum intervention, where as far as possible the decayed parts of the artefact
should be conserved and not replaced; and, as found, where the consequences of aging like
patina should not normally be disguised or removed.64 Macdonald (2001) indicated, however,
that the ‘seemingly short lifespan of some Modern materials and the way in which they were
detailed makes it difficult to conserve as found and with minimum intervention.’65 Thurley
also believes that these assumptions must be questioned when dealing with Modern buildings
and ‘the origins of this dilemma are found in the structures of the industrial revolution, just
like the philosophy of Modernism itself’. Mass produced components have a lesser

63
EH (2008) Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance, p.31-2
64
Jokilehto J (1999), A History of Architectural Conservation, preface
65
Macdonald (2001), p.33-40

20
significance than an ‘individually carved stone roof boss on the nave of a medieval cathedral’
and were always sacrificial as they could be replaced if damaged without diminishing the
authenticity or significance of the structure.66 Thurley considered that, understanding
Modernism’s origins and outputs helped to value its contribution to the built environment and
human intellectual development, but because many Modern buildings may have been
designed or built without intention or requirement for long-life, or ease of repair, this raises
questions about their conservation basis. Many of the most interesting and innovative
Modern buildings were also ‘built on the cheap’ to very tight budgets and engineered sparsely
with materials that have not had long life spans. A lack of proper maintenance has further
exacerbated the design faults so by their nature Modern buildings may have low evidential
value and the technical complexities of replacing steel and glass, concrete, aluminium and
other modern materials need to be overcome to retain the strength of their other values. If
the materials are replaceable the authenticity of these buildings rests in their design and their
value aesthetically. Thurley acknowledged that the listing criteria for Modern buildings is
‘tougher’ than that for buildings built before 1800 and that they have to demonstrate that
their significance is unusually high which means that listed Modern buildings are ‘generally the
exceptional and not just the ordinary products of their age’. It is also acknowledged, however,
that ‘different people and communities may attach different weight to the same heritage
values of a place at the same time’ and ‘experience shows that judgements about heritage
values, especially those relating to the recent past, tend to grow in strength and complexity
over time, as people’s perceptions of a place evolve’. It is necessary therefore to determine
whether a place might be valued in the future and need protection now.67 A 2010 conference
co-hosted by DoCoMoMo UK and the C20 Society also considered that conservation of Modern
buildings is not always a straightforward issue. DoCoMoMo UK Chair, James Dunnett, felt that
the attitude that was developing towards post-WWII listed buildings was that far greater
changes are allowable than would be in buildings from earlier periods, citing Park Hill as an
example (see Chapter 4).68 Allan (2010) has also highlighted recent political attitude to
Modern heritage protection. Unlike in older historic buildings, ‘specialness is bolstered by
rarity and popular sentiment’, but in Modern buildings these factors are usually absent and it
is not always ‘technical underperformance’ that puts a Modern building at risk and its demise
is just as likely to be because the land it stands on has become more valuable, so it is perceived
as an ‘underdevelopment’, citing Robin Hood Gardens as an example (see Chapter 7).69

66
Thurley S. ‘The Constructive Approach to Conserving Modernist Buildings’ speech given at Mending Modernism conference 14 Dec. 2006
67
EH (2008) Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance, p.36
68
Dunnett J. (2010) ‘Ugly Brutes or Cherished Heritage?’ in DoCoMoMo UK Newsletter, Summer 2010
69
Allan (2010) ‘Ugly Brutes or Cherished Heritage?’ in DoCoMoMo UK Newsletter, Winter 2010

21
Due to their different inherent values, therefore, many Modern Movement buildings, such as
council housing, are not perceived as being part of England’s traditional heritage canon and
this may explain some of the recent political indifference to their conservation. In 2007 the
Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) Secretary of State, Margaret Hodge, was
accused of wanting to ‘make it more difficult for 20th Century buildings to be listed by
introducing a two-tier test’. Hodge had suggested that architectural merit alone would not be
sufficient grounds for granting listed status to buildings 'built in the last 75 years or so', stating
that factors such as ‘fitness for purpose’, financial viability, maintenance costs, and future use
would also have to be considered, and that the 'continuity of purpose of some post-WWII
listings' should be looked at. C20 Society Director, Croft, considered she was being ‘incredibly
dismissive about 20th Century buildings’.70 Kindred (2007) also believed Government ministers
may be reluctant to approve the designation of public-ownership Modern buildings, like
housing, where a key implication of the recognition would require significant additional
resources at a local level for their proper maintenance or repair. He was also concerned that
many recommendations for Modern buildings to be protected had been accompanied by
lengthy ministerial delays and felt that some ministers had been keen to pass on the
responsibility for such decisions to EH under the proposed heritage protection reform.71 In
2010 Hodge indicated that although the Government was not proposing changes to the
current statutory listing criteria she thought the principles of listing selection ‘may not fully
capture the consideration that needs to be given to more recent buildings, which have not yet
stood the test of time’, and that she was aiming to clarify those required. She felt there was a
need to consider ‘the extent to which they met their original brief in terms of functional and
technical performance and ask: were they fit for their purpose and did the materials, design
and workmanship allow them to function as intended?’ She did not accept that a ‘housing
development that repels visitors or frightens residents, or an office block that kills the spirits of
those who work in it’ could ever be said to be ‘fit for purpose’. Her aim was therefore to
ensure that the special architectural or historic interest of more recent buildings was subject to
‘an appropriately rigorous and informed assessment’.72 In April 2011, EH duly published new
guidance, to establish specific criteria for the listing of Modern houses and housing.73 With
regard to social housing, this indicated that: constraints of funding and legislation need to be
understood if the historic significance of a building is to be properly evaluated; the buildings
need to be judged against their original brief and what was expected of them then, rather than

70
Waite R. ‘Hodge wants stricter listing for 20th-century buildings’ in The Architects’ journal, 20 Dec. 2007, p.5; refers to Hodge’s parliamentary
speech, 10 Dec. 2007
71
Kindred B. (2007), Conservation of Modern Buildings, forward
72
Waite R. ‘It’s crucial that people have a say’ in The Architects’ journal, 18 Feb. 2010, p10-11
73
EH (2011) Domestic 4: The Modern House & Housing

22
what they are capable of providing now; for enclaves of housing conservation ‘area
designation’ may sometimes be a more appropriate than the listing of individual houses or
blocks and Conservation Management Plans can assist in protecting what is truly of
significance, while permitting sensible change. The guidance acknowledged it is particularly
difficult to establish criteria for the listing of post-WWII housing and an understanding of the
resource continued to develop, but benchmarks had been identified and key considerations
were: architectural interest; intactness of design; whether the design was influential; or a
particularly good example of a development in housing. Also important was whether the
housing had fulfilled its original brief, so it was essential to know what the original intentions
were, and what the housing originally looked like. In assessing this interiors would have been
very simple, and only the earliest or model estates such as Golden Lane Estate would have
‘internal fittings worthy of mention in a description’ (see Chapter 3). The guidelines stipulated
that one-off blocks or towers usually required individual assessment and levels of alteration
were considered important, but that tall blocks could more easily withstand the impact of new
glazing because it was more subsidiary to the impact of the overall design. Larger estates
were considered to lend themselves to ‘a holistic approach’ and on mixed developments
individual elements could be recommended for listing while the estate, as a whole, may be
more suitable for ‘area designation’. The Government’s NHPP has recognised that help is
needed to improve Modern heritage protection and it acknowledges that ‘Post-WWII buildings
and landscapes are facing acute redevelopment pressures and their designation and
protection is often highly contentious, underscoring the need for an enhanced, authoritative
knowledge base as well as an increased public appreciation of their value. It also considers
consensus on strategies for management is vital and that action should focus on ‘a thematic or
case-based approach to espousing values and practical protection for heritage beyond the
traditional’.74 It also considers management frameworks in the form of Heritage Partnership
Agreements (HPA) and Model Management Plans can prove beneficial in the management of
listed buildings and are deemed to have potential in contributing to streamlining the LBC
process and helping owners of large, complex, usually Modern listed buildings ‘come to an
agreement with the local authority on what is ‘special’ about their building, and thus what
works might (or might not) need consent’.75 EH’s Heritage Protection Action Plan also contains
work elements aimed at: ‘better protection of later 20th Century buildings and landscapes,

74
NHPP, Section 4A2, 11-15, p.19
75
EH (June 1995) Developing guidelines for the management of listed buildings; EH/Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (June 2003) Streamlining
listed building consent Lessons of management agreements; PPS 5 Practice Guide, 174, p.47

23
greater sensitivity to C20th buildings and their significance and development and promotion of
Heritage Partnership Agreements (HPAs)’.76

There are now about 700 post-WWII listed buildings (March 2015) which only accounts for
0.2% of all buildings that have been awarded listed status.77 The number of council housing
blocks and estates that have been listed are comparatively few and predominantly London
based, the principal ones are shown in the Annex: Key Listed Modern Post-War Social Housing.
The first post-WWII, council-housing tower block to be listed was Keeling House, Bethnal
Green (designed by Denys Lasdun, listed Grade II* in 1993). It has four residential towers
connected to a central, service core, and was the mature version of Lasdun’s ‘cluster-block’
design. Having fallen into disrepair, its demolition was being considered but this was
prevented by the listing decision.

Figure 10: Keeling House, c.195978

On its listing Secretary of State for National Heritage, Peter Brooke, stated: 'the quality of
much post-WWII architecture is still the subject of controversy, particularly where tower
blocks are concerned. However, Keeling House is an architecturally outstanding example of

76
EH NHPP Action Plan 2011-15, Protection Results: 4A2.1, 4A2.2 and 5B1.1
77
<https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/listed-buildings> [retrieved 12 June 2015]
78
<https://www.architecture.com/image-library/ribapix/image-information/poster/keeling-house-claredale-street-bethnal-green-london-the-
balconies-between-the-wings-of-cluster-block/posterid/RIBA2442-4.html>; <http://www.modernistestates.com/post/59664343289/2-bedroom-flat-
for-rent-keeling-house-bethnal> [retrieved 8 July 2015]

24
1950s public housing. I am aware of the structural and technical problems associated with
Keeling House, and the various estimates of the costs of repairing it but the legislation requires
that I list buildings which I consider to be of special architectural or historic interest. If an
application were made for consent to demolish Keeling House, the listed building consent
procedure would permit the special interest of the building to be weighed against other
arguments which may point in favour of demolition’.79 Two other key social housing estates to
have been listed are Spa Green Estate, Islington (designed by Lubetkin and Tecton, listed II* in
1998) and Churchill Gardens, Pimlico (designed by Powell and Moya, listed Grade II in 1998).
Spa Green embodies the qualities that the architect Richard Meier praises in Lubetkin: ‘a
search for harmony, a rational procedure, a precision of detail, constructional integrity, a
respect for human scale, and most importantly, the expression of faith in ideology and the
creation of architecture that contained a message for the future’.80 Lubetkin’s assertion
‘Nothing is too good for ordinary people’ is still the motto of the estate. Churchill Gardens was
a pioneering example of a mixed development and it acted as the model for many subsequent
high-density council housing projects. The estate was also notable for its district heating and
hot water system and its glass-faced accumulator tower that was built to collect refuse from
the now-disused Battersea Power Station on the opposite bank of the Thames. The estate was
designated a conservation area in 1990, and six of its principal housing blocks and the
accumulator tower are listed.81

Figure 11: Spa Green Aerial View, c.1959; Churchill Gardens, Accumulator Tower and
Battersea Power Station in Background, c.195082

Two of the largest council housing estates to be listed are the LCC’s Alton East and West
estates, Roehampton (built 1955-1959 and listed Grade II and Grade II* respectively). At the

79
Local Government Chronical, 24 Nov. 1993 <http://www.lgcplus.com/peter-brooke-announces-listing-of-keeling-house-tower-
hamlets/1655708.article> [retrieved 16 Nov. 2012]
80
Richard Meier, foreword in Allan J. (2002) Berthold Lubetkin
81
Elwall R. (2000), p.46
82
<https://municipaldreams.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/aerial-view-1.jpg>;
<https://municipaldreams.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/churchill-gardens-towards-battersea.jpg> [retrieved 16 Nov. 2015]

25
time, these schemes formed one of the largest housing developments in Europe (with about
13,000 residents) and Elwall (2000) considers them ‘striking testaments to the idealism and
social commitment‘ of the LCC.83 They have informal layouts with varied forms and
landscaping containing a mixture of flats, maisonettes and houses, all laid out to take
advantage of the site.

Figure 11: Alton East Estate, Aerial View, c.195084

For a period that achieved so much, not only in terms of output, but also in respect of
technological advancement and design innovation, heritage designation to ensure protection
of these achievements appears to be astonishingly deficient and there is a wealth of housing
from this period that is unrepresented. London based examples of post-WWII blocks of
stepped housing include: Morant Place, Wood Green (designed by Ivor Smith and Cailey
Hutton for London Borough Haringey in 1975) and Stoneleigh Terrace, Camden (designed by
Peter Tabori for London Borough Camden in 1972-9. Also notable is the council housing
designed by Skinner, Bailey & Lubetkin in Bethnal Green, such as the Dorset and Cranbrook
estates, completed in 1957 and 1963 respectively; and Sivill House, a nineteen-storey housing
block, completed in 1962. These estates display Lubetkin’s attention to detail and show his
commitment to provide decent homes for ordinary people. Of particular interest are the
designs of the blocks’ communal staircases.

83
Elwall R. (2000), p.48-9
84
<https://www.architecture.com/image-library/ribapix.html?keywords=RIBA33551> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2015]

26
Figure 12: (clockwise from top left) Morant Place, Stoneleigh Terrace, The Dorset Estate,
staircases from Dorset and Cranbrook Estates, Sivill House85

85
<https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4001/5076418310_c55b705a6e_b.jpg>;
<http://www.modernism-in-metroland.co.uk/stoneleigh-terrace.html,; http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/2686620>;
<http://towerhamlets.filmoffice.co.uk/news/tower-hamlets-news/dorset-estate-is-film-london's-location-of-the-
month.aspx?alttemplate=boroughnewsarticle>;< https://66pp.wordpress.com/2014/10/12/morley-von-stenberg-stairs> [retrieved 16 Nov. 2015]

27
The post-WWII social housing that has been recognised as architecturally significant follows to
some extent Smith’s AHD theory, in that it has large monumental elements in the form of
blocks and towers. Indeed, listed status was only initially applied to the principal blocks in
some of the estates that have been listed and it is only more recently that designation has
been extended to protect them as a whole (see Chapter 6). Other low and mid-rise social
housing does not always have large striking elements to attract listed status and because of its
perceived ordinariness it is not appreciated and offered heritage protection. However, some
of this housing has a compositional design integrity representative of the Modern post-WWII
that demonstrates design innovation on a large scale. The Gleadless Valley in Sheffield is one
such case. Formerly a rural area, 2.5 miles southeast of the city centre, the Gleadless Valley
was developed as a large housing project with around 4000 dwellings for 17,000 people by
Sheffield City Council (1955-62). One of the main challenges for the scheme was the terrain
which slopes as much as 1 in 4 in places. This was overcome by designing various housing
types like patio houses, chalets, maisonettes and blocks of cluster houses to suit the slope and
follow the contours of the land. The project also provided neighbourhood facilities, including
shops, Doctors’ surgeries, public houses and churches all following the estate design palette
and contributing to make a dramatic large scale vista across the valley.

Figure 13: The Gleadless Valley Estate, c.196886

86
<http://sytimescapes.org.uk/zones/sheffield/S22> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2015]

28
Sheffield’s Gleadless Valley Estate combines elements of Modernism in terms of its design,
layout and materiality with that of the spatial qualities of the Picturesque. In a similar way to
Alton East and West, its architects had to work with the landscape to create housing that is
unique to its setting. Sixty years on the Alton estates and Sheffield’s Park Hill (see Chapter 3)
are listed and celebrated for their design innovation and heroic scale. In contrast, however,
their contemporary, Gleadless Valley, is without listed buildings and Conservation Area status
yet in terms of heroic scale it provided more homes than both the Alton estates and Park Hill
and over a much wider area. It serves to demonstrate how many buildings and estates from
the post-WWII period, particularly outside the capital, are not being appreciated for their
achievements and are being disregarded as being insignificant and unworthy as heritage.

Figure 14: Contemporary Images of the Gleadless Valley Estate

The Complexities and Contradictions of Modern Heritage Protection

For an architectural style that represented progress and the future its relegation to history and
the past may prove challenging because of the inherent complexities within Modernism which

29
could distort and further preclude recognition of its contemporary heritage value. The
importance of contemporary values and their effect on conservation was first acknowledged
by the Austrian art historian, Alois Riegl at the beginning of the 20th Century. Riegl was the
first to analyse the values distinguishing traditional and modern conservation approaches. He
highlighted the difference between intended monuments built specifically to carry a message
and ‘unintentional monuments of art and history’ subsequently recognised as historic and
associated with specific values. These were originally built to satisfy practical and ideal needs
and only afterwards gained ‘historic value’ depending on modern perception. Riegl considered
intended and unintended monuments were characterised by memorial value. With intended
monuments this was imposed by the original authors but with unintentional monuments it
was defined by society and more often than not connected with the monument later than at
the time of its construction. The traditional role in repair of the intentional monument was to
keep the message it was built to convey intact. The notion of the ‘unintentional monument’
instead reflected a new concept of historicity and values in relation to modern cultures and the
idea of preserving examples of progress and development.87 Jokilehto (1999) indicated this
sense of significance in cultural heritage derives from the conception that each structure is a
creative and unique expression by a particular artist or community representing a cultural
context. Within such a context it may be possible to identify examples that are most
representative or outstanding of a particular class of product. However, as there are no
universally absolute criteria for art assessment, art values can only be appreciated so far as
they correspond to contemporary values. Modern conservation is therefore characterised by
relative and changing values in contemporary society and the identification of historical
objects and structures as cultural heritage leads to different opinions.88 Henket (1998) further
highlighted that some ‘ordinary’ buildings have now become ‘icons’ elevated through cultural
appreciation whereas others, that could equally be considered good examples of ‘historically
important ways of thinking’ may be not appreciated because they are no longer acceptable
culturally or they are disliked publically.89 In the 19th Century the preservation of monuments
was also concerned with originality and unity of style so the policy was to remove all traces of
natural decay to re-establish an integrity corresponding to the original intentions. In a gradual
process, however, this historic value evolved into an evolutionary value that Riegl called ‘age
value’ associated with memory and the passing of time. From his assessment Riegl basically
identified two assessment groups: memorial values showing historic value, age-value and
intended memorial value and also a set of values corresponding to the present: use value,

87
Riegl A. (1928) ‘The Modern Cult of Monuments: its Character and its Origin’ in 19th Century Visual Culture Reader
88
Jokilehto J. (1999), p.295
89
Henket H.J. (1998), p.13-16

30
newness value and relative art value and in order to maintain these two sets of values a
balance needed to be struck. Lewi (2002), drawing on Riegl’s idea of relative cultural values,
felt that he predicted that buildings of ‘newness value’ would often appear ‘stylistically out of
key’ or ‘downright ugly’ in the view of the present perception generating ‘a demand for their
deliberate destruction’.90 She also considered that not only did Riegl anticipate an
appreciation of aged things and places in the 20th Century but that he supported the ‘new and
modern’ as opposed to the ‘historical copy’ which is why he included the value of ‘newness’.
He further foresaw the problems occurring when a modern building’s fabric and facilities were
seen as outdated and in need of renovation when he wrote: ‘in the new signs of decay irritate
rather than lend atmosphere…we are disturbed at the sight of decay in newly made artefacts
(premature aging) as we are in traces of fresh intervention into old artefacts (conspicuous
restoration)’.91 Baxter (2002) agreed with this stating: ‘the visible architecture is often not
accepting the patina of age - glass, concrete, steel and plastic look unhappy when decayed and
some materials cannot be repaired. Age does not confer a beauty of its own, in fact the
reverse’. Baxter feels we should ‘celebrate the abstract intellectual achievement of Modern
buildings and not focus on the tangible steel, glass, concrete or plastic’ and ‘when buildings are
in difficulty if it is economic replace them with better detailed materials without any
philosophical qualms but with good design and skill’. 92 Colquhoun (1982) also considered
Riegl’s notions of ‘age value’ and newness particularly relevant to Modern architecture and
were confirmed in Riegl’s remark: ‘in our modern view, the new artefact requires flawless
integrity of form and colour as well as of style…the truly modern work must recall…earlier
works as little as possible’.93

Today it is the ‘age’ of historical buildings that constitutes their value rather than their qualities
as monuments and the past is valued for its ‘pastness’. The problems arise, however, when
that which was classified as new effectively becomes old and we are confronted with the
inconsistencies inherent within Modernism itself. Lewi (2002) believes there are paradoxes in
the conservation of Modern buildings as their potency is compromised or lost when they are
ultimately recognised as being historically valuable.94 As she states: ‘we are poignantly
reminded of the end of Modernism by the very acceptance of a Modernist building as heritage
domain and the original impetus to stand outside or oppose existing historical styles and
traditions in order to frame the new is thus being re-interpreted into an all-inclusive, historicist

90
Lewi H. (2002) ‘Paradoxes in the Conservation of the Modern Movement’ in Back from Utopia: The Challenge of the Modern Movement, p.350-7
91
Riegl A. (1928), p.59
92
Baxter A. (2001), p.28
93
Colquhoun A. (2009), ‘Newness and Age Value in Alois Riegl’ in Collected Essays in Architectural Criticism, p.230-2
94
Lewi H. (2002), p.350-7

31
narrative of place making and perhaps conservation is paradoxically dealing the final blow to
the real existence of Modernism, un-writing its potency and preparing the way for its sedation
through reminders of its very remoteness and past’. Lewi illustrated this point with reference
to Arendt’s (1961) cultural battle of the tenses that draws on a parable by Franz Kafka. In this
a man is situated on a road in a battleground between two antagonists representing the force
of the past pushing him from behind and the force of the future blocking him from the front.
What is significant about Kafka’s tale is that it is not only the future but also the past that is a
force to be reckoned with. The past is not a dead weight pulling one back, on the contrary it
pushes forward in the guise of tradition and remembrance and the future drives back
antagonistically towards the past. The battle lines are constantly shifting and each generation
must find its own way between the tenses and ‘ploddingly pave anew’.95 This parable may be
applied to the shifting ground of architectural history and conservation upon which
Modernism is currently crossing from inventiveness, progress and optimism towards the
realms of historicism and memory. Modernism still represents progress and the future yet is
on the verge of being ‘engulfed in heritage values’. This leaves a dilemma between on one
hand the total demolition of Modernism and on the other its historicising through heritage
practices, as ultimately both enhance the loss of what it was to be Modern. Heynen (1995)
similarly feels Modernity is intrinsically contradictory because it is characterised by a constant
struggle for development but also nostalgia for what is forever lost.96 She quotes Berman
(1985) who stated ‘to be modern is to find ourselves in an environment that promises us
adventure, power, joy, growth transformation of ourselves and the world and at the same
time that threatens to destroy everything we have, everything we know, everything we are’.97
The character of Modernity is therefore a paradox which links us with the future and a
sensibility for the transient but this transitory nature disconnects us through continuous
change as a result of a constant pursuit of progress. And although the Modern Movement
advocated a complete break with the past what it has shown is that a ‘tabula-rasa’
architecture is not capable of fulfilling all human needs as there is some deeply felt human
desire that has to do with a sense of history, with a feeling of belonging and a need to establish
a relationship with the past. Pawley (1998), conversely, is a critic of conservation. He feels
that Modern architecture, like every other Modern Art movement, has now succumbed to its
‘treasure house’ accounting system and ‘museum status’ has been given to many Modern
buildings, converting the ‘once proud revolutionary instruments back to monuments’ which

95
Arendt H. (1961), Between Past and Future, p.7
96
Heynen H. (1998), p.29-33
97
Berman M. (1985) All That is Solid Melts into Air, The Experience of Modernity

32
has finally brought ‘the great artistic mutiny of Modernism’ to heel.98 Powers (2001) feels that
Pawley rightly describes these buildings as ‘revolutionary instruments’ but he believes their
function as such does not cease once they become absorbed in a process of conservation and
it is only if they are ‘altered, mutilated or demolished’ their potential for ‘continuing
revolutionary activity would be lost’. Indeed Powers considers that Modern buildings have
tended to be the ‘Trojan Horses’ that have opened the gates for the conservation for other
20th Century buildings.99

Conclusion

You cannot have form in architecture which is unrelated to human needs; and you cannot
serve human needs in terms of architecture without a sense of form and space.
Architecture, for me at any rate, only makes sense as the promoter and extender of human
relations…but it has to communicate through the language of form and space if it is to be
considered an art. And it is unequivocally an art. This implies giving form; touching the
spirit; bearing the imprint of sensibility, temperament and intellect; concern for the
immeasurable; the capacity to make value judgements as to what is ugly, what is beautiful;
organising plans that are in touch with life – a quality very quickly sensed by the man in the
street…’
Denys Lasdun, RIBA Gold Medallist Address100

‘The inability to objectify Modernism’s criteria and standards has resulted in the return of
subjectivity as well as other issues long thought resolved…these have re-emerged from the
margins significantly changed.’
Saul Ostrow (1997) 101

The idea that Modern Movement buildings are heritage is gaining credence and EH and the
C20 Society have secured listing of a number of notable examples. However, despite both the
Government and EH recognising that buildings from this period are facing acute
redevelopment pressures, their heritage designation is vastly under-represented and many
buildings from this period that could be considered worthy of heritage classification have no
protection against the perceived threats. A number of factors appear to particularly hinder
social housing heritage designation and have resulted in differing public, professional and
political opinion about its conservation. Principally: the general perception that it comes from
a period when much public housing was of a low standard and the cause of social
dissatisfaction and concern; the perception of it now being for a minority group and of it being
a housing tenure that does not represent the current and majority, aspirational choice; the

98
Pawley M. (1998) Terminal Architecture, p.98
99
Powers A. (2001) ‘Style or Substance? What are we trying to conserve?’ in Preserving Post-war Heritage: The care and conservation of mid-
twentieth century architecture, p.3-5
100
Reprinted in Curtis, W. J. R. (1994) Denys Lasdun: architecture, city, landscape
101
Ostrow S. (1997) in Carrier D. (ed.) England and its aesthetics, quoted by Powers A. (2001) in ‘Style or Substance? What are we trying to
conserve?’, p.10

33
fact that its buildings do not fit the traditional notion of Britain’s heritage canon in terms of
age, historic-period, beauty, class-representation and style; and also because of the inherent
complexities within Modernism itself involving the contradictory nature of the historicity of
the representations of its ideas and forms as well as the problems and challenges associated
with its conservation materiality. The issues raised in this chapter will be investigated further
through eight case studies of social housing: Golden Lane Estate is examined to show how a
‘model estate’ is conserved in the traditional sense and illustrates the specific problems
concerning ‘retention of as much original fabric as possible’ versus the need to provide
contemporary homes. Park Hill has been chosen to demonstrate a rehabilitative approach to a
building's heritage where regeneration was deemed necessary to ensure its continued success
and how this is balanced against historic and architectural significance. The Brunswick Centre
examines the problems that can occur when the built reality of a building differs from the
architect’s original intent and how this can affect the aims of the conservation effort. The
Alexandra Road Estate case study highlights the problems associated with physically repairing
a Modern estate and the issue of age value versus newness value in a Modern building. The
Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates demonstrate the complexities of the heritage protection
of large estates as a single entity, not only in terms of their buildings and structures but in
relation to their compositional spaces and design integrity. This chapter also looks at the
practicalities of conserving windows and facades of large blocks and towers and whether this
requires a different methodology from other heritage buildings. The final chapter examines
the fate of two estates that failed to gain listed status. Wynford House’s refurbishment on the
Priory Green Estate was instrumental in determining the future of the whole estate. Robin
Hood Gardens, however, is facing a very different outcome and is examined to show that
heritage values alone are not always thought important enough to save a famous building.
This study aims to identify the problems associated with the conservation of social housing so
that action can be recommended to help improve the protection of this heritage type.

34
Chapter 2 Preservation of a Model Estate: Golden Lane Estate, an Urban Village

Figure 15: Golden Lane Estate Model 1

‘In practice the past does not exist. What does still exist today and has not died is the
historical present’
Lina Bo Bardi2

‘As Nietzsche observed long ago, the moderns suffer from the illness of historicism. They
want to keep everything, date everything, because they think they have definitely broken
with their past. The more they accumulate revolutions, the more they save, the more they
capitalise, the more they put on display in museums. Maniacal destruction is
counterbalanced by an equally maniacal conservation.
Bruno Latour3

Golden Lane Estate, by Chamberlin, Powell and Bon (CPB) was built for the City of London
Corporation, 1953-61. Listed in 1997, it was identified as a ‘model estate’ having a high quality
of design detail. The housing blocks, outside spaces, and ancillary facilities as well as many
dwellings’ fixtures and fittings have been included in the listing criteria. Management
guidelines were drawn up in 1995 to help in the estate’s preservation. On the face of it, the
traditional conservation concepts, particularly in respect of retention of as much original fabric
as possible, have been applied. This chapter examines how these theories work in practice
and it considers preservation of historic fabric and ‘special character’ versus the need to
provide attractive homes to meet today’s needs (symbolic value versus user value).

1
City of London Corporation Golden Lane Listed Building Management Guidelines (LBMG) (2007), p. 197
2
Quoted in Henket H.J. & Heyman H. (eds.) (2002) Back from Utopia: The Challenge of the Modern Movement, p. 274
3
Latour B. (1991) We have Never Been Modern, p.69

36
Site History

Figure 16: City of London Aerial View, c.19454

Before WWII the City of London had been occupied since the mid-19th Century by small
warehouses. Incendiary bombing in Dec. 1940, however, destroyed an area covering 35 acres
leaving only isolated walls and mounds of rubble remaining. By 1951 the City’s resident
population had fallen to 5,000. Those who had lost their homes during the War had been re-
housed elsewhere and business and commerce became the main land uses. By day the City
was bustling with half a million commuting workers, but at night it was a ‘ghost town’.5 The
City of London had been England’s first public authority to build social housing but most of its
estates were outside its boundaries. Following the War, however, it recognised a need to
provide more centrally located homes for a small population who worked in the City.6 In Feb.
1951 it acquired 4.7 acres of land, adjacent to its boundary in Finsbury. In May 1954 the site
was extended to 7 acres. The aim was to provide council housing for City workers, such as
caretakers, nurses and policemen, who had to live near their work. The anticipated need,
therefore, was not for large family units but for flats for single people and couples.

4
<http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk/Golden_Lane_Estate/Estate/construction_of_estate.htm> [retrieved 18 June 2012]
5
Cantacuzino S. ‘Criticism: The Barbican Development’ in Architectural Review, Oct. 1973, p.71
6
Harwood E. (2011) Chamberlin, Powell and Bon: The Barbican and Beyond, p.27

37
 Figure 17: Pre-War Map Showing Location of Proposed Golden Lane Redevelopment7

Figure 18: Plan Showing Pre-War Golden Lane Street Layout and Extent of Competition Brief8

7
Bartholomew’s pocket atlas and guide to London, 1922 London: City, East-end
8
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 30 June 2012

38
Golden Lane Estate Design

The 1951 design competition generated 178 entries, including three by Kingston School of Art
lecturers: Geoffry Powell, Peter Chamberlin and Christof Bon, who had agreed to form a
partnership if any of their schemes were chosen. The entries were assessed by architect
Donald McMorran and Powell’s entry was declared winner of the £1000 guinea prize in Feb.
1952, thus forming the partnership of Chamberlin, Powell and Bon (CPB). McMorran had
considered there were three ways of tackling the design: ‘some went for high blocks, some
emphasised low buildings and a great many went for a variety of both high and low blocks’. He
concluded that those who went for a variety ‘only succeeded in getting untidiness’ but the
winner had ‘succeeded in getting orderliness’ and achieved ‘a village character in a featureless
site with no particular views on its outskirts’. 9

Figure 19: Powell’s Competition Entry 10

9
Architectural Design, July 1953, p.190-2
10
LBMG (2007), p.14, originally London Metropolitan Archives

39
Powell’s original design provided for an eleven storey tower and twelve terrace blocks. It was
subsequently made less symmetrical with fewer blocks and courts to reduce the danger of
their being too ‘dark and oppressive’ but its principles remained the same. By erasing the pre-
War road pattern Powell made the development inward-facing around a series of courtyards
that pivoted around a central tower block. He stated: ‘as the site offers no interesting outlook
the aim is to offer interest within…none of the courts are entirely closed so they offer a variety
of views’.11 The brief required that each block should have a storage basement and Powell
developed this by exploiting the deep basements left by the former buildings to produce a
series of varied levels. CPB supervised the building in detail, which took nine years to
construct at an estimated cost of £1m. The first phase was officially opened in 1957. The
estate contained 557 dwellings for 1390 inhabitants, a swimming pool, badminton court,
tennis courts, nursery and playground, community centre, an elderly person’s clubroom,
laundries, hobby rooms, nineteen shops and a public house. A wide range of amenities was
provided to compensate for the high density. Despite this, 60% of the site was still open
space, made possible by building taller structures than was common in 1951 and placing the
smaller flats in the tower. Studios and one bedroom flats comprised the majority of the units
(359). McMorran had favoured Powell’s scheme because of its economical use of steel
(excluding the tower) and because it required a small number of lifts to ‘make it work’. He
liked how the former basements had been excavated to form courtyards and ‘interesting visual
effects’, which gave the buildings their ‘village-like’ character, especially the central, public,
pedestrian ‘piazza’ with the community building, like a village hall. Powell had in his design
entry emphasised this so that assessors could visualise people wandering around the estate,
leaning on the various parapets and railings overlooking the courts as ‘do villagers on the
village bridge’.12

Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’s Design Methodology

Golden Lane Estate’s courtyard design offered something new in planning terms which other
schemes had failed to do, either providing for high densities in medium-height uniform blocks,
such as Churchill Gardens, or low density, small-scale developments as an expression of the
Garden City Movement, such as Lansbury).13 CPB were among the first architects to consider a
three-dimensional solution.14 They also ‘attempted to make Golden Lane truly urban’

11
Architectural Design, July 1953, p.190-2
12
The Architects’ journal, 6 March 1952, p.298
13
Golden Lane Estate List Entry <http://list.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 16 Nov. 2012]
14
Harwood E. (ed.) (2011) Chamberlin, Powell and Bon: The Barbican and Beyond, p.3

40
preferring a ‘strong contrast between true town and true country’. 15 Former CPB employee,
Penoyre (2012) has described how they were well educated and travelled, that they drew on
ideas from Vermeer and Pieter de Hooch’s observations of thresholds and from the design of
the outdoors in Italian gardens and Renaissance architecture. He considers this brought a
much richer treatment to a very simple scheme and the way they manipulated the landscape is
one of the things that makes the atmosphere at Golden Lane Estate so special. 16 Although
Golden Lane Estate is Modern it is interesting to note how Victorian house features were
abstracted in its design, such as ‘areas’ in front of the dwellings with private steps leading up
to the house front doors, central block segments with a projecting frontage forward of the
brick pier and extending of the party walls at both ends of the balconies to give the effect of
individual two-storey dwellings placed side by side as in terraces.

Figure 20: Pieter de Hooch, Musical Party in a Courtyard; The Courtyard of a House in Delft 17

Although evidence on CPB’s thinking is limited, Chamberlin gave a published RIBA talk which
gives an insight into their methodology.18 In this he acknowledged that they had worked ‘in a
time where there were no holds barred, either technical or aesthetical’, that everything had to
be ‘developed from first principles’ and the process of correctly analysing the particular
activity was of ‘first importance’. To achieve this he believed in understanding as much as
possible of the ‘way of life’ which meant much more than mere functionality. He also
highlighted the fundamental element of space and that although ‘any space evokes a response

15
The Architects' Journal, 15 Jan. 1953, p.72
16
Penoyre (2012) ‘Greg Penoyre's inspiration: The Golden Lane Estate, London’ in Building Design, 3 May 2012
17
<http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/search?q=Pieter+de+Hooch+&x=0&y=0> [retrieved 7 July 2015]
18
Chamberlin P. ‘Architects’ Approach to Architecture’ in RIBA Journal, 6 June 1969, p.229–35

41
of its own’ it is heightened by ‘comparative awareness from an adjacent space’ so any
architectural design depends upon the juxtaposition of spaces, usually experienced in a
sequential way as one moves between them through rooms, lobbies, corridors stairwells,
alleys, arcades, arches, streets, and squares etc.’. He also believed that the groupings of
buildings in an urban situation was a larger manifestation of that of rooms within a single
building, citing monastic buildings and the courtyards of Oxbridge as examples where their
design in close proximity had been undertaken as if they were a single problem. Chamberlin
believed it essential to think three dimensionally and design in section as well as plan and to
consider what was needed structurally to create the spaces, like the planes, voids, columns,
beams and materials which he considered ‘the very stuff of architecture’. He cited the need to
balance client needs with the inherent spatial opportunities and the technical and financial
resources available. He also referred to the importance of the Society for Promotion of Urban
Renewal (SPUR) of which he had been a member and the fact that urban renewal was also
about ‘preservation and re-habitation’ and finding other uses for or improving what might be
otherwise regarded as obsolescent. CPB were quoted in 1980 as explaining that one of their
principal interests was the creation of places, not just buildings and the three elements they
considered central to architecture were site, space and urbanism.19 Traffic separation also
became a key issue for them. When asked about their sources in 1989, Powell had indicated
they ‘were all into Le Corbusier’. The Unité with its roof garden and the double height
maisonettes of Le Corbusier’s courtyard and ‘set-back’ blocks were the obvious housing
models for Golden Lane. Maisons Jaoul has also been cited as inspiration for Crescent House.

Figure 21: Le Corbusier’s Maisons Jaoul20

19
Emanuel M. (ed.) (1980) ‘Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’ in Contemporary Architects, p.148
20
<http://www.fondationlecorbusier.fr> [retrieved 4 Nov. 2015]

42
Mies van der Rohe, Frank Lloyd Wright and Ludwig Hilberseimer were also given as their other
influences.21 Yet CPB never attended CIAM meetings, were not members of Team 10 or the
Independent Group, neither did they write and lecture much after their practice was
established. Gough (2011) has described them as ‘very skilful scenographers as well as bloody
strong architects’. He also felt that as they were privately wealthy it allowed them to spend
considerably more time than most on the analysis of their client’s needs and aspirations which
lead to a rigorous questioning of the brief and a problem solving attitude to design.22 Powell
(1999) feels that if their names are too little known today it is perhaps because they were, as
Geoffry Powell had admitted, ‘not joiners, never members of a club and non-writers’. Bon also
felt many architects wrote too much and should ‘stick to building’.23

Golden Lane Estate Layout

The estate, named after Golden Lane, has nine residential blocks. Some were named after
former streets: Basterfield, Hatfield, Bayer, Little Arthur and Great Arthur, others
commemorated City Corporation Members. The tower, Great Arthur House, is roughly in the
centre and with the community building it forms one side of the main piazza. The rest of the
estate is made up of lower terrace blocks, placed around three other courts. Crescent House
runs the length of Goswell Road and Stanley Cohen House covers much of the eastern
boundary. Dwellings in these two blocks face east and west. The others run east to west, with
their dwellings facing north and south. The blocks were positioned to take account of then
current day-lighting and fire safety standards.24 Bowater House, Bayer house and the
southern part of Stanley Cohen House overlook the main piazza which had a patterned floor
designed to be read as a picture on the ground from upper flats. The public court formed by
Crescent House, Cullum Welch House and Great Arthur House opens onto Fann Street with
residents’ garages underneath and air and light providing ‘silo-like’ structures at ground level.
Adjacent is the physical recreation court, formed by Crescent House, Cullum Welch House and
Hatfield House. The recreational building and glazed swimming pool, provides a transparent,
multi-level link to the fourth inner court. Located between Basterfield and Bayer Houses it
contains a walled concrete circular enclosure, the ‘Bastion’ that Pevsner likened to a sheep-
fold.

21
Quoted in Harwood E. (ed.) (2011), p.4
22
Gough P. (2011) Chamberlin, Powell and Bon: The Barbican and Beyond , Foreword
23
Powell K. (March 1999) ‘Pioneering urbanism’ in The Architects' journal 4 March 1999, p.24-5
24
Architectural Design, Sept. 1956, p.294-8

43
Figure 22: Golden Lane Estate Plan25

A - Great Arthur House

B - Cuthbert Harrowing House
C - Bowater House
D - Bayer House
E - Stanley Cohen House
F - Basterfield House
G - Hatfield house
H - Cullum Welch House
J - Crescent House
K - Community Building, seating 200 persons, stage, youth-club
L - Recreational Building, swimming pool, nursery, badminton court
M - Estate Workshops
1 - Main pedestrian piazza, community building, low-level court, formal garden, pond
2 - Public pedestrian forecourt, underground garages, service road, boiler house
3 - Physical recreation court, tennis court, children’s play-areas
4 - Inner court, bastion, lawn, decorative paving

25
Adapted from plan in The Architects’ journal, 29 Dec. 1960, p.932

44
 Figure 23: Golden Lane Estate Surrounded by War Detritus26

Figure 24: The Main Piazza and Community Centre27

26
Image 26163 <https://www.architecture.com/image-library> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2015]
27
LBMG (2007), p.11, originally London Metropolitan Archives, ref. SC PHL 02 0736 58

45
 Figure 25: Bowater, Great Arthur and Stanley Cohen Houses28

Figure 26: The Recreational Court, Crescent and Hatfield Houses29

28
London Metropolitan Archives, ref. SC PHL 02 0736 58 2998,
<http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk/collage/app?service=external/SearchResults&sp=Zgolden+lane+estate> [retrieved 20 July 2012]
29
Image B87/635 <http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk> [retrieved 31 July 2012]

46
 Figure 27: The Inner Court30

The estate landscaping was considered radical at the time. Its hard surfaced areas on different
levels respond to the varying forms and uses of the surrounding buildings and a simple,
effective graduation of privacy was achieved without walls, gates or railings. The pavement
areas are generally at street level and the gardens five to seven feet lower, defining separation
between public and more private areas. Planting was used to break up the large paved/tarred
areas and each garden has an area of shrub or grass which can be viewed from dwellings in
adjacent blocks and the higher level of the pedestrian-ways. Although the gardens are
available to everyone, they can be accessed directly from the blocks they abut, so they serve
as outside space to the estate in general and to specific blocks in particular. In designing these
spaces CPB intended a move away from the Garden City Movement to recapture the: ‘close,
packed, active character of many Italian towns and English market towns where private life
and community life are very closely related’. The relationship between the buildings was
considered as important as the buildings themselves with special attention paid to the floor
treatment with varying textures, colours and patterns.31 Harwood (2001) considers the urban

30
Image B87/641 <http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk> [retrieved 31 July 2012]
31
Architectural Design, July 1953, p.190-2

47
spaces ‘straddle a boundary between the picturesque and the formal’ and the hard
landscaping is ‘eased by the changes in level, natural materials and circular bastion’. 32 To
preserve the estate for pedestrian use, the main service road was located below ground.
Entered via ramps on Baltic and Fann Streets it provides access to block basements, garages,
refuse areas and the commercial premises’ lower levels. Stairs, lifts and refuse chutes were
also kept to the site perimeter so that service vehicles could access buildings from the public
roads.33

Five blocks contain maisonettes and the other four flats on one level. There are a variety of
plan types and nearly all have a private balcony. One of the estate’s key features is the use of
primary colours in glass panels that were supplemented by black, white and grey paint finishes
elsewhere. CPB explained ‘the aim in selecting finishes has been to achieve performance,
good appearance and low up-keep costs’.34 The east-west terrace blocks consist of brick-
faced, load-bearing cross walls and concrete slabs. The dwellings span the block and the
subdivisions and detailing on both elevations reflect the internal design so they read as
terraces of houses on top of each other. They have either red or blue opaque glass cladding
below window level and a band of continuous glazing and coloured glass on the upper floor of
the top maisonettes. Both the windows and glass cladding are framed in aluminium. The
concrete surfaces were originally left untreated but were later painted as they became stained
from the iron pyrites in the aggregate. CPB explained the construction in a drawing of the six
storey maisonette block: basements accommodate storage and laundry rooms; lower
dwellings have south facing front entrances reached by private steps from the sunken gardens;
upper dwellings are accessed from outside galleries on alternative floors on the northern side;
fire escape balconies with wired glass fronts are located between north-facing bedrooms on
the first, third and fifth floors; kitchens are located along the gallery, living spaces open onto a
balcony and bedrooms above extend out over the gallery. Dwellings have entrance lobbies
leading to the kitchen and living area. These are separated by a glazed screen with a kitchen
cupboard and bookshelves on the living-room side. A serving hatch provided an extended
view between the rooms, revealing the full length of the party wall. In the two bedroom
maisonettes, stairs rise in front of the entrance door, leading from the living room by a double
height window to the bedroom. In three-bedroom dwellings stairs are at the back of the living
room, parallel to the access gallery. Upper maisonettes are lit by clerestory glazing and the

32
Harwood E. (2011), p.38
33
Architectural Design, Sept. 1956, p.294-8
34
The Architects’ journal, 6 March 1952, p.298

48
stairs are of timber rather than concrete. Some maisonettes had a hinged decorating platform
fitted above the stairs and integral shelving incorporated below the stair treads.35 Basterfield,
Bayer and Bowater Houses follow this format. Cuthbert Harrowing House is a four-storey
version of this building type.36

Figure 28: Six-Storey Maisonette Block Perspective Section37

35
LBMG (2007), p.71
36
The Architects’ journal, 29 Dec. 1960, p.931-42
37
Adapted from perspective in The Architects’ journal, 29 Dec. 1960,p.940

49
 Figure 29: Typical Maisonette Layout38

38
Adapted from drawings in Architectural Review, June 1957, p.421

50
 Figure 30: Clockwise (top left): Basterfield, Bayer, Cuthbert Harrowing and Bowater Houses

Stanley Cohen House has the brick cross-wall structure but appears different because its
concrete walls were painted black and its woodwork white. It has four storeys to allow
morning sunlight into the estate and its horizontal form is emphasised in its detailing.39 The
upper floor is set back on the street side to accommodate an access gallery. It contains some
ground floor flats, but its street frontage was considered inappropriate for dwellings so for the
most part there was a colonnade. This allowed access and views of the estate’s interior and
created a link with the Peabody development to the east, but some parts have since been
filled in.40 The flats have balconies facing the garden, although the central flats also have a
small balcony on the street side.

39
Harwood E. (2011), p.31
40
LBMG (2007), p.15

51
Figure 31: Stanley Cohen House

Stanley Cohen House

Figure 32: Great Arthur House

52
Great Arthur House was the first London residential tower over 50 metres high and the first
building to breach the 100 feet height limit in the City of London. The ground floor, housing
the estate office, is raised in the centre to allow pedestrian access underneath. Constructed of
reinforced concrete, its side walls were given a ‘pick-hammered’ finish and these have set-
back, glazed centres housing the escape stairs.41 The principal elevations have concrete paired
cantilevered balconies clad in golden yellow opaque and clear glass in aluminium frames that
also form the horizontally sliding windows. Internally, flats are screened from the lifts and
access corridors by residents’ storage cupboards. Sliding partitions separate flat living and
sleeping areas and in some cases these can be fully opened to allow the two rooms to operate
as one. The kitchens have built-in equipment on one side (sink, work surfaces, storage
cupboards, spaces for refrigerator and cooker) and a hatch connecting the worktop to the
living room. Generous storage was provided including a heated drying cupboard in the
bathroom.42 Great Arthur House’s roof has a two storey roof garden. Service equipment was
integrated with pergolas, an ornamental pool with stepping stones and a curved concrete
canopy, built to conceal water tanks. It was originally open to all residents but closed in 1981.
Although restored in 2000, it is no longer accessible for health and safety reasons.

Figure 33: Great Arthur House’s Roof Garden43

41
Architectural Review, June 1957, p.414-26
42
LBMG (2007), p.63
43
LBMG (2007), p.106, originally London Metropolitan Archives

53
 Figure 34: Great Arthur House Flat Layout44

The last three houses to be built show how the blocks evolved from the slab-block format.
Cullum Welch House is a six storey block constructed of reinforced concrete slabs on wide,
load-bearing pink brick piers, with pink mortar. It has no coloured glass cladding but flat front
doors and window frames were painted red, conforming to the estate colour palette. Its flats
are accessed by north facing galleries from stairs at each end and a lift at the west end, shared
with Crescent House. Broad steps descend under the building leading to arches containing
resident’s storage units and the physical recreation court. Instead of balconies the flats have
floor to ceiling sliding windows with a trough for planting at floor level and a windowsill level
shelf of precast concrete built into the block’s brick piers containing circular holes for flower
pots. These features also operate as safety bars for the windows. The flats have one room
and a kitchen and bathroom positioned around a small entrance lobby with a larder cupboard
incorporating a letter box, delivery hatch, gas meter and linen cupboard.45 Hatfield House has
the same blue cladding of the other houses and reads as a series of terraces except for the
lower one room flats. These have one wall containing ‘all the equipment’ and services,
including a built-in wardrobe in the lobby and a recess for a bed and ‘cooking cupboard’ in the
living room which can be concealed behind sliding screens. They also have individual south
facing gardens with pink brick walls continuing the lines of the block’s cross walls. This block

44
Adapted from drawings in Architectural Review June 1957, p.417
45
Architectural Review, Dec. 1962, p.392

54
overlooks a terrace, beneath which is the elderly residents’ clubroom that has its own terrace
overlooking the lower grassed court.46

Figure 35: Cullum Welch and Hatfield Houses

Figure 36: Crescent House Goswell Road Façade

Crescent House was the last block to be built. Constructed of reinforced concrete it curves
along Goswell Road with a roof line that rises towards Fann Street. The flats are supported by
columns on both sides, mirroring Stanley Cohen House’s colonnade on the eastern side.
Positioned above the shops their bay widows, with mosaic panels, project like ‘theatre boxes’
into the road. Crescent House’s windows are casement or the type that open horizontally.
Their metalwork is painted black and the facia panels are white. Overall this block shows a
tougher aesthetic with features like the top floor, full-height round-arched windows and barrel

46
Architectural Review, Dec. 1962, p.392

55
 vaults that CPB were developing in their
Barbican scheme.47 To contribute to the
quality of transparency on the estate
boundary, the shops originally had glazed
frontages on both facades (a concept now
being installed at Park Hill, see Chapter
3).48 The flats were planned either side of
an open corridor with wells widening
progressively towards Fann Street (see
left: Figure 37: Crescent House’s Open
Corridor).49 They contain a partly glazed
screen with a serving hatch and storage
between the kitchen and the living room
and head-height partitions and louvered
sliding doors to the bedroom recess
separating living and sleeping areas. To
economise on frontages, most have internal kitchens and bathrooms. To help accommodating
guests in the compact flats, Crescent House also has six guest rooms which continue as a
resident amenity.50

Figure 38: Crescent House and the Public Court

47
Harwood E. (2011), p.133
48
LBMG (2007), p.40
49
Architectural Review, Dec. 1962, p.392
50
LBMG (2007), p.75

56
In respect of interiors, CPB considered the overall size of the dwelling should be emphasised
rather than individual rooms. They were planned to achieve an impression of light and
spaciousness. Most have an uninterrupted view of one of the party walls, living rooms and
bedrooms are divided by sliding partitions, dwelling glazing reaches two thirds of the internal
height of each floor and kitchens and bathrooms have natural light and ventilation (excluding
Crescent House). The maisonettes have double-height spaces with open tread terrazzo
staircases cantilevering from the walls, wooden framed bedroom floors structurally suspended
from the concrete floor above (removing the need for supports over the living rooms) and
grilles to bedroom level escape balconies to improve day-lighting in kitchens below.51

Figure 39: Golden Lane Interiors: Open-tread Stairs, Sliding Partitions between Living/Sleeping
Areas, and Glazed Screens between Kitchen/Living Areas52
51
Architectural Design, Sept. 1956, p.294-8
52
LBMG (2007), p.57/70, originally commemorative brochure in Architectural Design, Sept. 1956

57
Responses to Golden Lane Estate

The estate won Housing Design Awards in 1961 and 1965, and in 2008 it was awarded the
Historic Winner: 1950s-1960s. In 1952 CPB were declared ‘Men of the Year’ by Architectural
Review and the design was selected by MARS in 1953 as part of the British contribution to
CIAM 9 at Aix-en-Province.53 When completed it attracted even more publicity than its design
competition, being viewed as a symbol of post-War recovery. It was widely photographed,
written about and from the outset regarded as a model of social integration with early tenants
including caretakers, clergymen, clerks, doctors, office cleaners, policemen and secretaries.
After a number of residents, who paid their ‘£2 12 shilling rent by cheque’ were interviewed in
1958, it was concluded that the estate seemed ‘to have rather more middle-class tenants than
the ordinary council estate’ and although there were minor criticisms there was ‘tremendous
enthusiasm’ for it.54 Daphne Jones, living in Great Arthur House ‘high–up in the city’, indicated
she ‘liked it very much’ and it had ‘a feeling of being out in the open…with more fresh air…able
to get good views and sit out on the balcony’. She liked the flat’s interior with its ‘tons of
cupboards’ and its room in the lobby for storage. John Hobday, who lived in Basterfield house,
considered it convenient for work, that there was not ‘anything comparable to it anywhere at
all’ and it was ‘first class…like being in a detached house…not disturbed by anybody either
inside or out’. His wife thought it ‘exciting’ and ‘so new and different and fun to be living in it’.
Elderly resident, Mary Eardley-Wilmot, living in a Stanley Cohen House single room flat,
indicated she was ‘very happy’ and ‘wouldn’t change it for anything’. She particularly liked the
flat’s built-in furniture, especially the recessed bed, so it didn’t have the appearance of a
‘bedsit’.

The critics also gave a favourable response. Richards (1957) considered the plan ‘excellently
worked out’ and thought that ‘a great deal of satisfaction one has from walking around the site
comes from the well-studied relationship between the blocks of varying heights and the spaces
they enclose; from the fact that they don’t enclose them entirely but allow glimpses from one
to the other and beyond the confines of the site and from the changes in ground levels which
give the buildings an effect of being strongly rooted in the ground’. Richards also liked that the
estate was inward facing and pedestrian only, with block access close to parking and site entry.
He thought the architecture ‘vigorously modelled and strong in colour’ and the detailing and
finish generally of a high standard. His main criticism concerned the concrete which had

53
Architectural Design, July 1953, p.190-2
54
The Architects’ journal, 16 Jan. 1958, p.101

58
already gone ‘streaky.’ He liked the fact that the maisonette blocks had recessed front doors,
partially subdivided by brick piers to ‘avoid the grimness that long galleries generally display’
and that flats above second floor level had lift access. He thought, however, that although
Great Arthur House’s roof canopy was ‘an excellent conception’ it was not ‘fully worked out
from a sculptural point of view’.55 An Architects’ journal review reveals how revolutionary the
arrangement of two-storey maisonettes on three levels was considered at the time and
although they thought the north facing access galleries were a ‘bit gloomy’ the south-facing
façades were considered very successful and ‘ingeniously modelled’ because the party walls,
extending beyond the balconies, not only provided privacy but gave the appearance of
individual dwellings. The glazed screens between kitchen and dining spaces and the double
height stairwell were considered to ‘give an impression of spaciousness much greater than is
usually possible for a severely limited floor area’. Overall it concluded ‘the architects had
provided an alternative building, a pleasant place to live in and forming part of an estate which
is and ought to remain one of the show places of the City of London’.56 Nairn (1964) indicated
that his numerous visits to this ‘compelling bit of modern London over the years’ had begun
with ‘surprise and delight’ which slid into disillusionment as the stained concrete became
evident but he indicated his original feelings had emerged again in ‘such a powerful sense of
place’ that ‘a few blotched concrete balconies’ could be ‘taken in their stride’. He felt ‘the
landscape and townscape ideas throughout first-rate’ and the organisation of the courts,
employing constant changes of level created ‘a sequence of individual comprehensible spaces’.
He likened Great Arthur House’s roof canopy to a ‘concrete aeroplane’ and felt it was a
‘marvellous thing to do’ in what had been the ‘most humourless of times’. He considered
Crescent House’s Goswell Street facade ‘so complex that it defied description’ and that ‘unlike
most such other attempts it manages to achieve organic complexity so that you feel that the
result is right even if your intellect can’t see why’.57

Throughout the years Golden Lane Estate has not suffered from vandalism and negative press
and it continues to attract positive comment from residents and critics alike. In 1957 Pevsner
considered the blocks ‘well-detailed and carefully distinguished from one another, with none
of the mass-produced air of much later local authority housing’. He thought that colour had
been used with ‘unabashed boldness’ especially on Great Arthur House’s facades, that ‘so
much colour still seems daring’ and it must have looked ‘stunning at the time’. He called its

55
The Architects’ journal, 20 June 1957, p.911
56
The Architects’ journal, 29 Dec. 1960, p.931-42
57
Nairn I. (1964) Modern Buildings in London, p.3-4

59
roof canopy ‘butterfly winged’ and a ‘much-remarked expression of discontent with pre-War
Modernism’s limited vocabulary of forms’.58 Architect and resident Brian Johnson (1998)
described the flats as very compact, but interestingly designed and considered that a ‘lot of
thought’ had gone into the details. Jennins (1998) considered there is ‘much to be pleased
with in Golden Lane’ and that it ‘can’t help but be humanising’ because of ‘the relationships
between form, colour, light and space and the evident solidity of the constructions’ but also
due to ‘the sense that people living there care how it looks, which combine to make a real and
unexpectedly persuasive advertisement for the qualities of the Modern Movement’. Perhaps
one of the main reasons why the estate has not suffered from social problems is due to the
dwellings’ size. As Jennings states, small flats ‘don't lend themselves to large families and the
kind of disturbances they can bring…many of the original tenants still live on the estate and
actually like living there; and also a large proportion of the dwellings are now owner-occupied,
which tends to increase the sense of neighbourhood ownership and possession…the place
belongs to its residents, they identify with it, and they and their landlords look after it well.’59

Figure 40: CPB’s Detailing, Access from the Sunken Courts

Branscome (2001) feels that the estate particularly exemplifies the architects’ interest and skill
in planning urban spaces and the interaction of mass and void is an inherent part of its
sculptural quality. She feels there is a consistency of quality and detailing in the individual and
diverse structures and a common architectural language in the overall layout that permeates
the well thought-out interior spaces that shows that the architects have addressed the
question of how to make a place, as well as how to make a building.60 Spring (2008) has also
highlighted that although many features were developed further in the Barbican, Golden Lane

58
Pevsner N. & Bradley S. (1997), p.130-1; 508-9
59
Jennings C. (1998) ‘Modern Manor’ in The Guardian, 20 Mar 1998
60
Branscome E. ‘Preservation of Housing Estates’ Sept. 2001 <http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/page/14> [retrieved 22 June 2012]

60
Estate is a unique environment and a self-sufficient 'urban village' in which every element of
space is accounted for and every detail carefully considered.61 The bold use of colour gives it
an air of vibrancy and the carefully designed interiors offer much more than functionality so it
has, as suggested, ‘good claim to be the most successful of England's housing developments
from the early 1950s’.62 In 2005 residents Alan Lam and Yanki Lee opened Exhibit Gallery, in
one of Crescent House’s shops because they wanted to ‘explore what makes this estate such a
great place’. Having restored it to how it was originally with brick and concrete walls and front
and rear glass facades they now work with artists, designers and the local community. They
acknowledge that not all high-rise social housing is seen positively, but feel that people on
Golden Lane Estate ‘care about the estate…the architects' initial intention was to make an
urban village and foster communal life and they succeeded’.63

Preservation of Golden Lane Estate

In 1995 the City proposed additional housing on the estate which residents objected to. 64 Any
plans were prevented, however, as in Dec. 1997 the estate was listed at Grade II with Crescent
House receiving a Grade II* because of its particular importance as an example of post-War
residential architecture.65 The estate heralded a new construction method in the form of glass
panels set on a concrete frame which was an early form of ‘curtain walling’ and in Great Arthur
House, it marked the advent of the tall blocks of flats. It also created a vision of integrating
housing and landscape to create an entirely urban, high-density entity, anticipating the
Barbican development. The estate has remained largely intact, despite undergoing a steady
erosion of design detail and most facilities survive in their original uses. After listing the
original colour scheme was restored on advice from Powell and Bonn. Some modifications
have been carried out to the public areas, like glazing-in of staircases in 1987. The swimming
pool was renovated in 1992 and the public house and community centre have lost many of
their original features.66 The outside area most altered is the main piazza which is now used by
service vehicles for parking. The estate was transferred to the City of London in 1994,
following boundary changes lobbied for by residents. The City still owns the freehold, acts as
estate manager and the rental flats continue as council housing, with preference given to
people living or working in the City or who have a direct connection with the City's other

61
Building, 11 July 2008, p.50-4
62
<http://www.hdawards.org/archive/2008/historic/golden_lane.html> [retrieved 15 Aug. 2012]
63
Berning D. ‘Life in a Modernist flat’ http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/sep/11/modernist-flat-architecture [retrieved 22 June 2012]
64
http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/page/golden-lane-estate-residents, Golden Lane Owner’s Association History, accessed 2 May 2014
65
List Entry Numbers: 1021941-51 <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 18 June 2012]
66
LBMG(2007), p. 83

61
estates. About half the dwellings were sold under the provisions of Right to Buy and
unsurprisingly they now command excellent prices, evidencing that it is still a very desirable
place to live.

Figure 41: Golden Lane Estate Aerial View67

In 2007 Listed Building Management Guidelines (LBMG) were developed setting out
agreements made between residents, EH, the C20 Society and the City to help ensure
continued preservation and maintenance of the estate. They were adopted by the City as a
Supplementary Planning Document to provide guidance on how its policies concerning the
estate are implemented, particularly in respect of Listed Building Consent (LBC) applications.
The LBMG, produced in conjunction with PPG15 (then operative), were seen as instrumental in
‘cultivating a new tradition of care’ to: ‘identify the nature and extent of the special
architectural and historic interest of Golden Lane Estate; provide information to all
stakeholders on the implications of listing; outline how proposals for alterations to the estate’s
buildings and landscape will be considered and the process to be followed if consent is
required; provide a framework for developing best practice in the general maintenance and

67
<http://www.bing.com> [retrieved 30 July 2012]

62
care of the estate; enable the City and EH to manage changes which could affect the special
architectural and historic interest of the estate and provide advice regarding these changes;
protect the character of the estate and increase its profile amongst those who live and work
there, raising awareness of the opportunities for enhancement through information and
guidance’.68 The LBMG highlight the estate’s value as a ‘pioneering example of a diverse urban
infill which was wholly modern in spirit yet fully responsive to its site’. Key features
contributing to its architectural and historic significance are: its ‘holistic significance’ and that it
should be appreciated in its entirety within the surrounding urban fabric; its ‘special character
of transparency’ and that light and openness can be experienced both internally and
externally; its ‘achievement of a viable and sustainable community within a tightly defined
space’; its ‘special interest of form and material’ and ‘strongly defined geometry’ formed by
components which combine to create an architectural language, specific to each building and
the estate as a whole with the most striking elements being the glazing and glass cladding, the
pick-hammered concrete and the bold use of colour.69

Figure 42: Renovated Crescent House Flat70

68
LBMG (2007), 2.2
69
LBMG (2007), Part II, 1.2
70
<http://www.themodernhouse.net> [retrieved 25 June 2012]

63
Control over Works at Golden Lane Estate

As there is no requirement for a listed building to be restored to its original state,

modifications like the piazza car-park and the in-fill of Stanley Cohen’s colonnade now form
part of the listed estate and any future proposals need to be assessed in accordance with LBC.
The LBMG indicate, however, for original design elements that have been lost, future changes
should be seen as opportunities to ‘revisit the original intention’ and reinstate ‘lost original
character’. 71 As estate freeholder and landlord, the City is responsible for the residential
buildings and their repair. Landlord’s consent is mandatory before any works are undertaken,
irrespective of whether LBC is required. Legislation prevents a local planning authority from
determining LBC applications on its own buildings and EH will advise the Secretary of State, on
applications where the applicant is the City.72 The specific aspects of the estate meriting
designation of special architectural interest have been identified in the LBMG and changes to
the estate in the form of additions, alterations, and maintenance and repair should be
assessed in accordance with this. Retention of original features and like-for-like replacement is
encouraged wherever practical. Structured in a ‘traffic light’ format, details are given of works
needing no authorisation (green); that require inquiry to ascertain whether LBC is necessary
(amber); that would trigger LBC procedure (red) and that would be unlikely to gain consent
even when applied for (black). In summary for dwellings: green works are maintenance, repair
and redecoration and like-for-like repairs/replacements, internal redecoration, replacement of
bathroom fittings/finishes; replacement of kitchen cabinetry, worktops and appliances.
Changes to wardrobes and cupboards that do not result in alteration to dwelling plan layout
were also included in this category. Amber works are block redecoration and internally work
resulting in alteration to dwelling plan layout, removal or alterations to built-in cupboards and
wardrobes, creation of new alcoves for fitted wardrobes and shelving units and works to
internal glazed screens. Red works are any alteration to the blocks’ external facades and
finishes to balconies and terraces. Internally they include changes to dwellings layout,
removal/replacement of internal doors, changes to sliding door mechanisms and internal faces
of windows and screens and removal or permanent covering of original finishes like woodblock
and terracotta tiled flooring. Creating an open-plan kitchen and reduction or removal of the
kitchen counter forming part of the glazed screen and removal of partitions to combine rooms
may be granted LBC, subject to detailed application.73 Black proposals include decoration or

71
LBMG (2007), Part II, 1.2.1.4
72
LBMG (2007), Part I, 7.3
73
LBMG (2007), Part II, 3.1

64
over-cladding of original self-finished materials, surfaces and elements, changes to original
glazing lines or enclosure of balconies and terraces. Internally they include changes to the
structure, appearance or opening configuration and mechanisms of windows; changes to
balcony railings and the configuration/location of dwelling stairs. Guidance has also been
devised for future repair works regardless of whether these might be subject to LBC. The
LBMG also recommend Decent Home Standards be introduced in ways that do not jeopardise
character and special architectural interest and indicate ‘special consideration’ will be
necessary in implementing Building Regulations concerning conservation of fuel and power.
Other initiatives to preserve the estate’s special interest include: the designation of ‘heritage
flats’ to retain authentic identity; compilation of oral histories and archival sources;
establishment of a permanent exhibition; and a residents’ salvage store for donation of
discarded original items for potential use by others.74

Residents’ Responses to Conservation and the Listed Building Management Guidelines

During the LBMG development, residents’ views were sought through public meetings and
newsletter updates. A presentation was also given by John Honer, former CPB architect, about
the estate’s history. Responses from these events revealed residents generally had a greater
understanding of the issues concerning listing since the LBMG introduction. They also
considered them useful, particularly to highlight how much had been lost. Some felt the
estate no longer worked as an ‘urban village’ because of the ‘damage’ caused by
encroachment of traffic and thought that renewal of the public spaces in line with the
architects’ original intentions by removing vehicles and reopening Great Arthur House’s roof
garden, might help recreate it. Others wanted the City’s obligation to be emphasised to
ensure estate staff took the LBMG ‘more seriously’ and that works and services contractors
were aware of the requirements as day-to-day repairs were ‘often botched and done in wrong
materials’. A number of concerns were raised about the poor condition of dwellings’ windows
and that modern replacements incorporating double-glazing were needed to cope with heat
gain and loss. Others considered more information was needed on the landscaping which they
thought was ‘evolving but not necessarily in the right direction’ as many of the public spaces,
like the bastion and pond court, were not well used. The creation of heritage flats, a record of
the estate’s history and a salvage store were considered ‘excellent ideas’. Concerns were also
raised about the restrictions that listing brought with one resident declaring ‘please don’t

74
LBMG(2007), Part II, 5

65
make my flat a ‘heritage flat’ it’s a home, not a museum!’75 Some residents wanted to replace
their kitchens and considered it important they had the freedom to modernise, requesting
additional guidance on installing electrical appliances. Others felt that although the kitchens
were ‘novel’ they were not entirely practical because the surrounding woodwork was not
hygienic. There was also much mention of the practicality of the glass partitions between
kitchen and living room.

The Effects of Listing and Adoption of the Listed Building Management Guidelines

The practicalities of conserving an estate that is home to just under 1,400 people, with
divergent social and economic backgrounds is a complex task that can be illustrated by
examining a number of planning applications that have been processed since the estate’s
listing. In 2001, before the LBMG introduction, the C20 Society was consulted on two planning
applications from tenants wishing to alter their flat interiors.76 The first involved removal and
replacement of the ‘original kitchen cabinetry’ which the Society opposed, considering it
possible to ‘accommodate modern utilities within the original cabinetry’. The second involved
an appeal against refusal to grant LBC retroactively to retain a new wall between the bedroom
and living room in a flat in Great Arthur House. This had replaced the original sliding partition
and although it had been positioned where the divider had been located, the Society felt the
original intent of the flat’s spatial composition had now been obliterated so they petitioned for
its reinstatement. The appeal was dismissed by the Council.77 The Society felt both cases
showed residents’ ‘lack of understanding of the architectural importance of the environment
in which they lived’. They were concerned that unauthorised works would result in the loss of
the buildings’ historic fabric and that relatively small scale, ‘piece-meal’ alterations would
‘eventually erode the consistent and subtle detailing of the compositional whole’. A scheme to
infill the recreation block’s upper level also gave the Society concern as they felt its ‘entire
character is determined by the relationship between solid and void’. They stressed that
alteration of what may seem like ‘incidental details’, like installation of railings, enclosure of
areas for security purposes or replacement of paving stones may be seen as monitoring ‘mere
maintenance issues’ but it is the estate’s high level of detailing which sets it apart and such
changes will affect its overall appearance.78

75
LBMG (2007), Part II, 6,7
76
Branscome E. ‘Preservation of Housing Estates’, Sept. 2001 <http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/page/14> [retrieved 22 June 2012]
77
City Planning Application 4933AC
78
Wright J. ‘Saving London’s Modern Spaces’, Jan 2011 <http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/page/14> [retrieved 22 June 2012]

66
Since the LBMG adoption a number of applications have also been successful to reinstate
dwellings’ original features, particularly the glazed partition screens. In 2010, however, a
Crescent House resident applied for retrospective LBC to retain alterations made without
consent. After purchasing the property in 1999 and due to its ‘bad state of repair’ they had
removed the glass partition and door between the kitchen and living room together with the
wooden work surfaces and sink to install new kitchen units. The resident claimed to have not
known about LBC and they only became aware of the requirement when selling their flat in
2009.79 In assessing the case, EH advised that the LBMG be referred to for ‘the significance of
the screens’ which indicated that although ‘replacement of kitchen cabinetry, worktops and
appliances and alterations to cupboards’ were now ‘green works’ not requiring LBC, ‘removal
of internal glazed screens’ were considered ‘red works’ requiring LBC.80 In June 2010 the City
Planning authority agreed that ‘consent should have been sought for the removal of the
screen’ and that ‘had LBC been applied prior to the works being undertaken it would have
been recommended for refusal’ as ‘the retention of the screen would have been required due
to its importance to the interior layout and character of Crescent House flats’. Two letters of
objection from other Crescent House residents also considered the application should be
refused as they considered the screens formed an integral and important part of the flat’s
design and ‘disrepair was not an excuse for removing the screen without obtaining LBC for the
works’. Taking enforcement action, however, was not considered an ‘appropriate remedy’ as
the work had been undertaken some time ago and the screen reinstatement would mean a
new kitchen would have to be installed around it. It was stressed, however, that this case
should not ‘set a precedent for removing screens from other flats in the building’ and a
condition attached to the approval required the ‘reinstatement of a replica screen when the
existing kitchen is replaced or substantially altered’.81 A new owner has since received LBC to
reinstate a partially glazed partition onto existing units which will have a similar appearance to
the original but this does not discharge the condition to reinstate a ‘full height, free standing
replica screen’ when the kitchen is eventually replaced.82

The significance of the dwellings’ partition screens has been an area where the LBMG have
particularly been contested. In 2008 approval was given to modernise kitchens, bathrooms
and replace central heating in tenanted dwellings and works commenced in Jan. 2010.83
Modernisation was achieved without changing internal dwelling layouts except in Crescent

79
City Planning Application 10/00317/LBC, Design and Access Heritage Statement, 13 May 2010
80
LBMG(2007), p.130
81
City Planning Application 10/00317/LBC, Planning and Transportation Delegated Report, 27 July 2010
82
City Planning Application 10/00065/LBC, Application Document
83
City Planning Application 10/00416/LBC, Design & Heritage Statement, Crescent House, 1 July 2010

67
House where LBC was found to be required for works to accommodate new kitchens and
alterations to the internal partition screens. This was applied for in June 2010.84 At that time
concerns over the works were highlighted in the architectural press. Some residents had
accused the City of ‘ruining the interiors of flats’, indicating that some works had been carried
out without LBC and it was only following complaints that it had been applied for. Crescent
House resident Nigel Smith was quoted as saying the LBMG had been ignored and the original
screens ‘made of teak with horizontal glazed and painted sections had been replaced with
vastly inferior MDF screens’. The City indicated that works to date had not required LBC nor
had they breached the LBMG. EH had indicated it was satisfied that works were ‘in the spirit’
of the original design.85

Figure 43: The Original Screen and Replacement86

LBC was received in Nov. 2010 but planning correspondence highlighted ‘criticisms in the
Council’s approach to the proposal and its consultation process’ and opposition from the C20
Society and residents who were concerned about the effects on the ‘historic fabric of the
building and justification of the works’. It also showed, however, that EH had been ‘involved in
pre-application discussions with the Council’ and had no objections to the proposals. The
Secretary of State confirmed that it ‘recognised the architectural heritage of the building and
that the screens are an important part of this’ but saw no reason to ‘dispute the Council’s
justification for the proposals’ considering they had ‘attempted to restrict the alterations to

84
City Planning Application 10/00416/LBC
85
Hurst W. ‘Outrage at gutting of landmark listed block’ <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/outrage-at-gutting-of-landmark-listed-block/5000871.article>,
11 June 2010 [retrieved 22 June 2012]
86
<http://www.bdonline.co.uk/outrage-at-gutting-of-landmark-listed-block/5000871.article>, 11 June 2010 [retrieved 22 June 2012]

68
those necessary to enable the kitchen areas to meet current standards and to ensure their
appearance is as close to the original form as possible’. They were satisfied the works were
necessary and while the existing screens would be modified ‘the works would not have such a
significant impact on the architectural or historic interest of the building to justify withholding
consent’. 87 Works resumed and were completed in April 2011. In May 2012 a further LBC
application for modernisation of the remainder of the tenanted Crescent House flats involved:
‘alteration to glazed screens to kitchen and living room, to facilitate renewal of kitchen fittings
to Decent Homes Standard’. The application indicated some alteration to the screens was
unavoidable and the intention was to ‘carry out works on the basis of a philosophy of
minimum intervention, reversibility, and respect for original materials’. It also stated that both
EH and Golden Lane Residents Association (GLERA) had been consulted and were supportive of
the proposals. The application indicated the existing kitchens failed ‘the Decent Homes
criteria, by virtue of age and condition’ and the current layout could not accommodate
modern appliances, consequently ‘partial reconstruction and relocation of the glazed screen
was proposed’ using ‘as far as practicable materials used in the original construction’. 88 The
application referred to PPS5 (then operative) which stated: ‘intelligently managed change may
sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term’ and ‘where
a proposal has a harmful impact on the significance of a designated heritage asset which is less
than substantial harm, in all cases local planning authorities should weigh the public benefit of
the proposal (for example that it helps to secure the optimum viable use of the heritage asset
in the interests of its long-term conservation) against the harm’.89 Indeed, the Crescent House
kitchens are particularly compact and discussions with residents have revealed how difficult it
is to accommodate new appliances within them.90

The need for historic buildings to accommodate some change was acknowledged by Cherry
(1996) who indicated ‘listing is not designed to fossilise buildings for all time whatever the
cost…it provides the opportunity to explore all possible means of maintaining an historic
building in viable use without compromising its historical and architectural character…with
care, resources and imagination this can normally be achieved, although some change is likely
if a building is to continue serving the needs of its occupants’.91 The concept of authenticity in
Modern conservation has also been explored by Saint (1996) who considers ‘an authentic
restoration is not just one in which all the parts, visible or otherwise, are repaired on a like-for-

87
City Planning Application 10/00416/LBC, West Midlands Government Office decision letter to City Planning Dept., 16 Nov. 2010
88
City Planning Application 12/00491/LBC, Crescent House Design and Heritage Statement
89
PPS 5, p.2/5
90
Visit to residents’ Crescent House flats, 1 Sept. 2014
91
Cherry M. 1996) ‘Listing twentieth-century buildings: the present situation’ in Modern Matters, p.5

69
like basis, but also one in which the original priorities of the building’s authors are critically
heeded…we have to know not only what we are dealing with and by whom, but what the
architects, engineers, builders and clients were trying to achieve’.92 Saint has also observed
that Modern buildings can fall ‘out of date faster’ than they used to because of the
‘functionalist movement in Modern architecture’ where everything was accommodated for a
specific, practical purpose. When demands and expectations alter the architecture often ‘gets
into difficulty’ and it has to be changed. Saint illustrates this with reference to the communal
laundries, originally located in many social housing blocks that were closed in the 1970s. This
has created a need, not envisaged by the original architects, for kitchen layouts to
accommodate washing machines, which is now a standard requirement in the Decent Homes
Standards criteria. Saint feels, therefore, that 20th Century building conservation has to
acknowledge some change as the ‘intentions of much Modern architecture go more clearly
beyond aesthetics than they do for earlier periods, to embrace technical and social ends’. He
indicates that CPB intended the building to be a viable social housing resource and this original
intention is reflected in the City’s desire to ‘carry out minimal though necessary adaptation
works to ensure that it continues to perform its role in an effective manner’ and adaptation of
the building to facilitate installation of modern kitchen units and appliances that are compliant
with current safety regulations he highlights is likely to be one that CPB would have agreed
with, even encouraged, on the basis of its contribution to the health and general well-being of
the occupants. So rather than representing a threat to the building’s historic interest, the
changes should be viewed as being ‘consistent with the spirit and intention of the original
design concept’ to provide modern and up to date social housing for the City’s tenants. The
best way of preserving an historic building is to keep it in viable use, and it would be a far
greater loss to the cultural significance of Crescent House if it were no longer able to fulfil its
intended role as social housing, than the relatively minor changes that are proposed to its
internal fabric.

The C20 Society, however, objected to the alterations as they see the glazed screens as ‘an
innovative and important feature to the overlall success of the interior spaces’. They consider
‘not only are the screens practical and efficient in terms of the relationship they provide
between the kitchen and the diner area, they also contain several smaller fittings and design
features such as in built lighting, circular cuts and partitions that echo larger design motifs
across the estate’. Whilst they may appear to be a ‘moderate internal feature’ the Society

92
Saint A. (1996) ‘Philosophical principles of modern conservation’ in Modern Matters, p.20

70
thinks they are ‘a hugly significant piece of the internal layout of the flats’. They also
highlighted how the significance of the screens has been emphasised in the LBMG which
states: ‘the interiors of Crescent House are carefully and economically planned with
meticulous attention to detail…the glazed screens are particularly well detailed with shadow
gaps and grooves. The screen to the living room clearly defines the layout of the flat, making it
obvious where the dining table should be. Partitions between the living room and the kitchen
and bathroom have high level glazing, which increases the sense of space flowing between
rooms’.93 The Society considered the modifications could be accommodated without the need
to reposition the screens and were concerned that ‘this integral element of the original
interiors will be lost on a large scale if these changes are allowed to set a precedent’. 94 Indeed
PPS5 Practice Note reiterates: ‘understanding the extent of the fabric that holds that interest is
also important because this can, among other things, lead to a better understanding of how
adaptable the asset may be and therefore improve viability and the prospects for long term
conservation’.95 Despite the Society’s objections LBC for the remainder of the works was
obtained in Sept. 2012. 96

In Sept. 2013 the LBMG were reviewed and updated.97 They now take account of EH’s
Conservation Principles to assess the estate’s heritage significance and values, indicating:
‘evidential value is illustrated in the way the site topography and varying levels exploited the
previous existence of basements and cellars; historical value is reflected in the progressive
theories of urban planning and post-War reconstruction; aesthetic value is demonstrated
across all elements of architectural design and detail while communal value is inherent in the
sense of collective identity and social cohesion, and embodied in the various community
facilities that enhance the life of the estate’s residents and visitors’.98 The detailed analysis of
the estate has now been structured to reflect these values and within every category of the
‘traffic light system’ additional guidance provides practical assistance for proposed repair,
maintenance and development works. The special architectural interest of the dwelling
interiors is also now documented and for Crescent House it indicates ‘a number of internal
fittings are of particular interest: built-in cupboards, work surfaces and shelving in the kitchen;
and, in the living room, large built-in cupboards with built-in drawers, and built-in ‘floating’
shelves between the timber-framed window and wired glass below’. More guidance is now

93
LBMG (2007), 2.3./5.3
94
City Planning Application 12/00491/LBC, C20 Society letter to City of London, 23 July 2012
95
PPS 5, p.56
96
City Planning Application 12/00491/LBC, Communities and Local Government decision letter to City Planning Dept., 6 Sept. 201 2
97
LBMG(2013), 13
98
LBMG(2013) Part 2, p.59

71
given for prospective changes particularly in respect of removal of internal glazed screens
specifying: ‘where kitchen fitments are integrated with an internal screen partition between
the kitchen and adjoining rooms and their replacement would entail disturbance of the screen-
work’ these will require LBC and that ‘LBC will be required if the works involve relocating or
removing whole or part of the glazing and alteration, relocation or removal of the whole or
part of the door and screen set’. 99 The LBMG now also state, however, that ‘whilst remaining
original elements are always of interest for their authenticity and should be retained wherever
possible, it may be noted that the ‘special interest’ of these interior fit-out arrangements
inheres primarily in the ingenuity of their detailed design and quality of care as distinct from
the actual materials from which they are constructed’.100 Although LBC is now required for all
works of this nature, this implies that criteria other than retention of original fabric may be
considered in LBC cases and that aesthetic value rather than evidential value takes priority in
this case.

The Complexities of Managing Changes to a Listed Estate

There is also more evidence of the Golden Lane Estate residents and GLERA taking an active
interest in the estate’s conservation. Discussions on the GoldenLaneestate.org website, for
example, reveal the extent of some residents’ dissatisfaction of repairs to public areas carried
out by contractors that they believe breach the LBMG and harm the estate’s visual
appearance. At the time of writing some residents had started documenting these with a view
to informing the City of the issues.101

Figure 44: Residents’ Images of ‘Inappropriate Repairs’102

99
LBMG (2013), 3.1, p.142-4
100
LBMG (2013), Part 2, p.87
101
<http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/forum/topics/maintenance-and-repairs-checkl> [retrieved 20 June 2014]
102
<http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/forum/topics/new-building-techniques-piloted-on-golden-lane-estate> [retrieved 20 June 2014]

72
City Planning officer, Clive Cornwell, has indicated that as the estate is now home to a more
diverse community this has brought benefits in terms of a more proactive resident association
that is keen to be involved in the estate’s preservation but balancing the needs and aspirations
of the different social groups is also a difficult task.103 Two recent initiatives illustrate how the
estate continues to evolve to meet residents’ needs but it also highlights the differing
requirements of its residents and their effect on the estate’s aesthetic and its conservation.
Cornwell states the estate is now home to about 300 children and many residents with families
considered there were insufficient areas for their children to play. Some residents considered
the grassed areas within the courts were not suitable for this purpose preferring instead for
some sections to remain uncut to encourage biodiversity (which in itself is contrary to CPB’s
original design intentions). The need for a dedicated play space was therefore identified and a
ball-court was planned in the area near the swimming pool, directly adjacent to and abutting
the Bastion. Changes to site use, the hard surfaces and installation of railings meant that this
proposal did breach the LBMG and its construction was met with much opposition from some
residents who considered that it threatened the estate’s historical and architectural
significance.

Figure 45: Lawn Area Appropriated for Biodiversity

103
Meeting/tour of Golden Lane, 3 June 2014

73
 Figure 46: The New Ball Court

Cornwell indicated that the City approved the use of the lawns for biodiversity and also the
ball-court facility, which had recently been installed. Although the City was aware that both
cases contravened the LBMG it was felt that that the changes were necessary to ensure the
estate continued to meet the requirement of its inhabitants and that it remained ‘a good place
to live’. Cornwall also indicated another significant issue for the estate’s preservation was the
upgrade/installation of services and cabling. Wiring along conduits was a particular problem
and many unsightly installations had already been undertaken before listing (a concern also
voiced at Alexandra Road Estate, see Chapter 4). Other challenges currently facing the City are
in respect of major repair works that are needed to some of the blocks’ facades, including
replacement of Great Arthur House’s principal curtain wall facades. The original single glazed
metal windows in Stanley Cohen House are also considered obsolete in relation to modern
standards and the City feels it may be more cost effective to replace them with double glazed
units, rather than continue with expensive repairs and re-painting. The complexity of these
issues is investigated further in relation to the Goldfinger designed estates (see Chapter 6). At
the time of writing, there are also plans by the City to improve the surroundings of Golden

74
Lane Estate, including redevelopment of the adjacent Richard Cloudsley School site.104
Although these proposals are outside the estate perimeter their proximity will impact on the
views to and from the estate and its setting (these implications are also investigated further in
Chapter 6). The City is also ‘holistically looking at several sites on Golden Lane and their
future uses’, including moving the estate office into the community centre and turning the
existing estate office in Great Arthur house into flats, which has raised numerous concerns
from residents.105

Conclusion

‘You don’t just add 1mm to the thickness of a line on a Mondrian painting – if you do it isn’t
a Mondrian any longer but just an ordinary painting’
Aldo Van Eyck106

‘from the start one of our principal interests has been creation of places…not just
buildings…our approach is to avoid specialisation as we welcome and enjoy fresh
opportunities of any size or type. In a difficult period culturally and economically we believe
that architecture is still far more than a technology and that some buildings have a magic
that others conspicuously lack’
Chamberlin, Powell and Bonn107

The listing of Golden Lane Estate as a ‘model estate’ with a substantial element of its fabric
being protected places increased responsibilities on its owners, tenants and landlords to
ensure conservation of its historic character and special architectural interest. It also presents
challenges when renovation work is needed to ensure homes can accommodate facilities
appropriate to contemporary needs. The LBMG provide a detailed framework for works to be
undertaken and help inform day-to-day management of the estate. They are, however, only
for guidance and criteria other than heritage and conservation may take priority in the
assessment of LBC applications. This case study has also highlighted the differing opinions
between residents, EH, the C20 society and the City over permissible change and this raises
issues about the listing of Modern housing and what the conservation aims should be. As the
intentions of the Modern Movement went beyond pure aesthetics to embrace technical and
social ends, the conservation of estates like Golden Lane may need to accommodate more
change to ensure they remain viable entities as social housing, providing residents with

104
<http://barbicanarea.co.uk; www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/newprimary> [retrieved 2 May 2014]
105
<http://www.goldenlaneestate.org/forum/topics/community-centre-next-
steps?commentId=2323372%3AComment%3A47644&xg_source=msg_com_forum> [retrieved 1 Dec. 2015]
106
Quoted by Henket H.J. in ‘The Icon and the Ordinary’, p.17
107
Quoted in Emanuel M. (1980) in ‘Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’, p.148

75
comfortable places in which to live. This ideology is more in line with the conservation aims of
the next case study whereby architectural and historical significance was deemed to lie in the
scale and intent of the original scheme rather than the specific materials of its construction.

76
Chapter 3 Substance Verses Essence: Park Hill, Sheffield

Figure 47: Park Hill, c.19631

‘In returning to the past we are turning to eternal aesthetic values. Yet it is precisely the use
of past forms that draws out attention to our remoteness from the time in which these
forms were originally developed. We are reminded of the past as the past. The only way in
which a building could make us feel the values of architecture were eternal and not subject
to historical change would be if its forms seem ‘natural’ to our way of life, in other words
‘modern’’.
Alan Colquhoun2

‘Most towns are a terrible disappointment; we suggest 200 to the acre is a reasonable
density…more imagination is needed in the siting of new towns. They always seem to be
placed in gently sloping or flattish good agricultural land. Why not on the top of hills or
steeply sloping cities giving striking architectural possibilities? There are possibilities of
enlivening existing towns. The best views of towns are from high up…restaurants, pubs
etc…should be on top of buildings; every tower and spire should be used thus, like a lot of
stork nests…rooms with views – of the Thames, or railway termini’.

Chamberlin, Powell and Bonn3

Park Hill was designed by Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith for Sheffield City Council. Completed in
1961 it contained 996 dwellings and a pedestrian precinct with shops, pubs and a nursery. In
1998 it was listed at grade II* for its architectural importance, its ground-breaking use of
streets in the sky and its impressive scale. It has claims on being Europe’s largest listed
building. A refurbishment by Urban Splash is currently underway to create a mix of homes,
workspaces, shops and restaurants. This case study has been chosen to demonstrate a
rehabilitative approach to a building's heritage. Regeneration of the estate was deemed
necessary to ensure its continued success and this needed to be balanced with its historic and
architectural significance. EH applied stipulations for the renovation and also the ‘squint test’
– if you half shut your eyes does it still look like Park Hill?
1
Picture Sheffield s22680/s22675 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]
2
Colquhoun A. (1989) Modernity and the Classical Tradition, p.240
3
The Architects' Journal, 15 Jan. 1953, p.72

73
The Steel City

In the late 19th Century Sheffield’s heavy industry developed bringing an influx of workers that
needed homes. ‘Back-to-back’ houses were built facing the road on one side and on the other
an internal court occupied by factories and workshops. In the 1920’s it was estimated over
16,000 such houses remained. Many were located in Park District where Park Hill would later
be built. Structural deterioration and inadequate sanitary provision intensified health
problems associated with large numbers living in close proximity. Sheffield’s 1924 Civic Survey
and Development Plan revealed many people lived in squalid conditions, of up to 400 people
per acre. It recommended a substantial proportion of homes be demolished, prompting the
Council’s Compulsory Purchase and Demolition Clearance Schemes to create land for new
buildings.4

1 2

3 4
Figure 48: Park District’s Back to Back Courts5

4
City of Sheffield, Libraries, Archives and Information Park Hill Study Guide (2010), p.6, originally P. Abercrombie (1924) Sheffield Civic Survey and
Development Plan, p.26-8
5
Picture Sheffield: 1 u01787, 2 s04272, 3 s04273, 4 s00686 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]

74
 Figure 49: Park District Plan, Prior to Redevelopment6

6
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 11 Feb. 2012

75
In April 1949 Sheffield’s Housing Committee first considered ‘erecting multi-storey flats with
lifts’ in Park District and a Council deputation visited Copenhagen and Stockholm ‘to obtain
information on this type of housing development’.7 In the 1950’s Sheffield prospered with
economic growth but it was still in desperate need of over 79,000 houses. Estimated current
provision, on available land over the next twenty years, would still leave a net requirement of
nearly 55,000 houses. The Council suggested that ‘consistent with good planning, as much as
possible of this overspill should be located within such a radius of the city centre and of the
city’s industrial areas as will retain the population as part of Sheffield’. To achieve Ministry of
Housing recommended densities this required ‘a departure from the standard and type of
development provided in Sheffield just prior to and since the War, which has been almost
entirely by semi-detached houses’.8

1 2

3 4
Figure 50: Park District’s Streets9

With high-rise development being seen as the most viable option, in Sept. 1954 a Council
deputation again visited Western Europe ‘for the purpose of inspecting post-War
developments in the erection of multi-storey flats and studying the designs and methods of

7
Park Hill Study Guide (2010), p.10, refers to Minutes: CA-MIN/86, p.899; CA-MIN/87, p.20
8
Sheffield’s City Planning Officer’s ‘Overspill Report’ Dec. 1950, p.4
9
Picture Sheffield: 1 s18266, 2 u00216, 3 u00220, 4 s19099 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]

76
construction employed in relation to that type of development’. 10 They reported that the
developments examined were ‘comprehensive’ schemes serving the inhabitant’s every need,
concluding that: ‘well designed, multi-storey flats could provide living standards which are in
every way adequate as an alternative to two storey housing’ giving ‘exceptional amenities in
the form of open space, community buildings, services and equipment’; centrally located,
multi-storey housing options should be considered in Sheffield due to land shortage and time
and money spent on transportation to and from the city centre and the suburbs; and large
scale developments considering the whole city were preferable to small piecemeal re-building
on land as it became available. Maximum advantage should also be taken of the size and
nature of the project to provide shops, restaurants, nursery schools, garages etc. and ‘the large
ground space set free by building tall blocks should be carefully landscaped and adequately
maintained as a pleasant place for adults with play spaces for children of varying ages’. They
also agreed each dwelling should be orientated to maximise daylight, have a private balcony,
up to date labour saving equipment and internal bathrooms and servicing to allow living areas
and bedrooms to have windows with natural light and views. To speed erection and reduce
costs there should be maximum standardisation in construction and prefabrication with
repetitive use of housing structural units and services.11

The Park Hill Scheme

Park District was made a priority as it had the most outstanding slum clearance orders and
because of its central location. In Aug. 1955 its phased redevelopment was agreed: The City’s
Public Works Department were to build Part One on land overlooking the railway station,
consisting of four blocks with four to thirteen storeys, at an estimated cost of £2,160,000. 12
Part Two had two stages. Stage One had two three-storey terraces and four blocks of between
five and nineteen storeys, to be built by W. J. Simms and Cooke Ltd. The City’s Public Works
Department were also selected for Stage Two, the largest element of four blocks, with up to
nineteen storeys. In 1959 Housing Committee members also inspected London multi-storey
schemes ‘to help formulate proposals for the provision of social, recreational and general
amenities for future residents of Park Hill’. In June that year Part One had sample flats
furnished for demonstration purposes.13 In Oct. residents began moving in and by March 1961
Part One was fully occupied. Families were relocated ‘street by street’ as the development

10
Sheffield City Archives: Minutes CA-MIN/92, p.580
11
Multi-Storey Housing in Some European Countries: Report of the City of Sheffield Housing Deputation, March 1955
12
Sheffield City Archives: Minutes CA-MIN/93, p.215; CA-MIN/94, p.414
13
Sheffield City Archives: Minutes CA-MIN/96, p.842; CA-MIN/96, p.940

77
was constructed, so the community remained intact. Former residents Harry and Shirley
Reville have indicated it was like ‘being on a stage where only the background changed’.14 At a
cost of about £2000 per dwelling Park Hill was delivered within budget and in less than five
years. The whole development was called the Park Hill Redevelopment Scheme until May
1961, when Part Two (completed in July 1965), was renamed the Hyde Park Estate.

Figure 51: Park Hill’s Construction15

Figure 52: Demolition of Bungay Lane16

In the 1950’s Sheffield Council had a very ambitious architectural team led by City Architect,
John Lewis Womersley, who had appointed Lynn and Smith to ‘design a modern
redevelopment of an outworn area.’17 The most significant aspects of Park Hill’s design were:
‘its civic design and its place in the redevelopment of Sheffield city centre; its environmental
and sociological aims and inter-relationship of its physical layout with its community sense;
and the building and inter-relationship of dwelling design, the structural design, its services

14
City of Sheffield (2009) The Question of Park Hill film; the Reville family lived in Park Hill for 45 years
15
Park Hill Study Guide (2010), p.14
16
Picture Sheffield s22893 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]
17
J. L. Womersley (1955) City Architect’s Special Housing Report

78
and costs’. 18 The location was deemed suitable for high density, multi-storey dwellings
because: it was near the city centre and close to and on the windward side of the Don Valley
industrial area, it had easily accessible permanent open space nearby; the steep site
topography, rising 1:10, gave scope for planning high flats with ample light, air and magnificent
views; and geological surveys showed the ground would take heavy loads. 19

Figure 53: Plan of the Whole Development20

Park Hill’s design aimed to create a modern development providing the ancillary activities that
had developed in the old area. The former Duke Street shopping area was rebuilt as the
Pavements pedestrian precinct providing a variety of services including: ‘gramophone record
sales, chemist, laundry, chiropodist, fried fish shop, greengrocer, fishmonger, draper, butcher,
shoe shop, radio and electrical supplies, ladies’ hairdresser and the Sheffield and Ecclesall Co-
operative Society.21 The ground floor of the dwellings also contained a laundry, a police

18
J. L. Wormersley ‘Appraisal of Park Hill Redevelopment, Sheffield’ in RIBA Journal, July 1963
19
Park Hill: An Urban Community Part 1 (1961)
20
Plan adapted from Housing Development Committee Report: Park Hill: An Urban Community (1961) Part 1
21
Sheffield Archives: Minutes CA-MIN/95, p.102

79
station and four public houses. Only one road was retained in what was now largely a
pedestrian area with only minor cul-de-sac roads servicing garages and dwellings and goods
vehicle access to shops. Shoppers, residents and visitors parking spaces were provided as well
as designs for a circular ramped garage to cater for future demand. The remainder was park
space threaded with footpaths and play areas. Wormersley indicated the space left by the
multi-storey development left a virtually traffic free area with play areas for children and
‘amenity greens’ with footpaths and a pleasant landscaped parkland which also acted as a
barrier against noise and ‘overlooking’ of dwellings, as well as ‘breathing spaces’ for the whole
scheme.22

Key: 1 Bus Depot, 2 City Hall, 3 Town Hall, 4 Library, 5 Cutler’s Hall, 6 Cathedral, 7 Markets, 8 Post office, 9 Bus
Station, 10 Technical College, 11 Midland Stn., 12 Victoria Stn.

Figure 54: Sheffield City Plan Showing Park Hill’s Location

22
Housing Management Committee: Joint report by City Architect and Housing Manager on amenities and management at Park Hill Part 1 (1959)

80
Lynn and Smith’s Design Methodology

According to Harwood (2013) Jack Lynn was not a Modernist. Instead his housing concept
grew from his childhood home in North Seaton in Northumberland, with its narrow rows of
terraced houses and corner pubs, and his love of the grandeur of Greek classicism. He also had
a strongly-held belief that a decent education, housing and health provision were basic human
rights. It was in the early 1950’s that Lynn had studied Greek architecture and developed his
ideas on housing, which were first realised in a scheme for the Golden Lane Estate
competition. The brief suggested that the site was to be the beginning of a larger
development, so Lynn began with a cross and four blocks at right angles with a space in the
middle for the community building, although at this stage the slabs and the walkways of flats
were not linked.23 At that time Ivor Smith was also working on housing, having transferred to
the Architectural Association to complete his qualifications. It was here that he persuaded
Lynn to help him. His thesis was located at Rotherhithe and their solution was an evolution of
the Golden Lane scheme, facing the problems of turning blocks at ninety degree angles
without losing continuity. Lynn introduced pubs, shops and laundries based on his memories
of North Seaton and the name ‘rows’ for the high-level walkways came from there. When they
were taken on at Sheffield, Womersley had them initially designing housing on a hillside site at
Norfolk Park laying out blocks following the ridges. They were diverted to Park Hill when the
Government changed its policy towards slum clearance schemes, producing the Park Hill
scheme design in six weeks. According to Harwood, Lynn wanted it more complex than
anything that had been before, based also on his idea of music, claiming: ‘Park Hill was a
bloody great fugue’. He was also inspired by Gothic revival architect, Ninian Comper’s stylistic
inclusiveness as well as Greek architecture.

In 2014 Smith published Architecture an Inspiration that gives an insight into his architectural
methodology. In this he specifies the fundamentals that he believes necessary to architecture,
which to varying degrees must always be met, such as facilitating activity, moderating climate,
relating to context, respecting material and structure as well as conveying meaning and
delight. He also focuses on the designer and highlights what they can bring to the task to
arrive at a ‘human and poetic synthesis’. He acknowledges that designers have different ways
of thinking based on experience and precedent but also out of reason and intuition. In this
publication he also reflects on his own work including Park Hill’s design, citing Le Corbusier’s

23
Harwood E. Obituary: Jack Lynn <http://www.c20society.org.uk/publications/c20-magazine/c20-magazine-2014-01/obituary-jack-lynn> [retrieved
14 Nov. 2014]

81
Ville Radieuse as a particular influence, especially in relation to the continuous roof line.24
Harwood (2013) believes Park Hill’s greatness came in part because its sources were outside
the architectural mainstream, particularly the Greek architecture Lynn had admired and
studied. Indeed Classicism informs the proportions of the Park Hill elevations and the brick
patterning of the facades.25

Figure 55: Le Corbusier’s Ville Radieuse Model26

Park Hill Layout

Dwelling access was by open air promenade decks 10’ wide (sufficient to accommodate a milk
float), located within the building mass on every third floor. Dwelling front doors opened from
the decks so they ‘fulfilled the function of the streets and became an extension of the dwelling
where children could play’. All decks, except the top one, ran to the ground at different points
and continuity between the blocks was provided by bridges. According to the aspect, the
decks changed sides of the building, with the change effected at the bridges. Wormersley
indicated this created a new pattern of movement that allowed complete circulation around
the whole site. To emphasise the site topography, the blocks maintained a horizontal roof line
with four storeys at the southern end and thirteen at the northern end. Thirteen lifts were
placed at strategic points in relation to shops, bus stops and schools so most walking could

24
Smith I (2014) Architecture an Inspiration
25
Harwood E. ‘Park Hill architect Jack Lynn dies’ in The Architects’ journal, 24 Oct. 2013
26
<http://www.herancacultural.com.br/blog/2013/10/ville-radieuse-le-corbusier> [retrieved 7 July 2015]

82
take place along the sheltered decks. With 995 flats and maisonettes for 3500 people, it
covered 33.2 acres at a density of 192.5 people to the acre. Site building coverage prior to
redevelopment was about 34% and afterwards 17%.27

Figure 56: Park Hill Plan28

27
Park Hill: An Urban Community Part 1 (1961), p.38

83
 Figure 57: Park Hill, c.196029

Wormersley had recognised the problems faced in designing a large, high density project and
described how Park Hill sought to ‘avoid creating a vast inhumane building block’ and instead
create ‘a sense of domesticity and identity for the inhabitants’. In order to achieve this, the
area of the spaces between the buildings increased in proportion to the buildings height as it
progressed northwards down the slope to give each open court a different scale and character,
so families could feel that their part of the estate had its own individuality. Identification of
the dwellings in relation to the decks was also achieved by using different coloured facing
bricks for the flats served by the different decks (purple, terracotta, red and cream) so people
could recognise their own deck level and dwelling from outside the building as well as on the
deck itself. Frequent changes of direction in the blocks either with a 45 degree, 90 degree
bend or a three way junction also gave each straight length of deck its own ‘street’ character
with entrance doors painted in individual colours. Some ground floor dwellings were omitted
at various points to give long views whilst covered spaces provided sheltered play areas. The

28
Adapted from Park Hill: An Urban Community Part 1 (1961)
29
Picture Sheffield u03728 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]

84
notion of streets was further enhanced by naming each deck after former roads: Gilbert,
Hague, Long Henry and Stafford. The four public houses also inherited names from those
demolished.

Figure 58: Plan showing Decks in Relation to Dwellings

85
 Figure 59: Building Density Plans, Former 34%, New Development 17%

Figure 60: Park Hill, c.196330

30
Picture Sheffield s00650, s22886 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]

86
 Figure 61: Park Hill, c.196331

Park Hill’s Dwellings

Wormersley indicated the dwellings aimed to provide facilities comparable with those on the
ground and satisfactory homes for families and older people. They had been planned to give
household privacy and quiet despite the communal nature of the project. From the decks
front doors opened to an entrance hall, which with the dwelling staircase was the only part
abutting the deck. Every dwelling had a sheltered balcony, large enough for ‘a pram and to
take the occasional meal’. Dwellings for three and above had dining kitchens in addition to
living rooms. Internal bathrooms left outside walls free to provide ample sunlight and air in
living rooms and bedrooms. Four standard dwelling types over three levels were designed to
interlock in the form a cube. This format was then repeated throughout the blocks so only
individual dwelling types were needed at the block junctions. The scheme’s primary economy
was achieved by use of a standard, repetitive reinforced concrete ‘H’ shaped column combined
with a simple column and beam system. The ‘H’ column housed the dwelling’s stairs and
formed the party walls. Standardised units were used for kitchens and bathrooms which were
vertically planned with ducts behind them containing the services, including the Garchey
refuse disposal system (a water-borne refuse disposal system). These ducts connected at the
block’s base to a horizontal structural duct, connected to the site boiler house and Garchey
system.
31
Picture Sheffield s22897, s24490 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]

87
 Figure 62: Park Hill Standard Dwelling Types32

32
Adapted from Park Hill: An Urban Community Part 1 (1960)

88
 Figure 63: Life on the Decks and Flat Living Room, c.196033

Park Hill Responses

On completion Park Hill was the source of much civic pride and celebration with the Council
winning the 1962 Ministry of Housing and Local Government’s North Regional Medal and
Diploma for Good Design in Housing and in 1963, RIBA bronze medal award (South Yorkshire.
Part One was officially opened by Hugh Gaitskell, M.P. and Leader of the Opposition, in June
1961. Five years later in June 1966 Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother officially
opened the Hyde Park Estate. Sheffield’s local newspapers publicised Park Hill’s progress and
charted its early success. The Star indicated Park Hill flats would ‘probably set the standard for
flat development for the whole country’. The Telegraph declared ‘the speed of building the
995 flats comprising the first stage of Sheffield’s Park Hill re-development scheme had been
quite phenomenal in Europe’. Sheffield’s Mayor described how another 1000 Sheffield
families had been found new homes and Councillor Roy Hattersley called Park Hill the ‘most
ambitious and most comprehensive scheme in Europe with speed and economy’. 34 The
architectural press were also keen to report Park Hill’s achievements. The Architects’ journal
considered the scheme a ‘very powerful statement in favour of the use of high densities for
rehousing in the central areas of industrial cities’ and ‘a major element in Sheffield’s city
renewal’. It described how the steep valleys of the Sheaf and the Don made the case for
building high so Park Hill was ‘dramatically placed to rise above the skyline and accentuate the
dramatic quality of the landscape’.35 It also declared Park Hill as ‘undoubtedly one of the most
significant housing schemes to be built in this country and that ‘architecturally and
sociologically it breaks new ground and as townscape had a marked effect on the face of

33
Picture Sheffield S22899, U05361 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]
34
The Sheffield Star, 15 March, 1955; The Sheffield Telegraph, 20 Jan. 1961, (Sheffield Archives CA655/15)
35
The Architects’ journal, 23 Aug. 1961, p.271-86

89
Sheffield’.36 Architectural Design (1961) called Park Hill ‘one of the most remarkable buildings
in England today’.37 Studies were also conducted to gain residents feedback on living ‘on the
flats’.38 A Sociological Survey, undertaken as the first tenants moved in, provided generally
good feedback on the accommodation and facilities, although noise especially in bedrooms
under the decks was a problem.39 A sense of neighbourliness was highlighted as many people
knew each another from the old area and the random allocation of dwellings with young, old
and those with or without children alongside one another was also working well. The report
already referred, however, to the need for a ‘patrolman’ to prevent ‘anti-social’ use of the
decks by non-residents. Sheffield Council’s 1962 Resident’s Survey also revealed the majority
were happy living in Park Hill and thought they were ‘better off’ with lower rents and better
services.40 Residents were very satisfied with the amenities on site. Nearly all felt no loss of
privacy, were happy with the contact with their neighbours and were involved or supported
the resident’s association and its activities. In respect of accommodation, some complained
about lack of storage and again, noise in below deck accommodation. Some were still
unfamiliar with the Garchey system but most were very happy with the heating and hot water
supply. The biggest complaint was in relation to the windows and the inability to clean them.
Only 7% were critical of Park Hill’s external appearance and despite this they did not feel it
affected their satisfaction of living there. There was also general approval of the deck system.
A 1962 Park Hill Community Bulletin gives insight to the wide range of services and activities at
that time, including help for elderly decorating their flats, ballet classes, community football
teams, an angling club and a friendship club as well as an array of suppliers on site. 41 Evidence
of Park Hill’s early days is also captured in an amateur film shot in the early 1960’s. This shows
an ordinary but vibrant community going about its daily business with children playing, people
chatting and women shopping.42 Sociologists the Darkes (1972) emphasized the difficulties in
evaluating housing developments as the success of family life cannot be assessed by relatively
precise measures like efficiency or profit. Despite this they concluded there was sufficient
evidence to consider Park Hill a success and that it had met its objectives in providing ‘an
environment suitable for families of all types’ with ‘accommodation equivalent to the two
storey house’. They also believed it compared very favourably to other contemporary multi-
storey developments, which was surprising considering it was one of the densest. They had
also found a thriving community (more so than at Hyde Park) with many activities and events.

36
The Architects’ journal, 21 July 1965, p.137-70
37
Architectural Design, Sept. 1961, p. 397-8
38
Historically residents have referred to living ‘on the flats’
39
Sheffield City Housing Management Committee 1959/1960 Park Hill Part 1: Sociological Report, p.94-100
40
Sheffield City Housing Department ‘Park Hill Survey’ 1962
41
Flat: The Park Hill Bulletin: ‘Are We A Community?’ No. 17, Oct. 1962
42
Park Hill Housing Project, film no: 3315 <http://www.yfaonline.com/node/7389> [retrieved 9 Jan. 2012]

90
Although they questioned the extent to which this had developed as a direct consequence of
the design, they did think the buildings may have been instrumental in developing the social
environment.43

Figure 64: Park Hill Housing Project, c.1962

Park Hill advocate Reyner Banham has deliberated over the years on what has made Park Hill
successful. For him it was due to Park Hill’s, and indeed Sheffield’s urban culture. As he
stated in 1973, Britain’s social attitudes to multi-storey housing had changed from when Park
Hill’s tenants had moved in ‘long before there was anyone around to tell them that public
housing is a middle class conspiracy to tidy them out of the way’. 44 He believed that in later
developments such as Robin Hood Gardens there was a feeling by occupants that they ‘had
simply been drafted there through administrative convenience’ (see Chapter 7). Banham also
described the ‘weird sense of loyalty’ that Park Hill seems to engender. 45 Like the Darkes, he
felt it was difficult to determine how much of its success was down to architectural causes, but
he could not believe none of it was as Park Hill’s layout and character generates much interest.
Banham also indicated that Park Hill has always been seen as an example of Sheffield
rehousing its own people within its city’s boundaries and that the architects, particularly
Wormersley, had truly believed in Park Hill supporting working class life. So for Banhan, Park

43
Dark R. and J. (1962) ‘Sheffield Revisited: Urban Evaluations’ in Built Environment, p.557-61
44
Banham R. (Oct. 1973) ‘The Park Hill Victory’ in New Society, p.154-6
45
Banham R. in Architectural Review, May/June 1974, p.108-15

91
Hill’s real lesson was not concerned with procedures, style or architecture but with ‘good old
fashioned public service’. He believed that effective public consultation (though probably not
in the sense understood now) contributed to its success and the tenants’ sense of well-being
with the role of its first tenant, social worker Joan Demers, being key. She acted as a
community liaison and was the author of the 1962 Residents Survey. Banham highlighted
when Hyde Park was completed, Wormersley and his team had left the Council’s employ and
the tenants were afforded no support in their occupation.

Park Hill’s Decline

In the 1970’s Sheffield’s fortunes changed. With the economy in recession, the Conservative
Government privatised the steel and coal industries driving Sheffield’s economy. Through
industrial closures Sheffield’s unemployment rate exceeded the national average and almost
trebled in four years, rising from 4% in 1978 to 11.3% in 1981. By 1984 it was 15.5%, and
manufacturing industry which had employed almost 50% of the city’s workforce in 1971
employed just 24% by 1984. 46 At this time Park Hill’s popularity also declined. Changing social
values including the breakdown of ‘close-knit’ family ties compounded by years of neglect and
inadequate maintenance meant by the late 1980’s Park Hill was no-longer seen as a pleasant
place to live and the aspirational choice it had been when first built. Ivor Smith (2001) has
given his reasons for the decline, recalling: ‘for the first decade or so Park Hill was regarded as
paradise for those who lived there in contrast to what they had before, but over the years
things began to go wrong…the three industries that had made Sheffield great ceased to exist,
the management of Park Hill changed, the building fabric was allowed to deteriorate, and it
was used as a place to dump difficult tenants…in addition, society was incubating a growing
culture of drugs and violence.’47 Former Park Hill resident, Morn Capper, has confirmed this
indicating that in the 1990’s the Council had a ’zero council housing points allocation’ for Park
Hill. Consequently many residents were students, very young and/or unemployed, and she
knew of a number with mental and other health related problems.48 Grenville Squires, Park
Hill’s former caretaker, lived and worked on the estate for twenty six years. When asked
whether he thought its architects were to blame for what become of the estate because the
design was ‘too brutal, idealistic and too rigidly controlling’ he replied: ‘no, it was the Council's
fault…they gave anyone who wanted one a flat and they didn't work hard enough at

46
Winkler A. (2007) Case Report 45: Sheffield City Report, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, p.13, originally Digaetano and Lawless (1999)
47
Smith I. Architectural Review, 13 Oct. 2011, p.83-93
48
Discussions 7 July 2014, for housing points system see:
<http://www.nihe.gov.uk/index/advice/apply_for_a_home/housing_selection_scheme/the_points_system.htm> [retrieved 1 Sept. 2014]

92
maintenance…she's lovely (the building)…she's my mistress, the only lady who's fetched me
from the marital bed at two in the morning and made demands…she has come on hard times,
but all she's got to do is wash her face and put on a new dress and she will be fine.'49

Figure 65: Park Hill, 200250

With Hyde Park’s largest blocks demolished in the 1990’s and the remainder refurbished for
competitor use in the World Student Games, Park Hill’s future looked uncertain, but it still
attracted the critics and their defence of it. Cruickshank (1995) still believed it a success
describing that it had ‘none of the most obvious hallmarks of a terminally ill estate…it was not
heavily vandalised with swathes of flats boarded up’.51 Although the decks were now
dispiriting places, Cruickshank thought this was due to their management rather than ‘the
psychological influence of the design’. Ivor Smith, however, has admitted they contained the
biggest design fault. For privacy, windows had not been provided, leaving no visual contact
like on a conventional street.52 Decks also face north and east getting little sun, but despite
this Cruickshank evidenced their use as their creators envisaged. The Russell family informed
him they did generate companionship and they defended living there stating ‘there’s no traffic,
you can run up and down to the shops in five minutes without getting wet if it’s raining…. we
have always liked it here’. Saint (1996) has also asked how and why has Park Hill kept living

49
Cooke R. ‘How I learnt to love the streets in the sky’ in The Guardian, 22 Nov. 2008
50
Picture Sheffield: t04740, t04743, t04744, t04745 <http://www.picturesheffield.com/index.php> [retrieved 2 Oct. 2013]
51
Cruickshank D. (1995) ‘Park Hill, Sheffield 1960-1965’ in RIBA Journal, Oct. 1995, p.52-61
52
Ivor Smith ‘Park Hill, Sheffield 1960-1965’in RIBA Journal, Oct. 1995, p.59

93
on, while others became ‘unravelled’. He noted there were obvious signs of decay but also
‘innocent indicators of homeliness and belonging that architects love to savour and
photograph’ like people chatting and children playing. Like Cruickshank he felt there would be
more if windows overlooked the decks but felt the state of the building was no worse than any
other estate and if the milk floats had gone that told us more about English society in general
rather than Park Hill.53 If Park Hill’s aim was to build decent homes at rents workers could
afford there is evidence to suggest that it did actually achieve this. As Cruickshank (1996)
indicated, Park Hill showed ‘the utopian vision that lay behind the public housing scheme in
the 1950’s and 1960’s was not totally without significant results…it has confirmed that some of
those ideals did work and rather than being ‘a piece of alien international modernism’ Park Hill
is still very much ‘of the place’’.54 Harwood (2001) similarly described Park Hill as ‘the first
truly large scale building of the post-War era and one that came closest to achieving the high
ambition of being the first step to a better Britain’. 55 Park Hill has had its problems but what
the periodic investigations have proved is that most people who live there have a sense of
loyalty to it and there is something about Park hill that makes it a ‘monument’ but ‘a
monument that has mysteriously managed to reconcile that function with being a home for
ordinary citizens’.56

Park Hill’s Regeneration

Figure 66: Park Hill Poem57

53
Saint A. (1996) in Park Hill What Next, p.38
54
Cruickshank D. (1996) ‘Park Hill its Future’ in Park Hill What Next, p.49-51
55
Harward E. (2001) ‘this is tomorrow’ in Preserving Post-War Heritage, p. 20
56
Saint A. (1996) in Park Hill What Next, p.38
57
<http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire/content/articles/2007/12/31/park_hill_audio_video_feature.shtml > [retrieved 18 Feb. 2012]

94
In a controversial move Park Hill’s future took on a more secure footing when in 1998 it was
listed at Grade II* for its ‘architectural importance, its ground-breaking use of streets in the sky
and its impressive scale’.58 EH building inspector Trevor Mitchell believed the debate that this
caused was because Park Hill was not considered ‘beautiful’ like most other Grade II* listed
buildings. He indicated however that the decision was justified as there was a need to look
beyond this because Park Hill ‘tells us something special about the way we used to live and
how we used to think as a society’.59 Its listing criteria indicates: ‘Park Hill is of international
importance. It is the first built manifestation of a widespread theoretical interest in external
access decks as a way of building high without the problems of isolation and expense
encountered with point blocks. Sheffield and the LCC had the only major local authority
departments designing imaginative and successful public housing in the 1950s, and this is
Sheffield's flagship. The decks were conceived as a way of recreating the community spirit of
traditional slum streets, with the benefit of vehicular segregation. Park Hill has been regularly
studied by sociologists ever since it opened, and is one of the most successful of its type. The
deck system was uniquely appropriate here because the steeply sloping site allowed all but the
uppermost deck to reach ground level, and the impact of the long, flat-topped structure rising
above the city centre makes for one of Sheffield's most impressive landmarks. The result was
Britain's first completed scheme of post-war slum clearance and the most ambitious inner-city
development of its time’.60

In 2001, however, it was still in desperate need of new investment. Although it continued to
have a good proportion of long-established residents the building’s concrete frame needed
substantial repair and the flats themselves needed modernising. This meant it was far from
appealing to prospective tenants and thus contributing to its waning popularity.61 In 1996
Cruickshank had considered as the years had progressed Park Hill’s virtues were no longer
understood and its potential no longer realised so ‘doing nothing’ was not an option and
redevelopment was needed. He believed, however, that redevelopment should take account
of and accentuate Park Hill’s essential qualities that were an integral part of its original design
like ‘its powerful composition, its organisation within the decks and its well designed and day-
lit flats with vistas across the city’. He also felt it needed improvements to ensure its future
success including ‘a greater mix of uses, better planning and landscaping, an effective
maintenance programme with repair of the concrete structure and flat design and layout to

58
Park Hill Study Guide (2010), p.25
59
Mitchell T. (2009) in The Question of Park Hill film
60
List Entry Number: 1246881 <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 14 Feb. 2012]
61
Beard A. (2001) ‘A Future for Park Hill’, in Preserving Post-war Heritage, p.179

95
meet contemporary needs’. Although public access to the decks meant security was a
problem Cruickshank advocated a more sympathetic solution to that at Hyde Park where
plastic cladded walkways and ground level security gates had transformed the streets into
‘enclosed, soulless, anonymous and placeless corridors’.62 Allan had similarly indicated, Park
Hill ‘is not all good but neither is it all bad…it is poor but not squalid…it is Spartan, but not
desolate…it is devoid of grace, but full of integrity and this mixture of success and failure
demands a combination of measures but not a complete makeover and transformation in the
conventional sense’. For Allan, Park Hill had a distinct sense of place and it should still be
recognisable as one of Sheffield’s most significant pieces of post-War architecture. He
considered the important aim was to ensure that the distinct advantages essential to its initial
concept: ‘centrality, convenience, views, parkland setting, comfort and economy continued to
outweigh its disadvantageous: regimentation, density and no gardens or glamour, and that this
balance corresponds to the priorities of the people who live there’.63

Park Hill Regeneration Scheme

Figure 67: Urban Splash Visualisation64

In 2003, in conjunction with English Partnerships (EP) [now Homes and Communities Agency
(HCA)], Sheffield Council agreed Park Hill’s £146m regeneration to achieve: ‘a vibrant, mixed
tenure estate with owner occupation, rented and affordable for sale properties along with
high quality retail and commercial premises’65 In 2004 Registered Social Landlord, Great Places
Housing Group and developer Urban Splash (with architects Studio Egret West, Hawkins Brown
and Grant Associates) were selected as scheme partners. With scheme finance being raised
mainly from private investment, public funding of £13m was awarded from Transform South
Yorkshire (former Government Housing Market Renewal Agency) for residents’ home-loss

62
Cruickshank D. (1996) ‘Park Hill its future’, p.49-51
63
Allan J. (1996) ‘Park Hill revisited ’in Park Hill What Next, p.44-7
64
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/front_page/newsid_8200000/8200314.stm> [retrieved 16 Jan. 2012]
65
City of Sheffield Park Hill regeneration <https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/in-your-area/regeneration/your-neighbourhood/park-hill.html> [retrieved 16
Jan. 2012]

96
payments, security and demolition of non-listed buildings. The HCA provided £24m funding
with £10m towards social housing provision. Great Places also contributed £10m towards this.
EH provided £0.5m for specialist concrete repairs.66 There were also reports, however, of
funding withdrawal, like £2.3m from the HCA, with Sheffield Council having to make up the
shortfall.67 In 2005 residents were rehomed so blocks could be handed to the developer in
phases. About one hundred tenants who decided to stay were moved to the Talbot Street
end, scheduled as the final phase and not yet affected by the renovation. Other residents who
wanted to leave during the building work were temporarily relocated. Some preferred to
leave Park Hill altogether, but in all about 200 residents expressed a desire to return. The
Council also bought back flats purchased under Right to Buy as well as about thirty businesses
affected by the redevelopment.68

Sheffield Council retains building ownership and the land freehold. Their role is to protect Park
Hill’s tenants’ interests and ensure their vision for the estate is delivered by the scheme
partners.69 Urban Splash, as leaseholders, obtain a 250 year lease for each of the five phases
as its development commences. Phase One ‘taken on’ for a ‘symbolic pound’70 entails:
redevelopment of the largest block at the site’s northern end, building of the courtyard and
service area on the former Pavements precinct, landscaping the pedestrian route to Sheffield
station, and work on a multi-storey car park. The whole project was originally expected to
take about ten years. In 2006 Park Hill junior school was closed, due to falling pupil numbers
and it was demolished in 2007. Also demolished was the Pavements, despite the shops’
original wooden fronts and features being specified of interest in the list description. The
Phase One regeneration in Oct. 2007 proposed: 257 flats for sale, 56 flats for rent and 12 flats
for shared ownership; a new doctor’s surgery and nursery, retail and leisure facilities and
improved public realm, at an estimated cost of £36.5m. Further planning consent in 2011 gave
permission for flat front porches with windows onto the streets and a change in the dwelling
number and types to 263 homes: 118 one-bedroom, 138 two-bedroom and 7 three-bedroom.
Commercial uses on the lower floors were extended to include restaurants, bars and a
residents’ fitness and health centre. Plans for a hotel, however, were withdrawn and the
multi-storey car park was delayed with approval instead for a temporary surface car park.71
Initial work, preparatory to refurbishment, began in Nov. 2007 taking the building back to its
‘H’ frame structure. The concrete was then cleaned and over 5,500 individual repairs effected.

66
Rose C., Park Hill Project Manager, Sheffield City Council (2009) in The Question of Park Hill film
67
The Sheffield Telegraph 20 Aug. 2011; The Architects’ journal 27 Feb. 2009
68
Taher S. ‘Interview with Jan Fitzgerald: Sheffield City Council’ in Architectural Review, 27 sept. 2011
69
Rose C. (2009) in The Question of Park Hill film
70
Detail, April 2013, p.373
71
The Sheffield Star, 21 Dec. 2011

97
The badly eroded precast concrete balustrades on the streets and dwelling balconies were
replaced in a modified, lightened form with wooden handrails. The glazing was increased from
one to two thirds of the dwelling façade with large side opening double glazed units to allow in
more light and views across the city. The solid parts were replaced with brightly coloured
aluminium panels in similar tones to the original brick to give a more contemporary feel but in
colours that retained the disposition of living patterns of the original design.

Figure 68: The Stripped Back ‘H’ Frame

Figure 69: Concrete ‘Patch’ Repair and Internal Dwelling Stair ‘H’ Frame72

Timber porches now enlarge the flat’s interiors, adding storage within and recesses outside
creating a sheltered entrance area for four dwellings that lessens the ‘institutional’ feel of the
long and continuous corridor.73 The demarcation of public and private space is further
enhanced by the floor treatment. The more personal space in the recessed areas has a
domestic feel with coir-matting whereas the streets themselves are finished with a
hardwearing rubber tile. The streets now comply with current regulations to ensure noise
reduction. The new corner windows now provide a visual relationship between street and
72
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/front_page/newsid_8200000/8200314.stm> [retrieved 15 Nov. 2013]
73
Tour of Park Hill by T. Laurence, Urban Splash Development Manager, 17 Feb. 2012

98
dwelling. At the north-west corner there is a grand four-storey entrance with a paved
walkway. New glazed lifts and a helix stair with shiny balustrade allow access to the dwellings
above. Deck entry is now restricted to those who live at Park Hill and is controlled at ground
level but the original idea of the ‘street’ remains with each flat still having its own front door to
which the postman delivers mail on a daily basis.

Figure 70: Park Hill’s New Streets

The bottom three storeys of Phase One are being let as commercial space for shops, cafés and
other businesses, with decked terraces for sitting out at ground level. Fully glazed on both
sides, they aim to attract customers from either direction and allow glimpses through. The
nursery (still in use) is to be relocated in this block. The previously neglected surrounding
landscape is being redeveloped. The area around the station and the new route up the hill has
been landscaped. An amphitheatre has been formed in the hill to provide an area for
recreation and social events.

Figure 71: Phase One Aug. 2011

99
 Figure 72: Park Hill’s City Elevation, New Helix Stair, Lifts and Entrance, Feb. 2012

Urban Splash has indicated that it does not want to ‘beautify’ Park Hill too much, but to keep it
‘raw, strong and honest’. Park Hill’s entrance is also intended as a ‘welcoming invitation to
landscaped grounds inside the site’ and the vision is to create a high street linking Duke Street
to South Street with bars, restaurants and communal gardens spilling out on to South Street
and the hill behind Sheffield station with places where people can congregate and meet their
friends.74 Old bricks are being used in the new landscaping and waste material from internal
walls has been ground down to be used as low-grade aggregate in the landscape area and to
fill beneath paving and walkways. Rain water harvesting is also part of the scheme and the
dwellings will use Sheffield’s District Heating System.75 The roofs of the lower buildings in the
service area will be kept landscaped and green, as people will be looking down on them from
their flats. Eco-Home Standard is part of Urban Splash’s funding agreement and insulation,
ventilation and natural lighting improvements will mean the flats perform better than
previously. The dwellings are now more open-plan with views right through and light from
both sides. Some internal doors pivot back into recesses flush with the interior walls to create
a larger open space.

74
Parnell G. BBC Sheffield & South Yorkshire <http://news.bbc.co.uk/local/sheffield/hi/people_and_places/newsid_8200000/8200314.stm>
[retrieved 16 Jan 2012]
75
Sheffield’s District Heating provides over 130 buildings with low carbon energy generated from residual waste.

100
 Figure 73: The New Amphitheatre

Figure 74: Phase One Show Flat Interiors

101
 Figure 75: Comparison of Original and Revised Dwelling Layout

The flats went on sale in autumn 2012 and new occupants started moving in Jan. 2012. The
first flank of Phase I containing seventy eight homes is now fully occupied. Of these, twenty six
have been let at social rent, eighteen to residents who moved from the Talbot end of the

102
estate and the remaining eight to tenants temporarily rehomed away from Park Hill.76 The
different tenures have been ‘pepper-potted’ throughout the block so it is unidentifiable as to
exactly what the tenure is.77 Some of the commercial space has been let and other businesses
are due to move in to provide local amenities. Due to the economic downturn the project will
take much longer than originally envisaged. A reduction in mortgage availability has meant
that Urban Splash has had to adapt their sales approach and avoid saturating the housing
market by placing large numbers of flats on the market at any one time. The balance of Phase
One, 185 dwellings, including 30 for social rent, is estimated to be completed at the end of
2015.78 As landlord for Park Hill’s social housing Great Places Housing Group are responsible
for managing the whole development once completed and they intend setting up a resident’s
association to help old and new residents integrate and form a new community. In 2013 Phase
I received three RIBA Awards and it was shortlisted for the RIBA Stirling Prize for architecture.79
In 2013 Urban splash also entered into a joint venture with one of the UK’s largest property
management, development and regeneration companies, Places for People, to allow the
further stages of the redevelopment to commence.80

Figure 76: Park Hill’s Kitchen relegated to Sheffield’s Weston Park Museum

76
Inside Housing, 13 July 2013, <http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/tenancies/uphill-struggle/6527823.article> [retrieved 15 Nov. 2013]
77
Rose C. (2009) in The Question of Park Hill film
78
Lawrence T. in Inside Housing, 13 July 2013
79
Triple RIBA Award win for Park Hill <http://www.clairecurtice.co.uk/triple-riba-win-for-park-hill> [retrieved 18 Nov. 2013]
80
The Architects’ journal, 3 April 2014 <http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/urban-splash-ploughs-17m-into-park-hill-phase-
two/8661097.article> [retrieved 6 May 2014]

103
Responses to the Regeneration

In 2011 Jan Fitzgerald, Sheffield’s Regeneration Programme Director gave reasons for the
redevelopment decision. She indicated the Council had realised there would be significant
financial and environmental costs associated with its demolition, so with the emphasis on
sustainability refurbishment was always deemed a more viable option. She indicated
discussions in 2001 with Park Hill residents and within Sheffield more generally had revealed a
preference to keep it [also confirmed by Bell (2011)].81 Fitzgerald also explained that the
Council wanted a more mixed tenure in Park Hill as they felt it was not a natural city condition
to have almost 3000 residents in one estate from one social group. Furthermore, the area
around Park Hill has much social housing so changing Park Hill’s social mix will change the
neighbourhood as a whole. She also explained that because historically development of
Sheffield’s social housing has been associated with steel works and mining in the city’s eastern
and northern parts, this has led to a clustering that has created a kind of divide which is so
acute that the average life span of north-east residents is ten years shorter than that of people
living in the south-west. Mixing the Park Hill tenure should start to even out this difference
and help eradicate this divide.

Fitzgerald also explained that surveys conducted at the time revealed the need for reduced
council rented dwellings on the estate so the split in the number of social rented and market
sale homes, with the addition of commercial space was seen as the best solution. When asked
if this would reduce the amount of social housing on offer in Sheffield, Fitzgerald indicated
there was actually an oversupply of 1-2 bedroom flats and about 10,000 had been demolished
because they were no longer needed. Conversely, she admitted there was still a lack of
bungalows and 4-5 bedroom houses, but this was not something that Park Hill supplied in any
case. Both Urban Splash and Sheffield Council have also indicated that a certain number of the
flats are protected for local buyers and while they need investors to buy them, there is a
restriction on how many flats can actually be sold to them.82 Fitzgerald also described how the
new commercial space would operate. She indicated that in more recent years there had been
less of a connection between the city and the estate and although initially Park Hill did
generate visitors as the years progressed people were less inclined to visit and the estate
shops became unsustainable by the residents themselves.83 Fitzgerald emphasised the
renovation is intended to create more flexible commercial spaces for use by the public

81
Taher S. ‘a second chance for Sheffield’s streets in the sky’ in Architectural Review, 27 Sept. 2011; Bell H. (2011) Values in the conservation and
regeneration of post-war listed public housing: a study of Spa Green and Park Hill, PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield, p.38
82
Taher S in Architectural Review, 27 Sept. 2011
83
Discussions with Gwyneth Mark, Sheffield resident/wife of Park Hill architect, Tony Mark, 21 Feb 2014

104
generally. The notion of diversity not homogeneity was a concept that social critic Jacobs
(1961) advocated in order to keep a city alive. She highlighted that to generate exuberant
diversity in a city’s streets and districts four conditions are indispensable. Firstly there must be
a social mix with people having different work schedules and routines but who are able to use
the district’s common facilities; secondly city blocks should be short with frequent turns and
opportunities to turn corners; thirdly it must ‘mingle buildings’ with old and new and in
different condition; and fourthly there must be sufficient density of population.84 Park Hill’s
regeneration provides an opportunity in which all of these generators could be present. It has
the required population density and its monumental but intricately designed courts, coupled
with the new building and a reinstated high street could give the short ‘blocks’, corner-turning
and mix of buildings that Jacobs advocates. The main change will come from Park Hill’s new
community and the mix of old and new residents together with those working in the new
commercial spaces are key to Park Hill’s future success.

The stripping back of Park Hill to its concrete frame has proved controversial, provoking
differing responses from professionals. According to Bell (2011) no Conservation Management
Plan was drawn up for the redevelopment and she quotes a conservation officer’s concerns
who indicated that: ‘the project should have started with a Conservation Plan, some place to
have started from…its rather been left to the whim of the designers’. However, the C20
Society were consulted on the redevelopment and EH advised on the scope for change.85 EH
identified that Park Hill’s heritage values lay in the site’s history and the scale and vision of the
original housing scheme, in the expressed reinforced concrete frame and the relationship of
the building to the landscape in which it sits. They applied stipulations to maintain its original
character, like insisting the continuous roof-line be maintained and the concrete frame be
repaired to show the distinction between the old and new. They considered, however, that
substantial changes to the internal layout and the frame infill panels could be introduced
without damaging its historic significance.86 The emphasis therefore was on the innovative
aspects of the design and the idea about Park Hill rather than its built material form. It is in
this vein that Powers (2001) discusses the essence (spirit and soul) and the substance
(materiality and form) of a building in respect of conservation. He feels it is possible to take
away some of the substance but it must not affect its overall essence.87 He also indicates most
conservation strategies are based on substance and if, in the discussion of a post-War listing, a
building’s essence came first there would be less concern about retention of original fabric and

84
Jacobs J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities, p.187-290
85
Bell H. (2011), p.207
86
EH (2008) Constructive Conservation in Practice, p.7
87
Powers A. (2001) ’Style or Substance - what are we trying to conserve?’ in Preserving Post-war Heritage, p.3-11

105
more of a willingness to consider alternative systems. As Powers highlights: ‘we might mind
just as much as we now do about the replacement of windows because these seem in
philosophical as well as general terms often essential to the character of the building yet these
substantial aspects might recede in the conservation of the wider values embodied in the
building and its site’ and this ‘requires a shift in the discussion away from legalistic, precedent
based evidence to a more qualitative basis’. Allen (2001) similarly believes concentrating on
‘heritage’ to be ‘preserved’ is perhaps an inappropriate approach to a period chiefly
characterised by its volume of output. Instead he suggests it might be better to consider its
residue as ‘resources’ to be ‘revalued’. This would not mean a less rigorous conservation
approach but one to be explored more holistically in respect of urban renewal. Indeed, Allen is
on record for suggesting only the more westerly parts of Park Hill are retained.88 Dunnett
(2010) conversely feels the attitude developing towards post-War listed buildings is that far
greater changes are permissible than would be in the case in buildings from earlier periods. He
cites Park Hill as an example that has been ‘reduced to a concrete skeleton and all the external
walls, windows and balustrades removed’.89 Other heritage professionals were also concerned
about this, in particular that all the flat interiors had been removed.90 Indeed the regeneration
was governed to a large extent by the scheme’s viability. Bell (2011) quotes a conservation
officer as saying: ‘Splash had to get the frame back to the shell…see the sky…if we hadn’t won
the VAT argument it wouldn’t have been viable’.91

According to Blundell Jones (2011), in the current economic climate, this was ‘the best deal the
city could get’ with others taking the main risk and if it succeeds it should allow a mixed
community to grow, albeit with little remaining of the ‘altruistic, paternalistic aspirations of
the Welfare State’. From a building conservation point of view, he believes much has changed
but he feels Park Hill is better preserved in an altered state than not at all, for the sake of its
inhabitants’ memories as well as for its architecture. More importantly he feels another
‘wanton reduction to a tabula rasa has been avoided’ which is kinder to the planet in terms of
embodied energy and lower running costs. Blundell Jones also feels a more thoughtful and
interesting architecture has arisen than would have with a standard new-build. As he indicates
every place has its qualities and there are always layers and memories, but there is also always
need for change, which makes pure conservation a rarely realisable ideal. He believes
reinterpretation is the middle way, and it need not imply a compromise.92 Hatherley (2011),

88
Allan J. (2001) ‘Preserving Heritage or Revaluing Resources’; (1996), p.201-8; (1996) ‘Park Hill revisited ’in Park Hill What Next, p.47
89
Dunnett J. DoCoMoMo UK Newsletter, Summer 2010
90
Bell H. (2011), p.220
91
Bell H. (2011), p.219
92
Blundell Jones P. in Architectural Review, 27 Sept. 2011

106
on the other hand, is sceptical about the regeneration feeling the public money might have
been better spent renovating the place for those already living there. He believes Park Hill is
another instance of limited council housing stock being sold off and privatised in a city where
there are significant numbers on council housing waiting lists. He compares the fate of Park
Hill with that of London’s Barbican Estate that is also ‘full of bare concrete, open space, urban
density, walkways, social facilities and the separation of pedestrian and car’. Park Hill, he feels,
is seen as a problem that ‘apparently had to be solved’ whereas The Barbican is one of
London's most prestigious addresses. This he believes is because Park Hill was social housing
and the Barbican private housing, which meant the Barbican has always been cared for
whereas Park Hill was ‘left to rot’. For him years of denigration made Park Hill an ‘easy sell’
but he is also happy that at least something is happening and it is not being demolished.93

Ivor Smith (2011) took a more pragmatic view when interviewed for his opinion. He felt the
task went far beyond structural repair because Park Hill needed to demonstrate a ‘fresh start’
and attract new residents. He thought this demanded some imaginative and positive moves
and he agreed with the improvements. Although at first he felt the aluminium panel colours
were a bit bright he considered they served well to demonstrate this new beginning and more
importantly they continued to indicate the different deck levels. He felt the changes to the
elevations when the coloured panels are either open or closed was a ‘witty device’. Smith also
felt the new entrance was ‘a splendid monumental space’ and that the new shops will add life
with the glazed two-storey offices and studios giving an effective base to the building. He
believes the way the entrance, lifts and stairs are set within the structural frame shows a
‘masterly respect and understanding of what existed before’ and the arrival at each level is
similarly spacious with the qualities of the street still apparent, even though the dwellings now
encroach on it a little. This he feels is very clever as not only does it give useful space inside
but it also provides a significant threshold and a public/private space, to each group of four.
Smith also felt the choice of materials, the quality of detail and workmanship showed great
care, apparent in the entrance doors, stairs, windows and the kitchen and bathroom design,
which benefit from more resources than were originally available. He felt it refreshing that the
whole design was free from ‘gimmicks’, and there was a consistency and inevitability to each
part which indicated the developers and architects: ‘have got the balance right between
respect for authenticity and the need to embrace change’. Smith was quoted as saying: what
they (the developers/architects) have done gives real meaning to the word regeneration – it
represents a new beginning, a new vitality. I sense in those who have been involved the same

93
Hatherley O. ‘Regeneration? What's happening in Sheffield's Park Hill is class cleansing’ in The Guardian, 29 Sept. 2011

107
enthusiasm and excitement that Jack Lynn and I experienced half a century ago. It will be a
great place to live’.94 Indeed Bell (2011) also believes Park Hill’s regeneration is based on the
same narratives as the first: as a pioneering redevelopment that had to be ‘reclaimed as a
success’ for the city.95

There is also evidence that Park Hill’s residents' have supported the scheme.96 In 2008 long-
time resident Brenda Hague, who was 22 when she moved in Park Hill in Dec. 1959, was
interviewed for her opinion. Brenda had described how it ‘was luxury’ because previously she
had lived with her husband and baby, together with her parents and brother in a back-to-back
with no bathroom. Brenda highlighted how in Park Hill’s early days it was a quiet place as
most of its tenants had young families but even when it began to be ‘run down’ in the 1980s,
Brenda considered it always felt safe to her. She also referred to the adverse opinion about
Park Hill stating ‘they say it looks horrible…maybe it does from the outside…it's what's inside
that counts’. When asked how she felt about the refurbishment Brenda indicated she was
pleased so long as she could remain where she's always been.97 There have been more recent
reports, however, of criticism from the original Park Hill residents about its new image,
particularly in respect of the dwellings’ bare concrete walls. Retaining certain architectural
details has been written into tenants’ tenancy agreements, leaving occupants with limited
control over the feel of their new homes. Former Sheffield Councillor and MP, Roy Hattersley
continues to give his views on the scheme he was partly responsible for initiating and he has
shown his support of the redevelopment.98 He indicated that repairing and renovating a
building of Park Hill's size has always been too expensive for the Council so those remaining in
it lived in ‘a dilapidated relic of good intentions that was now a listed building and could not be
demolished’, so something had to be done. He also believes, however, that the
redevelopment is ‘more revolutionary than the original design’ and although there are
complaints that old ideals and original intentions have been betrayed these ignore the fact
that, local authority finance having fallen on hard days, leaves no realistic alternative. He also
considers that is not the real justification for a new and different Park Hill and indicates fifty
years ago there was talk of making it a ‘mixed development’ but this was abandoned, not
because it was thought that owner-occupiers should look after themselves but because it was
feared that families that could afford a deposit to buy their own home would not want to live

94
Smith I. in Architectural Review, 13 Oct. 2011
95
Bell H. (2011), p.179
96
Building Design, 7 Oct. 2005, p.5
97
Cooke R. in The Guardian, 22 Nov. 2008
98
Hattersley R. ‘from a relic of good intentions to a model for the future; we never dreamt an infamous block of flats would one day house council
tenants and owners. We were wrong’ in The Times, 16 Sept. 2011

108
‘cheek by jowl’ with council tenants. As he now states, since then the world has moved on and
‘these days we all seem much the same and it is a time to unite different communities, not to
drive them apart’. He also indicates the few remaining residents in Park Hill have welcomed
the idea of a mix and early interest in the flats for sale ‘suggests that a new generation has put
aside the prejudices of fifty years ago and takes it for granted that families their grandparents
dismissed as council tenants are people too’.

Figure 77: The Old and the New, 2014

The partnership with Urban Splash has certainly raised a few eyebrows but Moore (2011)
believes ‘if Urban Splash can be too flash for their own good, the seriousness of Park Hill, and
the difficulties of restoring it, has focused the mind’. He thinks the aluminium panels are, as
Ivor Smith has said ‘a bit bright, uncomfortably out-staring the original work’ and could
perhaps be modified later when the developers are less nervous about the estate's image and
they might even find that the original brick is not so bad, with its ability to weather and age.
Moore feels the decision to list the building now looks ‘brave and right’ and had it gone
‘nothing would now be there but the nothing housing you see all over the country, with
meaner dimensions, shoddier building and an absence of spirit’. Nor is the rescue of Park Hill a

109
grotesque extravagance as demolition and rebuilding would not necessarily have been more
cost-effective and it would have been environmentally profligate.99

Conclusion

‘When people come into Sheffield on’ train and they get off at the station, or in’ bus station
and they look up and think look at that big block up there it looks horrible but when we look
out of our windows we have got’ best view in Sheffield … we can see for miles and miles.’

Brenda Hague, Park Hill Resident 100

Figure 78: Park Hill Poem101

Park Hill’s scale and complexity make this regeneration a difficult undertaking that is
dependent upon private investment and effective collaboration with scheme development
partners in order to make it work. Although its strategy betrays its original ideals it is one that
could provide a new, diverse and vibrant community in an area that would help even out
Sheffield’s historical social divide. As a Grade II* listed building, Park Hill’s conservation
treatment has been contrary to that of older buildings in this listing category and it again
highlights the differing professional opinion regarding Modern heritage preservation. Scheme
viability was a key determinant of the refurbishment. It also needed to demonstrate a fresh
start and, at the same time, retain Park Hill’s architectural and historical significance which
were thought to lie in its historical and community value and the heroic vision of the original
scheme. Aesthetically this is captured in the scale and design of the concrete frame and its
dramatic and prominent siting on Sheffield’s hillside, rather than the evidential value of its
99
Moore R. ‘Park Hill estate, Sheffield’ in The Observer, 21 Aug. 2011
100
The Question of Park Hill film, 2009
101
The Question of Park Hill film, 2009

110
construction. Although its original fabric was not retained it was not given a ‘makeover’ to
disguise it but a treatment that will ensure it still retains its essential character. Its heritage
values are deemed to lie ultimately in the realisation of the original design intent. The next
case study demonstrates the problems that can arise when the intended scheme was not
actually realised and how this can affect the conservation effort.

111
Chapter 4 Design Versus Built Reality: The Brunswick Centre, Bloomsbury

Figure 79: The Brunswick, c.20101

‘Modern conservation does not mean a return to the past, rather it demands courage to
undertake sustainable human development within the reality and the potential of existing
cultural, physical and environmental resources’
Jukka Jokilehto2

‘Despite their physical survival and devoted restoration many of the Modern Movement
buildings are irretrievably distant in terms of authorship, culture, circumstance and original
meaning and although authenticity is always a ‘desideratum’ it must include ‘spiritual
authenticity’ which embraces a commitment to change as in the end conservation is about
vitality and serving life as it is lived’
John Allen3

As a reaction against the ‘slabs of urban renewal’ The Brunswick Centre was seen as ‘London’s
contribution to the low-rise, high density, inner-city housing’.4 It is a seven storey concrete
structure with dwellings over shops, a cinema and two levels of underground parking. This
chapter examines the problems that can occur when a building differs from the architect’s
original design intent and it considers whether the conservation aims should reflect the built
reality, if this did not achieve the project objectives, or more closely what the design originally
intended. Also examined are the complexities associated with management of an estate and
the conservation effort where there are different levels of ownership throughout.
1
<http://www.bdonline.co.uk/brunswick-centre-refurbishment-by-patrick-hodgkinson/3074798.article> [retrieved 12 Nov. 2014]
2
Jokilehto J. (1999) A History of Architectural Conservation, p.318
3
Allen J. (2002) ‘A Challenge of Values’, p.20
4
Progressive Architecture, May 1973, p.100-5

110
Site History

The area north east of Russell Square was first developed as the Foundling Estate in the 18th
Century for governors of the Foundling Hospital.5 The brick built housing followed the ‘well–
tried formulae’ of the period with the main shopping area located along Marchmount Street.
Although most of the houses survived WW II they were considered run-down and
overcrowded so the area was identified for comprehensive redevelopment after the War
ended.6 Developer Alex Coleman purchased the site and two adjacent city blocks, totalling
13.2 acres. He established Marchmount Properties to handle this development, backed by an
interest free loan of £3m from McAlpine and Sons.7

Figure 80: 1870’s Bloomsbury Area Map8

5
Founded, 1741 by philanthropist Thomas Coram
6
Carrier D. ‘The changing face of The Brunswick Centre’ in Camden New journal, 19 Oct. 2006
7
Melhuish C. (2006) Life and Times of the Brunswick, p.13
8
Digimap, accessed 9 Jan 2013

111
 Figure 81: Former Georgian Terrace on The Brunswick Centre Site9

Development of The Brunswick Centre Design

An initial tower block scheme was rejected as being out of scale for Bloomsbury when the 80
feet limit for residential accommodation remained. In 1960 Coleman appointed Leslie Martin,
former head of the LCC who with his assistant, Patrick Hodgkinson produced a lower-rise, high
density, mixed scheme to provide housing, shops, a restaurant, pubs, a cinema, welfare and
garaging concentrated to provide maximum amenity gains without recourse to high buildings.
Outline planning proposals, approved in 1963 were scheduled as: A: The Brunswick Centre,
designed by Hodgkinson, consisting of housing, shops and garages covering 8.1 acres; B:
commercial offices, hotel, Territorial Army HQ (not realised), garages and district heating plant
designed by Martin; C: Reserved for future housing development. Hodgkinson considered The
Brunswick Centre project offered three opportunities: firstly to test high-density, low-rise
building, secondly to relate housing to shops and thirdly to provide a nucleus for future
redevelopment. He envisaged the Centre to be a contemporary interpretation of the streets,
spaces and uses that characterised Georgian London.10 Planning and negotiation, however,
were to take eight years before construction could start.

9
<http://thebrunswick.org/2010/05/10/brunswick-square-before-the-brunswick> [retrieved 3 Dec. 2012]
10
Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, p.196-218

112
 Figure 82: Map Showing the Development Proposal11

Hodgkinson’s initial sketches showed a formal arrangement of brick built ‘courtyard’ buildings.
These were modified to meet the developer’s cost requirements into a single floor-plate
slightly elevated above street level which was bordered by two continuous linear blocks. The
planning consent given in 1963 was for a very grand scheme with nineteen different types of
flats ranging from small flats, aimed at medical staff at nearby hospitals, to luxury penthouse
apartments, all above a glass-roofed market hall. A recital hall, commemorating George
Fredrick Handel (a benefactor of the Foundling Hospital) was also included. One of The
Brunswick Centre’s greatest claims to fame is as a concrete building but Hodgkinson had
initially intended a brick construction. Changes to building regulations, however, enabled a
radical rethink of the construction and although Hodgkinson had ‘grave misgivings’ he
eventually agreed that concrete would be a more appropriate building material. This resulted
in the introduction of the ‘A’ frame structure carrying tiers of housing and the open terraces
becoming glazed winter gardens.12

11
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 4 Feb. 2013
12
Melhuish C. (2006), p.32

113
 Figure 83: Hodgkinson’s 1963 Plans: ‘Outline Plan’ (top) and ‘Speculative Plan’13

In 1964 however, the Labour Government introduced the requirement to compensate or

rehouse people affected by inner city development. These were costs that Coleman had not
anticipated which threatened the scheme’s viability. In 1965, concerned about the security of
their investment the McAlpines took control of the project and Coleman and Hodgkinson
helped them broker a deal with Camden London Borough Council (CLBC,) who in 1966 took a
99 year lease on the flats to let them as social housing. As a consequence the ‘up-market’
shops like Fortnum and Mason pulled out of the arrangement. From 1965-8 Hodgkinson and
CLBC architect, Sidney Cook, redesigned the accommodation to a lower specification, omitting
13
Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, p.217/205

114
each blocks’ upper floor and reducing the brick cross wall module from 18 to 13.5 feet to
provide either one or two bedroom flats and a few maisonettes and bed-sits. The continuous
winter gardens that would have slid open over one another were also simplified and built to
alternate with open balconies.14 The Centre’s design concept, however, remained the same
with two parallel blocks maintaining the street line, as it previously existed. The repetitive box
frame structure had continuous cross-walls and floor slabs and the external walls of the flats
were rendered block-work. The dwellings were orientated towards the external streets and
inwards towards an open court. Four entrances interspersed the 300 metre long facades and
the section of each block was stepped 27.5m wide at the base and 13.5m at the top.
Pedestrian bridges linked the two blocks and facing Brunswick Square a monumental portico
entrance with seven concrete columns (in homage to John Ruskin and his Seven Lamps of
Architecture) framed the dramatic grand civic stairs leading up to the precinct. 15 To the west a
more modest covered passage with an arcade of shops connected the precinct to Marchmount
Street. A lower basement contained a residents’ garage with shop stores along the flanks. An
upper basement provided a shoppers garage with shop store mezzanines along the flanks. At
ground level a pedestrian shopping street contained eighty shops with housing along the
flanks. This connected Bernard Street to Handel Street with entrances from Brunswick Square,
Coram, Marchmount, and Handel Streets. A mezzanine level contained the shops’ upper parts
and housing along its flanks. Above this a terrace level consisted of a paved public open space
with play areas, tree planting and sheltered seating. It also contained the housing entrance
galleries with professional chambers and welfare rooms, old people’s dwellings under the
blocks and housing along the flanks. The five upper terraces contained housing.16

Patrick Hodkinson’s Design Methodology

Hodgkinson had developed the principles for The Brunswick Centre in his earlier designs, such
as an unbuilt, low-rise housing scheme for St Pancras Borough Council that he and Leslie
Martin had collaborated on. This had included no social segregation, low-cost/high-density
building types, open space for each dwelling and a synthesis of scale with the surroundings.17
In section the Brunswick Centre also resembled Harvey Court, which he designed for Gonville
and Caius College, Cambridge (with Martin and Colin St John Wilson). Hodgkinson believed
that in housing two key aspects mattered: its capacity for homemaking and its urban

14
Building Design, 6 Oct. 2006, p.14-17
15
Consultation Response from Friend (pdf3449244) in CLBC Planning Application: 2014/3604P
16
Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, p.196-218
17
Tappin S (June 2002) Open House Notes: The Brunswick Centre <https://brunswickwc1.wordpress.com/history> [retrieved 12 May 2013]

115
capability. He was not influenced by the futuristic notions of home life like the Smithsons
were in their ‘House of the Future’. For him ‘the concept of family life with children was
entirely traditional’. He admired the great English country houses and the interplay of open
and closed, public and private and grand and intimate spaces which reflected domestic ritual
and ‘gave an ordered hierarchy to life’.18 The changes to his initial Brunswick layouts,
however, resulted in a more 19th Century cellular design as opposed to the spatial interplay of
the medieval prototypes he preferred. The Brunswick Centre’s distinctive profile has led to it
being compared to Futurist designs, especially the regularly spaced lift-shafts, the dramatic
staircases and ventilator towers. The grand, formal entrance to the shopping mall containing
the cinema entrance has particularly been likened to Sant'Elia's scheme for Milan Railway
Station. Melhuish (2006) however, has indicated that Hodgkinson tried to disassociate himself
from this analogy, claiming he was unaware of Sant’Elia’s project when he was designing the
Brunswick scheme.

Figure 84: Harvey Court19

Banham (1976) has also described The Centre as ‘the most pondered, most learned, most
acclaimed, most monumental, most bedevilled in its building history of all English
megastructures’ and a ‘classic product of the ‘megayear 1964’.20 Again, Melhuish (2006)
indicates Hodgkinson never thought the term to be ‘a compliment’ and that it bore no relation
to what he had intended, considering instead the social concept of the village more apt.21

18
Quoted by Melhuish C. (2006) Life and Times of the Brunswick, p.39
19
<http://www.ajbuildingslibrary.co.uk/projects/display/id/349> [retrieved 7 July 2015]
20
Banham R. (1976) Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent Past, p.184-9
21
Melhuish C. (2006), p.28/41

116
Although he was considered a Modernist, Hodgkinson did not subscribe to Corbusian
methodology and the practice of zoning and segregation of housing types.22 He has stated that
some of his design inspiration came from the 18th Century buildings in Regent’s Park that have
low-rise, high-density using terracing. He also intended The Centre to be painted the cream
colour that graces Georgian homes.23 The inspiration for the winter gardens, which he felt
were more suited to the British climate, came from those in seaside towns like Brighton.
Hodgkinson also indicated that he admired buildings like the Palais Royal in Paris and the
Adam Brothers’ Adelphi building, built with housing over vaulted warehouses. He considered
that rather than being about structure and form these buildings were more concerned with
‘the enclosure and definition of void’.24 As The Brunswick Centre was made from concrete it
has been associated with Brutalist housing. Hodgkinson has indicated, however, it has no such
affiliations and that if he was influenced by any designer it was Finnish architect Alvar Aalto, in
whose office he had worked as a student. He has been quoted as saying that his original
intention was to build The Brunswick Centre out of brick, just as Aalto would have done, but
that he did not think he had ‘any chance of using the same brick all along the scheme’. 25

The Brunswick Centre’s Layout

The Brunswick Centre’s two blocks were called O'Donnell and Foundling Courts. Their stepped
design opened up the shopping street to the sky and ensured that every dwelling received at
least two hours of direct sunlight a day.26 The developer gained consent for the commercial
space provided 200 per person per acre housing was included within the 80ft height limit. The
Centre contained 560 dwellings of one, two or four person types for about approximately 1650
people which actually gave a density of 230 per person, per acre over the gross site area.
There was also car parking for 925 cars. Buildings took up 35.5% of the net site area, access
roads, paths and parking 11.5%, leaving 53% as open space. During the construction
Hodgkinson found it increasingly difficult to accept the developer’s lower standards. In 1970
he and Colman were dismissed by the McAlpines who brought in L. B. Ingham, and then T.P.
Bennett and Son in 1972, to finish the job as quickly and cheaply as possible resulting in the
omission of a number of Hodgkinson’s designs. To echo the materials palette of the
surrounding area and break-up the monotony of the concrete, brown brick facings were to

22
Melhuish C. (2006), p.25
23
Quoted in ‘The changing face of The Brunswick Centre’ in Camden New Journal, 19 Oct. 2006
24
Defined by Colin Rowe in an unpublished essay ‘A Palais Royal for London’ quoted by Melhuish C. (2006), p.30
25
Rose S. conservation with Hodgkinson in ‘Scrubs up beautifully’ <www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2006/oct/23/architecture.communities>
[retrieved 3 Dec. 2012]
26
Hodgkinson P. (2006) ‘Scrubs up beautifully’ in The Guardian, 22 Oct. 2006

117
have been provided to the columns and pavements. Hodgkinson’s landscaping proposals were
also omitted as well as his proposed painting of the elevations in ‘Crown Commissioners
Cream’, which would have had durability in addition to aesthetic consequences for the
reinforced concrete. The recital hall became a cinema, positioned facing Brunswick Square it
descended two levels into the basement. The Centre was originally due to continue northward
by another eighty metres but CLBC’s compulsory purchase application was refused in 1971.
Area C of Colman’s strategy was never realised and in 1974 the glass roof to the shopping mall
was also cancelled. In 1973 the scheme was only half realised, some 12 years after the initial
plans were drawn up. It was estimated to have cost £7.5m.

Figure 85: Site Map Showing the Development27

27
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 4 Feb. 2013

118
 Figure 86: Early Images of The Brunswick Centre28

28
<http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/search/results.html?ixsid=5X7iivQaCuk&qs=the+brunswick+centre> [retrieved 8 Feb. 2013]; Architectural
Review, Oct. 1972, p.196-218

119
 Figure 87: Site Plan Showing Extent of Hodgkinson’s Proposal29

29
Adapted from plan in Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, p.196

120
 Figure 88: The Brunswick Centre’s Stepped Section and Internal Court30

The Dwellings

In The Brunswick Centre dwelling access is from a central corridor located within the exposed,
internal 'A' frame structure which makes an extremely powerful composition along the
landings serving the flats. Most of the flats on the upper floors have one or two bedrooms,
with studios at the ends, all with a glazed winter garden and balcony, which forms the stepped
profile down the side of the building. Some two storey maisonettes are located on the lower
floors of the perimeter blocks near the main entrances. Each dwelling has a single aspect with
full frontage given to the living area. In Hodgkinson’s original design this would have been fully
glazed and planned ‘L’ shaped around a court. With the design changes the glazing was cut
back to half the original amount and the retractable glass roofs of the winter gardens were
omitted. These elements instead became open balconies which formed the roofs over the
bedrooms of the flats below. The flats have metal windows and metal balustrading to
concrete balconies. At the opposite end of the flat and abutting the access gallery is the
kitchen, separated from the living space by a low partition. Each bedroom has a door onto the
balcony. Heating was originally provided by ducted hot air, with each flat having a fan that
blows over hot water pipes. Until 2001 the hot water for this was provided by a boiler room in
the hotel on the opposite side of Marchmont Street. Each flat now has its own hot water tank.
The dwellings had above average Parker Morris Standards and basement storage sheds were
also provided, at a weekly rental of 25 pence.

30
http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/search/results.html?ixsid=5X7iivQaCuk&qs=the+brunswick+centre [retrieved 8 Feb. 2013]

121
 Figure 89: Standard Flat Plans and Sections for One, Two and Three Room Dwellings31

31
Adapted from plans in Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, p.214

122
.

Figure 90: Flat Interiors, Winter Garden and Balcony32

Responses to The Brunswick Centre

The development was critiqued widely in the architectural press both at home and
internationally.33 Progressive Architecture considered there were a number of ‘points for
discussion’ revolving around the ‘scale and aesthetic’ that would be ‘matters of concern for
residents’. It was, however, complimentary about the dwellings and despite the ‘apparent
weaknesses’ considered The Centre presented ‘a clear and strong alternative model for high

32
Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, p.216
33
Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, April/May 1972, p.80-1; A&U, May 1973, p.17-26; Baumeister, April 1973, p.436-41; Casabella, April 1974, p.2-3; Domus,
Feb. 1973, p.18-24

123
density housing both in form and materials’. 34 The Architectural Review concluded it was ‘a
good bit of city’ that pointed to a new attitude in town making that had since become ‘a
landmark of its time’. Critiques by architects Theo Crosby and Neave Brown were also given.
Crosby considered that while recent attempts at new housing systems, particularly in
Bloomsbury, had been ‘uniformly disastrous’ the quality of The Brunswick Centre almost
measured up to its surroundings and ‘that it should be able to do so with a new formal
language, and while attempting a highly complex experiment in urban form and site usage’
was ‘even more remarkable’. He considered the Centre reflected ‘a new attitude to the
street…the street is for transportation and true pedestrian joys are reserved for the shopping
precinct and the pedestrian terrace above’. He also thought the materials had been handled
with ‘great skill and invention’, but noted already there were the usual ‘stains and streaks’ on
the concrete and he felt it would soon need painting. Crosby lamented, however, the loss of
the Georgian terraces, particularly the former Bloomsbury houses’ entrances and the
transition of public to private space across a tiny bridge with views down into basement
rooms. He now felt there were ‘no entrances, except an occasional gloomy hole for vehicles or
garbage’ and that a walk was ‘now entirely without incident, along blank walls or through
vehicular service areas’. He also considered it unfortunate that the type and variety of the
dwellings had been reduced and that this might have reflected a ‘greater social variety in the
inhabitants’ which would have given ‘a continuity of the spirit of a neighbourhood’. Crosby
considered the Centre’s main problem was that it was the first built example of ‘an urban
megastructure’ and a building that was ‘a city rather than being merely a component of a city’.
He felt that as the megastructure was ‘self-contained’ it did not integrate with its surroundings
and as an ‘alien growth and for its own success it must eat up the surroundings as quickly as
possible so as to impose its own order and system on every aspect of human life there’. He
also felt that it lacked the ‘process or growth and the effect of change’. Brown conversely
considered The Centre ‘a radically different concept from both a mixed development and the
self-contained nature of a megastructure’. He also highlighted that because the brief had
changed numerous times the original idea had taken ‘a battering’, particularly in relation to
the original shopping mall and its glazed arcade and that the ‘endless other losses in finishes
and detail’ as a result of ‘the clash of interests’ were indeed a ‘loss to the public’. Brown also
questioned in general the demolition of 18th and 19th Century estates for developments like
The Brunswick Centre.35 Indeed according to Melhuish (2006), when the scheme were first
announced in 1959 there had been an ‘immediate outcry from local residents’, particularly

34
Progressive Architecture, May 1973, p.100-5
35
Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, p.196-218

124
shop-keepers about the proposals to clear the site.36 When the tenants first moved in,
however, it was well received and very popular. In 1990 Sue Kensdale, resident and then chair
of the Tenants and Residents Association (TRA) was quoted as saying: ‘it was an honour to live
there, it was a very elegant block…we thought it was paradise’. The tenants were particularly
fond of their flats with one thinking it was so vast they had actually ‘knocked two flats into
one’ and they stated that they ‘loved every minute’ of being there. Many considered it
compared favourably to other estates and found it provided ‘a sense of identity’ and it was
‘not a question of just living in another block’. Most of the adverse reaction came from people
who did not live in the Centre and it was often referred to as ‘a concrete jungle’. As many of
the initial tenants had come from the local area to some extent the local community had
remained intact. The Centre appears to have been unpopular for families, however, and
because many found the accommodation too small they left as their families grew.37 Despite
this there is still a number of long standing residents who have lived there since it first
opened.38

The Effects of the Brunswick’s Compromised Design

The ‘cost-cutting’ measures have not only affected The Brunswick Centre’s aesthetic
appearance but have significantly impacted on the building’s operational performance.
Problems concerning its construction were highlighted as early as 1978, just six years after its
opening with reports that repairs were about to start costing £350,000 after complaints from
tenants and shopkeepers of leaking windows, over-heating from the winter gardens and
condensation. The high repair cost was thought to be partly due to the need to build special
gantries to allow access to the stepped facades with scaffolding. Other repair and
maintenance measures were to include repainting window frames and renewing mastic
sealant and glazing on exposed access decks to stop driving rain from flooding flats.39 There
was also a dispute over who was actually responsible for these costs between the freeholders
(Marchmount Properties) and CLBC as dwelling leaseholders. In 1979 complaints had become
so vociferous that rent reductions were applied.40 As a Brunswick Centre resident, former
chair of the Centre’s TRA and a C20 Society caseworker, Stewart Tappin is able to give an
informed view of what it is like to live there. He is also a structural engineer so is well placed
to comment on the building’s technical performance. In 2006 he highlighted how a number of

36
Melhuish C. (2006), p.11
37
Melhuish C. (2006), p.59-74
38
Discussions with Brunswick resident, Sonia Bolton, 26 Nov. 2014
39
The Architects' journal, 11 Jan. 1978, p.52-3
40
Melhuish C. (2006), p.20

125
the Centre’s problems have originated through the cost cutting, particularly from the
substitution of the glazed winter garden with an open balcony. As the slab structure of the
building could not be changed the additional insulation and finishing needed for the outside
balcony floors resulted in a step up rather than a step down to the outside area. The limited
space available for the finishes and the rainwater fall level have over time resulted in pools of
water forming on balcony floors and frequent leaks at the balcony junctions. Expansion joints,
required along the two blocks to allow for thermal expansion and contraction, have also
deteriorated because of the heat generated by solar glare through the winter gardens and as
these cut across the balconies they have been another source of leaks. Further leaks have also
been common from the small rainwater outlet pipes that were built into the walls between the
flats.41 Tappin feels to these problems could be added others common to many post-War
estates, such as absence of insulation on external concrete walls, single glazing to windows
and an inadequate communal heating system so cold bridging, condensation and keeping the
flats warm have been consistent and common problems.

In 2006 Hodgkinson also explained how the cost-cutting measures had compromised his
design, like the fact that the cheap concrete was to have been painted but the developer
dispensed with this. He admitted it ‘was a bungled, funny contract’ but that it was ‘still
considered an interesting building by some people’.42 He also recounted the difficulties he
faced in getting the project completed and how it had taken a ‘very long time indeed’.43 He
felt that failure to obtain the site to the north had resulted in ‘the abridged scheme as built
today that terminates the building in ‘quiet’ Handel Street instead of Tavistock Place’, which
damaged ‘the viability of the pedestrian route through the central shopping street and the
proposed covered mall’. Tappin (2006) similarly felt this would have made the development
‘more satisfying from an urban design viewpoint’ as it ‘abruptly terminates in a small street
facing a polite early 20th Century brick and stone building’.44

The Brunswick Centre in Decline

In the early 1990’s The Brunswick Centre faced a number of difficulties. Security was a major
problem and measures were eventually taken to combat this in 1991 when access gates were
constructed to help keep intruders off the terraces. In 1992 the underground service road was

41
Tappin S. (2006) ‘Living in the Brunswick Centre: A Personal Account’ in Conservation of Modern Architecture, p.179
42
Melhuish C. (2006), p.38
43
Building Design, 6 Oct. 2006, p.14-17
44
Tappin S. (2006), p.170

126
closed and the homeless community who had taken to inhabiting the Centre’s basements
were removed.45 The Centre was in a process of steady decline and residents had been
demanding action on many matters including rubbish disposal, damp, concrete repairs and
heating. Melhuish (2006) has highlighted, however, that many still felt a strong attachment to
the place they called home. Hodgkinson has also recalled how, in a chance encounter with an
elderly resident, Roman Malynowski and whilst looking round the Centre, he was asked by
Malynowski ‘are you admiring my building’ to which he replied ‘well yes, I’m also admiring my
building’. Hodgkinson has since stated ‘no architect could have asked for more as ‘ownership
of a home we love is natural’.46 In the 1990’s the freehold changed hands several times and
there were a series of unsuccessful attempts at site redevelopment. 1992 also saw a failed bid
by EH to get the Centre listed at Grade II*.47 In 1992 another planning application proposed
extending the Safeway supermarket, altering the northern end of the concourse, constructing
residential developments at both the Bernard Street end and to the Brunswick Square façade,
and altering the Renoir Cinema.48 Whilst the planning application was under consideration the
applicants sought and were granted a Certificate of Immunity from Listing to prevent further
listing attempts for a period of five years. Hodgkinson was informed of the plans by residents
who were concerned about the sensitivity of the proposals. Hodgkinson was annoyed that the
developers had not contacted him about the redevelopment and highlighted that ‘unlike
France, for example, Britain does not have copyright laws to protect an architect’s work, as his
or her work of art from ruination’. 49 He disliked the proposals indicating the ‘design takes
nothing from the existing architecture it just pretends that it is not there’ and began organising
a campaign to oppose them. He also indicated a desire to return to his original plans and
thought there was still ‘a case for getting the leases to land north of the building brought in
and extending the thing to its full length to Tavistock Place’.50

Cruickshank (1992) considered that Hodgkinson’s campaign to save The Centre from
‘inappropriate alterations’ raised several significant issues of general importance. The most
obvious was how buildings conceived in the 1960’s and constructed in the 1970’s could be
protected from alterations which change their ‘architectural character’. Cruickshank indicated
that because of the ‘30 Year Listing Rule’ all Hodgkinson could do was defend the building on
the basis of its ‘architectural quality’ which meant in effect arguing that it was an ‘historic and
45
CLBC Planning Applications: 8701965, 1987, security doors screens and glazed canopy at the eight main block entrances; 9200145, 1992, demolition
of central ground floor staircase and first floor podium and installation of two light weight footbridges
46
Melhuish C. (2006), p.59
47
The Architects' journal, 12 Aug. 1992, p.5
48
CLBC Planning Application: 9200512, applicant Tranmac Limited, architects L. Riche Maw
49
Melhuish C. (2006), p.50, Hodgkinson quoted from ‘Speculation with Humanity?’ Architect’s statement, 10 July 1992 to planning authority in
response to application
50
The Architects' journal, 15 July 1992, p.7

127
artistically important product of its age’. Cruickshank also considered that The Brunswick
Centre had ‘fared reasonably well over the last twenty years’ and that although its concrete
structure was stained it was sound. He felt it had a ‘jolly lived in look’ but that the commercial
uses had ‘ticked over rather than flourished’. Cruickshank also considered that the Centre’s
management had ‘not been impressive’ and that it had suffered problems with ‘vandalism and
vagrants’, which the owners wanted to ‘sort out’. Cruickshank also questioned, however, the
sensitivity of the new designs, and particularly why the new accommodation buildings, faced in
brick and reconstructed stone with curved roofs ‘should be designed in a language so far
removed from the original building’. He highlighted that the freeholders and their architects
had indicated that the new buildings were ‘designed to mask the unsightly concrete facades of
the existing building and create a more domestic scale of building in keeping with the area’.
Cruickshank felt that if the proposed transformation was prevented it was possible that The
Brunswick Centre would be recommended for listing but if the proposed alterations were
allowed then listing was ‘less likely and its gradual despoliation virtually certain’.51

After a year of negotiations with the developers CLBC referred the proposals to the Royal Fine
Art Commission (RFAC) who were quoted as saying: ‘the scheme was referred to us on the
grounds that The Brunswick Centre as a piece of planning and architecture has a considerable
integrity and unity and is very much a scheme of its time’. The RFAC agreed that the building
needed to be improved but thereafter the questions that needed to be answered were should
any development take place, how would new massing and urban design articulate with the
existing building and what should be the architectural approach?52 Further unsuccessful
planning applications followed in 1993, 1996 and 1997, together with a planning enquiry in
1997.53 The most contentious issue was the inclusion of new buildings containing flats in the
void facing Brunswick Square. The area between the new building and the existing flats would
have also become an open atrium with a glazed roof enclosing the space.54 The Brunswick
Centre residents and the C20 Society, however, condemned the schemes.55 Hodgkinson
objected to the infilling of the space indicating ‘all three applications have made the same
gross error of infilling the Brunswick Square loggia with a ‘toff’s block of sanitised flats backing
onto the community and harming its amenities – the worst type of social segregation from
which vandalism invariably results’.56 In 1993 he had published his own scheme to show how

51
‘Cruickshank D. ‘Listing rules challenged’ in The Architects' journal, 22 July 1992, p.11
52
Cantacazino S. (RFAC Secretary) ‘Brunswick plans on hold’ in The Architects' journal 12 Aug. 1992, p.5
53
CLBC Planning Applications: 9300999 in 1993, applicant Tranmac, architects David Rock & Camp 5; P9602179 in 1996, applicant Tranma c, architects
Hawkins Brown and Michael Squire; P9602180R1 and P9602180R1 in 1997, applicant Rugby Estates
54
The Architects' Journal, 4 July 1996, p.16
55
The Architects' journal, 29 Aug. 1996, p.15
56
Melhuish C. (2006), p.52, originally Hodgkinson ‘observations on the present planning application, by the original architect’, 7 Aug. 1996

128
104 new flats could be constructed as a top storey, as originally conceived, removing the need
for any new building.57

In this uncertain state both CLBC and the freeholders were reluctant to undertake any basic
maintenance. Tappin (2006) indicated the Centre developed an ‘unloved look’ and many of
the shops closed, with Safeway, the ‘anchor’ store, looking ‘with its shelves of tinned and
processed foods like it was stuck in the 1970’s’…so by the end of the 1990’s ‘the public life of
the Centre had completely disappeared’.58 In 1998 the freehold was bought by Allied London
Properties (notable for commercial shopping centre ventures) for £13m who engaged
Hodgkinson to develop in-conjunction with Stubbs Rich Architects a renovation scheme. Their
1998 planning application proposed refurbishment and extension of the existing shopping
centre, construction of new glazed canopies over the mall, improved landscaping, remodelling
of the Bernard Street entrances, construction of two pedestrian bridges across the mall,
erection of new units in the mall and at the street entrances, redesign of the cinema entrance,
and creation of new residential and business units at terrace level.59 According to Melhuish
(2006) Hodgkinson ‘forged an uneasy relationship’ with Stubbs Rich and was not fully
supportive of their scheme designs which he felt did not respect his original design. At an
exhibition of the new proposals press reaction was extremely negative and rather than Stubbs
Rich, it was Hodgkinson who was accused of ‘ruining his own building’. The plans were halted,
however, when in 2000 and after a public consultation, the building was listed. EH had, on the
advice of the C20 Society, repeated their recommendation when the Certificate of Immunity
from Listing had expired and The Brunswick Centre was awarded listed status at Grade II. The
C20 Society had actually requested that the Centre be listed at Grade II* to prevent
Hodgkinson from ‘diluting its essential character’.60

The Brunswick Centre’s Listed Status

The Sept. 2000 DCMS press release stated that: ‘the building is a fine example of an important
strand of 1960’s urban design, an innovative and important ‘megastructure’’. 61 The List Entry
describes it as ‘the pioneering example of a megastructure in England: of a scheme which
combines several functions of equal importance within a single framework and the pioneering
example of low-rise, high-density housing, a field in which Britain was extremely influential on

57
Building Design,22 Oct. 1993, p.1/24; 5 Nov. 1993, p.8
58
Tappin S. (2006), p.181
59
CLBC Planning Applications PS9704960, PS9705319 and PS9904424
60
The Architects’ journal, 3 Feb. 2000, p. 5
61
Tappin S. (2006), p.190

129
this scale’. It indicates the Centre ‘developed the concept of the stepped section on a large
scale and for a range of facilities, whose formality was pioneering’.62 DOCOMOMO UK
endorsed the assessment of the building’s significance as a megastructure but surprisingly
opposed its listing, proposing that as a megastructure concept the Centre should accept and
assume change over time.63 They were also quoted as saying current conservation law was a
‘dictatorship which is in the end a financial burden’.64 CLBC was also unhappy about the listing
fearing a huge increase in maintenance and management costs, as was Hodgkinson feeling
that it would hinder any refurbishment. Hodgkinson was quoted as saying that he wished to
‘regenerate and extend the place as it now needs to be’ and that it was ‘fundamental that its
architectural presence was not afflicted by one-sided reasoning’. His comments were directed
at groups like the Bloomsbury Area advisory Committee who felt new work to the Centre
‘should be governed by its original concept’. Hodgkinson considered it equally important that
The Brunswick Centre be evaluated as a ‘phenomenon’ and not seen just as ‘the sum of its
constituent parts’. He considered that the strategic long term aim was to ‘recreate a large bit
of city’ that had the ‘financial buoyancy to carry it properly into the future’. He thought that
failure to do this could result in the next quarter of a century for The Brunswick’s freeholders,
traders and residents ‘being as disastrous as the last’.65 He also accused The C20 Society of
‘going behind his back’ and threatening to ‘keep the building in aspic’ declaring one of the
reasons he didn’t want it listed was because it would get treated like a ’monument’ and he
considered it was ‘a shopping street not a monument’ and it needed to be ‘kept alive’.66

In response to this Kenneth Powell, the C20 Society’s Consultant Director, wrote to The
Architects’ journal to explain why the Society had campaigned for the listing of a ‘project of
enormous power and imagination, a dynamic and challenging, if contentious, vision of urban
living’. In this Powell stressed that listing did not imply no change and explained one reason
why it had been refused in the past was because it had never been completed as originally
planned. He explained that while it was ‘inconceivable that it could now be physically
extended, the task remained of realising the true potential of the development, securing the
right mix of uses and of public and private space, and a satisfactory approach to its
management in the future’. He also acknowledged that it was ‘good news’ after the failure of
the three previous rehabilitation schemes, that Hodgkinson was now involved with its

62
List Entry Number: 1246230 <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 25 Feb 2013]
63
Melhuish C. (2006), p.27
64
The Architects journal, 5 Oct. 2000, p. 12
65
Hodgkinson P. in Forward Renaissance of a London Landmark Planning Report by Allied London Properties PLC, April 1999 <http://camden.gov.uk>
[retrieved 9 Jan. 2013]
66
The Architects’ journal, 3 Feb. 2000, p.5

130
redevelopment and considered that listing would ‘strengthen Hodgkinson's hand’ in ensuring
that any changes would be ‘in sympathy with the architecture’. He indicated that the Society
would ‘maintain an open mind’ when ‘sympathetic proposals’ were brought forward but it
remained ‘unhappy’ with what it had seen so far.67 EH had also indicated that listing should
not be seen as precluding its refurbishment pointing out that grading at level II instead of level
II* acknowledged both the previous structural alterations and the possibility of future
improvement. It also stressed that the first scheme by Allied London had been unacceptable.68

The Brunswick’s Refurbishment

Figure 91: The New Brunswick

Allied London Properties responded by appointing Levitt Bernstein Architects, whose partners
had worked on The Centre as part of Hodgkinson’s original design team. In 2001 a revised
planning application, prepared in conjunction with Hodgkinson and EH, proposed
refurbishment to include: forward extension of the retail units fronting the pedestrian
concourse, creation of new retail units and a new supermarket across the Centre’s northern
end; erection of a new structure above Brunswick Square; redesign of the cinema entrance
steps and ramps at the Brunswick Square, Handel Street and Bernard Street entrances;
removal of two existing car park entrances at pedestrian concourse level; installation of retail
display windows within the Bernard Street elevation; redesign of the existing southern car park
stairway; replacement of waterproofing layers to the pedestrian concourse and the residential
terrace; concrete repair works and introduction of new hard and soft landscaping surfaces and
works.69 Consent for the revised scheme was eventually given in 2003 but work did not start
for a further two years. Tappin (2006) indicates this left residents in a virtual ‘ghost town’

67
The Architects’ journal, 10 Feb. 2000
68
Melhuish C. (2006), p.56
69
CLBC Planning Application PSX0104561

131
wondering if anything was ever going to happen.70 The £22million refurbishment eventually
started in the spring of 2005. Parts of the building, mainly those visible to the visitor, were
painted. Waitrose replaced Safeway in 2006 in a much larger store built across the shopping
street’s northern end and their decision to take on the supermarket lease allowed the
developer to finance repair work to the dilapidations. The shops were re-opened and their
fronts extended to the edge of the original arcade. They are protected by canopies but these
do not retract into the shop fronts as originally intended. There is new landscaping and a
resurfaced stone plaza complete with a metal water sculpture by Susannah Heron. The overall
effect has created more of a shopping street in the traditional sense, albeit with many of the
usual ‘high-street multiples’. Removal of the bridges connecting the two upper terraces has
also opened up the space. In 2001 ‘Centre’ was omitted from The Brunswick’s name, a term
which Hodgkinson had always objected to considering it ‘an American import of the 1960’s’. 71
The development has now been branded: ‘The Brunswick - a new high street for Bloomsbury’.
The professional chambers at terrace level, originally intended for functions like doctor's
surgeries, are now leased as offices and workshops. The first floor terraces were also to have
re-opened as a public landscaped area but fearful of security and intrusion, residents appealed
for them to remain closed.

Figure 92: The New Shopping Street

70
Tappin S. (2006), p.181
71
Quoted by Melhuish C. (2006), p.9

132
 Figure 93: The Brunswick Following Refurbishment

Key: 1 Entrance/exit ramps, 2 Service roads, 3 Flats, 4 Shops, 5 Shopping street, 6 Terrace, 7 Residents
garage, 8 Shoppers garage, 9 Cinema, 10 Waitrose, 11 Shop’s stores, 12 Cinema foyer, 13 Flat’s entrance galleries
(‘A’ frame), 14 Portico

Figure 94: Precinct Cross Section showing Revised Layout72

Following the Allied London renovation, in 2007-8 a number of renovation works were also
undertaken by CLBC costing £5.5m. Carried out on a phased rolling programme, these
included: renewal of glazed roofs to winter gardens, private balcony recovering, waterproofing
and damp-proofing, asphalt, paving slabs and rainwater goods replacement, concrete repairs,
refurbishment of the grade II listed elements (crittall windows), external and internal
redecorations and repairs to communal doorways and doors.73

72
Section adapted from PSX0104561, Planning Application drawings
73
CLBC Planning Applications: 2005/1145/P 06-05-2005; 2005/1148/L/ 20-10-2005; 2005/5047/L, replacement glazing (LBC 2005/1148) granted by
CLBC 20-10-2005 for installation of external rain water pipes and replacement glazing and lighting

133
 Figure 95: Repair of The Brunswick’s Balconies and Winter Gardens74

Although the winter gardens were renovated their thin steel frames were retained and only
the sloping glazing element was replaced. The maintenance of The Brunswick’s step-back
elevations has always proved problematic. The architects had considered Pilkington’s low
emissivity safety glass with a solar filter layer to help with heat loss and gain, and a self-
cleaning outer layer would be the best possible solution. In 2005 The Brunswick was entered
in the Activ in Architecture competition. It was declared the winner because of its extremely
unusual design and the complexity of its glazing and self-cleaning glass worth £50,000 was
installed. The competition judges had noted the winter gardens’ glass presented a problem
and as the building was now listed, the architects did not have the option of changing the
design. Levitt Bernstein’s project director had highlighted that the ‘official’ access to the
winter gardens was by rolling gantries but as these did not work well cleaning was often done
in a ‘very hair-raising way’ with cleaners walking out along the integral gutters protruding out
from the bottom of the winter gardens. He also acknowledged that in reality most didn’t get
cleaned, having to rely on heavy rain to wash away the dirt. Although cleaning would still rely
on rain, the glass worked with the sun and the rain to break down the dirt so water slipped off
the glass taking the dirt with it. The judges felt The Brunswick deserved ‘an upgrade’ and that
74
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/access/121853429> [retrieved 9 Jan 2013]

134
the self-cleaning glass would reduce the hazardous cleaning requirements and allow the
original design to be seen as it should be.75

Figure 96: Aerial View of The New Brunswick76

Reaction to The Brunswick’s Refurbishment

The C20 Society was reported to have opposed some aspects of the renovation, like the
polished concrete and glass elevations of the new supermarket which they considered 'too
imposing and overpowering'. They were also critical of the new landscaping. The designs for a
new steel and glass entrance to the Renoir Cinema were, however, welcomed and Kenneth
Powell was quoted as saying he was 'broadly happy' with the proposals for a 'very difficult'
redevelopment. EH had welcomed the scheme, saying it 'struck a balance between the need
to preserve the building and the need to improve it'.77 The refurbishment has allowed some of
Hodgkinson’s original design intent to be realised and nearly four decades after it was
originally completed Bloomsbury’s new high street appears to be a commercial success.78 Bob

75
RIBA journal, May 2005,p.72; Building, 1 Aug. 2005
76
<https://www.bing.com> [retrieved 14 Feb. 2013]
77
The Architects' journal, 31 May 2001, p.9
78
Architectural Review, Feb. 2006, p.34

135
Ager, who headed Allied London’s renovation, has explained why he thinks it has become ‘a
vibrant and lively place’ stating: ‘the idea was to make it a place where you could come and
shop, sit, eat and meet people and generally create a much more relaxed environment than
most high streets…the perfect antidote to shopping on Oxford Street…what we want to do is
maintain a good cross section of retail tenants so it appeals not just to the immediate vicinity
but also to a wider catchment area’. The Brunswick has also become a sponsor and co-host of
the Bloomsbury Festival, an annual three day arts extravaganza which is another symbol of the
rejuvenation of the area.79

Figure 97: The Brunswick’s Christmas Festivities80

Following the renovation Hodgkinson talked about his original plans for The Brunswick and
how it was originally conceived as an example of a way of creating a new village in the heart of
London, offering shopping and a mix of different sized homes, but that it ended with many of
the original ideas downgraded or scrapped and was owned for thirty years by CLBC as social
housing.81 He still felt that his original plan was not flawed but because of the funding
problems it was never allowed to become the place it should have been. He also believed the
reason his building became the way it was and needed to be renovated was ‘the fact no
money was spent on its maintenance for thirty years’ and he still considers the concept would
have worked saying he ‘wanted a mix of different people’. The make-up of tenants has
changed gradually with the sale of leases under Right to Buy and to some extent now more

79
<http://bloomsburyfestival.org.uk> [retrieved 18 Dec. 2014]
80
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_Centre#/media/File:BrunswickCentre4.jpg> [retrieved 7 Jan. 2013]
81
Camden New Journal, 19 Oct. 2006 <http://www.thecnj.com/review/101906/feat_bloom101906_05.html> [retrieved 7 Jan 2013}

136
accurately reflects Hodgkinson’s original vision. He has indicated he was very happy to have
had the chance to work on the project again and remains unrepentant believing in the merits
of low-rise high-density housing and its continuing relevance, being quoted as saying: ‘now
that repairs have been done I expect The Brunswick to go on another couple of hundred
years…I hope people enjoy it’.82

The residents were reported to have been largely in favour of the scheme but keen to be
involved in the proposals to ensure improvements would not solely deliver benefits to the
shopping area but also the housing above it. Allied London had always stressed, however, that
the refurbishment was ‘designed to be a neighbourhood area for Bloomsbury – not just for the
tenants who live above the shops’.83 Tappin (2006) indicated that residents had to endure
particularly difficult conditions during the renovation works. He described the noise, dust,
vibration and general disturbance, especially that caused by breaking out large areas of
reinforced concrete was ‘literally unbearable’, particularly for the many elderly residents. He
felt that despite many meetings and much correspondence the contractor ‘took little account
of the people living in the building’ and that the ‘employers’ requirements’ (the framework in
which the contractor had to work) were inadequate and for an occupied building he would
have expected all demolition of concrete to have been undertaken by ‘non-percussive
methods’ such as core drilling or cutting and carried out inside acoustic enclosures. Instead
residents had to put up with ‘weeks of mechanical breakers immediately outside their flats’.
Tappin also indicated that although The Brunswick now appeared to be working from a
commercial viewpoint the picture was ‘not altogether as rosy as it might be for those living
there’. Some residents overlooking the new Waitrose store felt particularly aggrieved because
the original setting back of the estate gave a ‘tremendous sense of light and space between
the two parallel residential blocks’. They considered the store’s new ‘saw-tooth’ roof and
‘design and build standard’ grey metal cladding was unsympathetic to the existing architecture
and it significantly reduced their outlook from the flats. Tappin also indicated that other
problems were only just emerging including people being woken up by structural-borne
sounds from Waitrose and smells from a number of restaurants reaching the flats. He felt it
‘unbelievable’ that permission had been granted for some restaurant kitchen extract ducts to
discharge at second level rather than roof level. 84

82
Building Design, 6 Oct. 2006, p.14-17
83
Melhuish C. (2006), p.57 originally ‘Will Brunswick shine brightly 45 years on?’ in Camden New Journal, 15 July 2004
84
Tappin S. (2006), p.184

137
 Figure 98: The Shopping Street and Waitrose Store under Construction85

Many residents felt the planning process failed to inform them about the development issues
and the implications that it would have for them. In 2006 residents were reported to be
worried about further works to install penthouse flats. As part of the 2003 application the
owners had also been granted planning permission for a new building on the site. Tappin
considered the ‘developers had already tested residents’ goodwill’ and that the
redevelopment was being perceived by residents as a scheme that ‘makes Allied London lots
of money with few benefits for the people who live there’. At that time residents’ concerns
were also echoed by local businesses and conservation groups. Andi Ingle, owner of the
Renoir cinema was quoted as saying he would not welcome any further building. Bloomsbury
Conservation Area Advisory Committee chairman Tony Tugnutt, who worked with EH to list
The Brunswick said his group would oppose any further development indicating: ‘it is a high-
density area for homes…it would change how much sunlight the space gets’. The C20 Society
Director, Catherine Croft, was also quoted as saying any addition would have to be carried out
sympathetically as it ‘could alter the sky line’ and she added the Society would ‘fight any
attempts to have new lift towers’.86 In 2014 renovations started on the Renoir cinema and
planning permission for an ‘Eyecatcher’ restaurant to be ‘sandwiched’ between the cinema

85
Architectural Review, Feb. 2006, p.34
86
Camden New Journal, 16 March 2006 ‘Neighbours hit roof over centre flats’ in Camden New Journal <http://www.thecnj.com/news031606>
[retrieved 8 July 2015]

138
and the second floor residential accommodation was applied for.87 The 2003 planning
application had actually contained proposals, drawn by Hodgkinson, for a circular restaurant in
this location and this application was for a modified version of this. The proposal generated
considerable opposition from residents, local conservation groups, businesses, heritage and
architectural professionals, The Brunswick’s TRA and The C20 Society, with an online petition
generating over 600 signatories. Objections were based on: ‘the ruination of a Grade II listed
building, blocked vistas to and from Brunswick Square Park, less public space and a reduction
in its quality, reduced access to and from the Brunswick Centre, less privacy for residents and
disturbance, noise and unpleasant smells’.88 In March 2015 the application was refused. The
main reason given was that: ‘the proposed development by reason of its scale, bulk, footprint
and detailed design is considered to detrimentally impact on the special interest and setting of
the grade II Listed Building, along with causing harm to the character and appearance of the
Bloomsbury Conservation Area’.89

Figure 99: The Existing and Proposed Renoir Cinema Entrance 90

Figure 100: Massing Study of the ‘Eyecatcher’ Proposal91

87
CLBC Planning Application: 2014/3640/P, applicant Santander CF Trustees Ltd
88
<http://thebrunswick.org/2014/07/16/eyecatcher-or-eyesore-residents-petition-camden> [retrieved 3 Oct. 2014]
89
2014/3640/P, Refusal Reasons
90
<http://thebrunswick.org/2014/07/16/eyecatcher-or-eyesore-residents-petition-camden> [retrieved 3 Oct. 2014]
91
<http://brunswickwc1.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/eyecatcher-massing-study.png> [retrieved 3 Oct. 2014}

139
The Complexities of the Tripartite Arrangement

At The Brunswick the freeholder is responsible for maintenance of the building’s structure and
CLBC is responsible for the internal finishes to the flats and the flat’s galvanised steel doors,
window frames and glazing. About eighty flats were purchased under Right to Buy and are
now privately owned.92 As CLBC owns the ‘head lease’ this makes these owners in effect, ‘sub-
leaseholders’ which adds another layer of complications in dealing with works to the building.
The shared ownership and associated split of responsibilities between the Council and
freeholder has also created difficulties in respect of repair and maintenance programmes and
has hindered effective communication with The Brunswick’s residents. For example, the
Council has to issue formal consultation notices to leaseholders before any major works are
commenced. Tappin (2006) indicated that the lack of recognition given to leaseholders’
concerns raised during the consultation periods was an on-going source of complaint and the
single biggest issue since 2002 that the residents have had is ‘lack of engagement’ by CLBC and
the freeholder with the residents. Tappin illustrated examples of how this has materialised.
For example, as part of the refurbishment in 2006 the building was covered in scaffolding to
allow repair and painting of the concrete, with some flats spending a whole summer under
sheeting. The internal walkways within the reinforced concrete ‘A’ frames leading to
resident’s flats, however, remained unpainted and in some places the damage from the
scaffolding has left them in a worse state than before the works. He feels that this is in an
unfortunate case of history repeating itself, as the access gallery system, which is one of The
Brunswick’s most distinctive features, but which is considered CLBC's responsibility will remain
untouched as there are no funds for its restoration. In 2007-8 the residents were aggrieved
that the building needed to be scaffolded again for the council’s work, albeit on a phased
rolling programme, and questioned why this work had not been coordinated with the Allied
London repairs in 2006.93 Reports indicated that these works were carried out with a little
more understanding that residents were in occupation with ‘resident liaison support’ in place.
As the works were being intrusive to the residents living accommodation, a residents’ refuge
was also established to provide cooking and welfare facilities. The contractor also attended
‘meet the Contractor meetings at Camden Town Hall to allay any concerns that the residents
had. During and after the works resident satisfaction surveys were conducted. These found

92
C20 Society Building of the Month, May 2003 <http://www.c20society.org.uk/botm/the-brunswick-centre-london-wc1> [retrieved 7 Jan. 2013]
93
Tappin (2006), p.182-5

140
the majority of the residents praised the works and resident liaison team for their ‘caring
approach to their properties and the high quality works that had been carried out’. 94

Figure 101: Residents’ Unpainted Entrance Galleries

In 2007 it was also reported that the leaseholders were angry that they were to receive
£20,000 in charges for the new heating and windows and that many felt they were ‘paying
over the odds’ because of the uncoordinated repairs and the need to put up and take down
scaffolding for the different jobs. Although these charges were in accordance with the terms
of their lease contract when they bought their home, many considered they were facing very
big bills and with the work that had been done to the shopping centre there had been no
acknowledgement of the weeks of disruption they had had to endure as a result. Kenneth
Mackenzie, a designer who leases his studio from CLBC was quoted as saying: ‘this place is a
conundrum of ironies. There’s a juxtaposition of rich business downstairs and independent
business and residents upstairs. It does seem like they make it beautiful downstairs and don’t
bother with us’. The same report highlighted that 10% of CLBC’s contribution to Allied London
for the 2005 refurbishment was put into an Environmental Improvement Fund to compensate
The Brunswick’s residents for the disruption. Residents were calling for the fund, an estimated
£250,000, to be used to paint the internal areas and contribute to the bills but Allied London
had indicated there was no possibility of using the fund to help leaseholders with their bills
94
Diamond Build Case Study <http://www.diamond-build.co.uk_downloads_case_studies_Brunswick Centre> [retrieved 10 Sept. 2013]

141
and it was there ‘for the running repairs for the communal areas’.95 Brunswick resident, Sonia
Bolton, has also confirmed that in 2014 a number of these issues still remain unresolved. At
the time of writing, for example, renovation of the first floor terrace roof and creation of a
residents’ garden by the freeholder is still outstanding. As a consequence flooding of the
shops below is also a persistent problem.96 Despite these issues, however, there is evidence
that The Brunswick’s residents really like their flats. Tappin (2006) indicated that ‘everybody
loves them’ and that they are well laid out and generous with their space and storage and the
stepping back of each floor provides ‘a great feeling of openness and light’. 97

The Question of Authenticity in Modern Heritage Conservation

The Brunswick case study raises specific issues regarding its conservation and which scheme
should actually be the focus of the conservation effort, either the grand scheme that was
designed by Hodkinson and approved for construction or the compromised development that
was eventually realised, that had objectives that were vastly different from those its
developers had initially envisioned. The Brunswick’s conservation effort has essentially divided
opinion between those who consider it should be conserved to respect the built reality and
those who prefer to see it restored to how it needs to be now. The repair and maintenance of
Modern Movement heritage and the move away from a ‘substance’ to an ‘essence’ based
conservation approach has implications regarding authenticity generally. EH indicates
‘evidential value, historical values and some aesthetic values, especially artistic ones, are
dependent upon a place retaining the actual fabric that has been handed down from the past’
but that ‘authenticity lies in whatever most truthfully reflects and embodies the values
attached to the place in the form of design or function, as well as fabric’. It also considers that
design values may be harmed by losses resulting through ‘ill-considered alteration or
accretion’ and may be recoverable through repair or restoration but at the expense of some
evidential value producing a tension between authenticity of fabric and function. 98

Cunningham (1998) deliberated on the question of authenticity in works of art turning to

Arthur Koestler’s The Act of Creation to help describe the evaluations applied to the work of
artists. Koestler defines ‘the measure of an artist’s originality’ as: ‘the extent to which his
selective emphasis deviates from the conventional norm and establishes new standards of

95
Newman S. ‘Heating bills are a bit rich, say pensioners’ in Camden New Journal, 27 Sept. 2007
<http://www.thecnj.com/camden/092707/news092707_25.html> [retrieved 7 Jan. 2013]
96
Discussions/visit 26 Nov. 2014
97
Tappin (2006), p.189
98
EH (2008) Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance, p.45

142
relevance…the decisive turning points in the history of every art form are discoveries which
show the characteristic features already discussed; they uncover what has already been there;
they are ‘revolutionary, that is destructive and constructive; they compel us to revalue our
values and impose a new set of rules on the external game’.99 Cunningham feels therefore a
critical aspect in the evaluation process is that of authenticity, which is already part of the on-
going debate concerning ‘tampering’ with other works of art, especially paintings, and these
questions are problematic and lie at the heart of any activity under the ‘conservation banner’.
In his analysis Cunningham divides art into three types according to their making. Firstly there
is that which results from conception of the ‘author’ who manipulates material with his own
hands or employs tools and the action from ‘head to hand’ is immediate and transmittable
(e.g. clay modelling, painting, or drawing). The second category is again conceived by the
author but who has in his mind a replication either through casting or printing. This is a semi-
industrial process but not immediately resulting from hands on manipulation. The action from
head to hand is direct but the final product is at one remove. Cunningham’s third category is
also conceived by the author but is constructed remote in time and distance from instructions
conveyed in drawings by individuals who played no part in the conceptual process. It is into
this category that most architecture falls. Cunningham also confirms the Oxford English
Dictionary agree that objects made by all three means are ‘authentic’ when made. The
question Cunningham feels to be addressed is which would retain its authenticity if repaired by
other than the author or in the extreme destroyed and reconstructed? Furthermore, what
happens for examples in the third category, when drawings produced as part of the creative
process are not strictly adhered to and result, as in the case of The Brunswick, in a different
creation from that which the author intended? Which, then, using this definition, should be
considered the authentic design and that which the restoration or conservation effort should
adhere to?

Jokilehto (1999) indicates the concept of authenticity in relation to conservation was initially
considered in the 1964 Venice Charter but it only began to be discussed again in any depth
some thirty years after the Venice Charter had been agreed. This resulted in the Narra
Document on Authenticity in 1994 which expands on the Venice Charter in response to the
expanding scope of cultural heritage concerns and interests in the contemporary world. The
Narra Document also emphasises the issue of credibility and truthfulness of sources but also
cultural diversity as a fundamental reference to the definition of authenticity. 100 Jokilehto

99
Cunningham A. (ed.) (1998) Introduction in Modern Movement Heritage, p.5-7
100
Jokilehto J. (1999) A History of Architectural Conservation, p.295-318

143
considers the definition of authenticity should be related to the historicity of the heritage
resource as only then does it achieve its ‘true significance to modern conservation’. In this
respect conservation should focus on reality and the fact of past events. She illustrates this
point in relation to the conservation of the Sydney Opera House. Although originally designed
by Jorn Utzon the designs for the opera house’s interior were completed by other architects
after Utzon’s death and the ‘restoring’ of the interior so it could correspond to Utzon’s original
intentions could be challenged by the ‘historicity’ of the entire creative process. Jokilehito also
explains that the Finnish definition is that ‘authenticity can best be experienced as the
atmosphere originally built into the building, a certain kind of unchanging characteristic of the
building’.101 She also considers, however, that ‘Modern conservation does not mean a return
to the past; rather it demands courage to undertake sustainable human development within
the reality and the potential of existing cultural, physical and environmental resources’. So in
this respect The Brunswick’s conservation effort should respect the intentions of the realised
scheme to ensure ‘historicity’, rather than try to replicate Hodgkinson’s original design
intentions. At the same time, however, it needs to embrace a contemporary reality to ensure
its future success.

Conclusion

’the past is not for living in; it is a well of conclusions from which we draw in order to act’

John Berger102

‘Our historic environment – buildings, landscapes, towns and villages – can better be
cherished if their spirit of place thrives, rather than withers.’

Greg Clark, Minister for Planning103

The Brunswick has had a troubled history and the majority of its structural problems were a
result of the cost cutting exercise rather than as a consequence of the architect’s original
design. Years of neglect and bad management have significantly contributed to its decline. As
Melhuish has highlighted, however, ‘despite a highly convoluted procurement process and
repeated renegotiations of the planning consents it remains a building of quality and
considerable impact, iconic in its forward thinking, which made a radical break with zoning
regulations and, moreover, gave back 70% of the land area as public or private open space,

101
Jokilehto J. (1999), p. 298, originally Mattenin 1997:20
102
Quoted by Allen J. (2002) ‘A Challenge of Values’, p.20
103
Ministerial Forward, National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012

144
40% more than the old estate’. 104 The split in ownership and management has caused
problems historically in determining responsibility for repairs and maintenance and more
recently in the coordination of the conservation effort. The decision to consult the original
architect and also to engage members of his original design team to undertake the
refurbishment has proved beneficial, resulting in a design more sympathetic to the existing
architecture that has been broadly acceptable to the planning authorities, heritage groups and
The Brunswick’s residents. The refurbishment of the precinct has created a new ‘shopping
street for Bloomsbury’ that is now a very public, vibrant and inviting space, but the
‘Eyecatcher’ proposals were seen by many as a step too far. As Tappin (2006) has concluded
although the refurbishment has left a number of ‘unresolved issues for the people who occupy
the building’ it has ‘succeeded in bringing life to what was previously considered to be failed
building’.105 The painting of The Brunswick’s facades has been an essential part of this process
and one which the architect always envisaged. The next case study considers the problems
associated with the conservation of concrete as a relatively new building material and how ill-
conceived and appropriate repairs can affect a building’s aesthetic.

104
Melhuish C. (2006), p.38
105
Tappin (2006), p.189

145
Chapter 5 Conserving the Fabric of Modern Buildings: Alexandra Road Estate, St John’s Wood

Figure 102: Alexandra Road Estate and Rowley Way1

‘This built inheritance, which glorifies the dynamic spirit of the 20th Century employed
advanced technology which has not always endured the long term stresses of time’.

Hubert-Jan Henket2

‘The moment that celebrates the new while rejecting the old does not envisage the moment
when the new itself becomes the old, still less that it may be in need of support’.

Robert Maxwell3

The Alexandra Road Estate was designed by Neave Brown for Camden London Borough
Council (CLBC). Built in the 1970’s at a time of spiralling costs and when inflation was at its
highest, the unprecedented design tested engineers and construction workers capabilities.
The site difficulties encountered during its construction exacerbated the situation to make this
arguably the most expensive public housing estate ever built. Unlike other developments the
concrete aggregate was specifically selected for its aesthetic qualities and the casting and
detailing of its construction was an important design aspect. Any repair and renovation should
therefore respect these qualities to retain the buildings’ historic and architectural value. This
case study investigates the complexities associated with repairing the fabric of a Modern
concrete estate. It also highlights how residents can be instrumental in instigating the case for
proper conservation.
1
<https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/the-alexandra-road-estate-camden-a-magical-moment-for-english-housing> [retrieved 30
Jan 2013}
2
Henket H.J. & Heyman H. (eds.) (2002) Back from Utopia: The Challenge of the Modern Movement, p.9
3
Maxwell R. (1998) Introduction in Modern Movement Heritage

144
Site History

The site where the estate would be built was first developed in the mid-19th Century.
Boundary Road formed the border between Hampstead and St Marylebone parishes.
Alexandra Road was built after the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Princess Alexandra in
1863.4 The area consisted of closely packed detached and semi-detached dwellings that were
built to serve the ‘middle-class’ with ‘mews’ houses in the south-west for labourers who had
small workshops or who serviced the houses nearby. The social status of some streets had
declined by 1930 and the whole area suffered bomb damage in WW II. Houses were further
dilapidated through tenementation and neglect so following the War large parts were
designated for redevelopment.

Figure 103: 1870’s Area Map5

In 1946 the LCC acquired a large portion of land, west of Finchley Road to house 4,000 people.6
Some construction started immediately after the War, like the GLC’s Ainsworth Estate on

4
A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 9: Hampstead, Paddington, p.60-3 <http://www.british-history.ac.uk> [retrieved 27 Feb. 2013}
5
Digimap, accessed 18 March 2013

145
Boundary Road, but most was undertaken in the 1960’s transforming the area with flats and
multi-storey blocks. The 1960’s also saw proposals to redevelop the site where the Alexandra
Road Estate would later be built to provide private ‘luxury accommodation’ in tower blocks.
These plans were rejected, however, because they interrupted the protected views of St Paul's
Cathedral.7 In 1966 CLBC purchased thirteen and a half acres of the land with Government
funding, on condition it was redeveloped for public housing.8

Figure 104: 1960’s Area Map showing Location of Proposed Redevelopment9

Development of the Alexandra Road Estate

CLBC, formed in 1965 from the Boroughs of Hampstead, Holborn and St Pancras, was one of
the largest, wealthiest and most ambitious of the new London Boroughs.10 Like all local
authorities it was under great pressure to build large amounts of housing. Headed by Sydney
Cook, it had an innovative architectural department that had developed low rise high density
housing rather than opting for system built high rise schemes (see also The Brunswick Chapter
3). The Alexandra Road development was seen as an opportunity to improve a whole area so

6
A History of the County of Middlesex: Volume 9, originally The Times, 4 Oct. 1947
7
Alexandra Road Listed Building Management Guidelines (LBMG)( 2006), 2.04.2
8
Freear A. (1995)‘Alexandra Road: the last great social housing project’ in AA Files no. 30, p.35-46
9
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 18 March 2013
10
Wannathepsaku N. ‘Cooks Camden’ in Blueprint, 3 Nov. 2010

146
along with housing it would provide community facilities, including a tenants’ hall,
underground parking, shops, workshops for CLBC’s Building Department, a school for children
with learning difficulties, a children’s reception centre, residential accommodation for young
physically handicapped people, a youth club and four acres of open space with play areas and
parkland. The brief originally requested a housing gain of 2,000 people at 136 persons to the
acre. This was later increased to 150 persons to the acre. CLBC gave responsibility for the
design for home for the handicapped and the children’s centre to a private practice. The rest
was to be designed and managed by the Council’s architectural department and Neave Brown
was appointed to head the team. According to Gains (1979) when the brief first arrived in
Cook’s office, CLBC’s Planning officers had envisaged it as a mixed development with some
high-rise towers.11 Brown, however, created an alternative low-rise, high-density solution,
containing the requisite community facilities and housing for 1660 people in 520 dwellings at a
density of 214 persons per acre.12 Although CLBC’s Housing Department were a little
astounded by the unprecedented design they were delighted that such a high density could be
achieved without having to incorporate tower blocks. Planning permission was granted in
1968 but construction was delayed because of protests from local residents who lobbied to
preserve the old houses. Work eventually started in 1972 and residents began moving in 1978.
The estate was fully occupied by the end of 1979.

Figure 105: Alexandra Road’s Buildings Predevelopment13

The estate occupies a crescent-shaped site bounded by the West Coast Railway to the north,
Abbey Road to the west, Loudoun Road and Boundary Road to the east and the Ainsworth
Estate to the south. The housing consists of three parallel east-west blocks that are organised
around a linear park. To the south is a three/four storey terrace (Block C), bounded by the
park to the north and separated from the Ainsworth Estate by a pedestrian walkway,
Ainsworth Way. To the north is the curved red brick and tree lined pedestrian street, Rowley
Way, named after CLBC’s Director of Housing. It is bordered to the south by a four storey

11
Gains S. in RIBA Journal, Nov. 1979, p.486
12
Building, 23 Sept. 1977, p.49
13
Conservation Area Statement Alexandra Road, p.8

147
terrace (Block B), comprising two banks of two storey maisonettes and on the northern side by
a six storey slab (Block A), which has three bedroom maisonettes at the bottom, three storeys
of flats in the middle and two-bedroom maisonettes on the top. The top four floors of Block A
cantilever out over the railway tracks. This block also has a walkway on the seventh floor,
running the entire length of the structure that is interspersed with recessed glazed lift
enclosures. The lifts link the walkway to the pedestrian street and to the lower level vehicle
access road and garages. There is vehicle and pedestrian segregation throughout and all roads
and garages were designed to be naturally lit and ventilated.

Figure 106: 1980’s Map showing the Redevelopment14

The Rowley Way pedestrian street is the dominant element in the Alexandra Road Estate
design and all dwellings in Blocks A and B are entered directly from it. It was seen as a modern
translation of the traditional London terrace. The stepped section enabled all homes to have a
sunny outdoor space in the form of a private terrace/garden area with integral in-situ concrete
planters. At the eastern end of Rowley Way is the scheme’s communal area with the
community centre and shops opening off a multi-tiered public plaza. The boiler house, with its
distinctive three shafted metal chimney, is located below.

14
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 18 March 2013

148
 Figure107: The Alexandra Road Estate Site Plan15

Figure 108: Alexandra Road Estate’s Park

The park also formed an integral part of the overall development and landscape architect,
Janet Jack was responsible for the planting and soft landscaping.16 It consists of a series of
linked garden spaces on different levels with walkways giving access to dwellings and car
parks. There are open 'viewing platform' terraces with seating and planting in concrete tubs,
tree lined paths, children's playgrounds with built-in play equipment, a small secluded grove
enclosed by hedges and trees and a circular grass amphitheatre. A large sunken courtyard at
the estate’s eastern end is one of the most dramatic features. The separate 'room-like'
enclosures of the garden were likened by Brown to the concept of the interlinked garden and
palace designs of the Italian Baroque.17

15
Adapted from Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, p.76
16
Alexandra Road LBMG, 2006, 2.03.2
17
<http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk/gardens-online-record.asp?ID=CAM001> [retrieved 30 Jan. 2013]

149
 Figure 109: The Park’s Linked Garden Spaces18

Figure 110: Rowley Way and Blocks A and B 19

18
<http://www.aroundtheblockltd.co.uk/2013/07/26/around-the-block-project-management-is-successful-in-alexandra-road-park-hlf-pfp-project>
[retrieved 3 April 2014]
19
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, p.77

150
 Figure 111: Flats’ Access and Terraces on Rowley Way20

Figure 112: The Public Plaza, Community Hall Roof and Boiler House Stacks21

20
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979 Aug, p.84
21
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979 Aug, p.78

151
Neave Brown’s Design Methodology

The Alexandra Road Estate was considered not just a housing scheme but, in Brown’s words, ‘a
piece of city’.22 Brown had thought much of the new housing that was being built at the time
was flawed because, although it provided improved domestic amenities, it failed to maintain
the same intimacy of contact that seemed essential to an urban culture. For him if the basic
system of housing prevailed even at its worse it produced ‘a certain immediacy of relationship
between house and neighbourhood and if haphazard and deficient in public and private
amenity the virtues of contact between house and street, neighbour and neighbour, pubs,
shops, and backyard industry generated the cohesive street society’. 23 Brown’s linear stepped
section was influenced by the work of Leslie Martin, also by Denys Lasdun at the University of
East Anglia and by Hodgkinson’s Brunswick Centre. The Alexandra Road Estate also
represents a development of Brown’s earlier work, at Winscombe Street and at Fleet Road, his
first scheme for Camden now known as the Dunboyne Road Estate. Listed in 2010, it is where
Brown continues to live. Although on a much smaller scale, these considered high-density
development of stacked dwellings and the sequencing of spaces moving from public and semi-
public to private and semi-private.

Figure 113: Brown in his Dunboyne Estate, 201024

22
Swenarton M. (2011) in ‘Creating a Piece of City: Neave Brown and the Design of Alexandra Road’ <http://www.alexandraandainsworth.org>
[retrieved 30 Jan 2013]
23
Brown N. ‘the forms of housing’ in Architectural Design, Sept. 1967, p.432
24
<http://www.islingtontribune.com/reviews/features/2010/may/feature-film-one-below-queen-rowley-way-speaks-itself-candid-look-neave-br>
[retrieved 7 July 2015]

152
According to Swenarton (2011) Brown believed that every home should have its own front
door opening directly onto the network of routes and streets that make up a city, and its own
private external space, open to the sky, in the form of a roof garden or terrace. It was these
aspects that he incorporated with great effect at the Alexandra Road Estate. Brown has
indicated the ‘ingredients’ for Alexandra Road were from the British tradition and specifically
the terraces of places like Bath.25 Gains (1979) has also considered that although Brown’s
ideas about architecture were ‘fresh, clean and severe’ they retained many of the
characteristics of the ‘18th Century street’. The organisation of the housing around a park was
also traditional and at Alexandra Road it is similar in scale to that of nearby Belsize Park. Gains
has also highlighted how Brown’s work concentrated on ‘communal and private spaces, views
and light, self-supervision and privacy, ease of access and an unimposing frontage,
mechanically repeated’. He described that Brown’s ‘shapes’ were the ‘protruding ziggurat-
sectioned party walls of Alexandra Road and his ‘colours’ ‘the high contrast L-shaped dark
stained window frames and white rendered block-work of Fleet Road, which together he
believed created ‘machine like rhythms that echo the Vorticist paintings of Wadsworth and
Bloomburg.’26

Figure 114: Wadsworth, Abstract Composition; Dazzle-ships in Dry-dock at Liverpool27

25
One below the queen Rowley Way speaks for itself, film
26
Gains S. ‘Cook’s Camden’ in RIBA Journal Nov. 1979, p. 486
27
<http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/wadsworth-abstract-composition-t00109>;
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Wadsworth#mediaviewer/File:Dazzle-ships_in_Drydock_at_Liverpool.jpg> [retrieved 16 Dec. 2014}

153
The Alexandra Estate Detailing

The estate was predominantly constructed in-situ with ‘white’ concrete using white cement
and a special white aggregate. It was cast in sawn-board timber shuttering to produce the
appearance of an assembly of interrelated pieces. Brown indicated that ‘the integrity of these
architectural elements is of absolute importance to the appearance and quality of the
scheme’.28 Unlike The Brunswick Centre a high grade aggregate was specifically selected for its
aesthetic qualities and it was never intended to be painted. Careful attention was given to the
detail and execution of the board-marking and construction joints. The arrises were
chamfered and bolt holes and day-work joints were concealed in the shadow of horizontal
grooves. The concrete work was considered particularly good compared to ‘normal
standards’.29 The north face of Block A, the southern face of Block B, and both faces of Block C
were finished with a self-coloured render as a reference to the Regency terrace. Brown
considered it was as much a ‘rendered as a concrete building’ with ‘the rough, heavy massive
concrete elements providing the main and essential differences determining the appearance
of the building and articulating the main architectural ordering of the project’.30 Pre-cast
concrete units were used for the external steps. The joinery was of black stained timber,
except to the lift enclosures and the north elevation of Block A where the fenestration was
aluminium. Glass blocks were used on the north side of Block A at road level.31

Figure 115: Block A’s Cantilevering North Face32

28
Brown N. (May 2004) Strategic Proposal for treatment of external Finishes at Alexandra Road and Ainsworth Estate, 4.1
29
The Architects' journal, Sept. 1976, p.441-5
30
Brown N. (May 2004), 4.1
31
Alexandra Road LBMG, 2006, 1.04.5
32
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, p.79

154
 Figure 116: North-South Section through the Estate33

At the Alexandra Road Estate the quality and detailing of the materials was high and much care
was devoted to the internal fittings. Freear (1995) considers it to be ‘one of the most
ambitious building programmes in British History’ because of the innovative and
unprecedented techniques that were used to create its unique design.34 Concrete was
considered the natural material from which to form the large, complex section, especially the
cantilevered element of Block A.35 Brown has explained how he wanted Blocks A and B to
follow the line of railway curve.36 To facilitate this, the concrete cross walls had to be ‘wedge’
shaped and the setting out the curved sections was so complex it took him six months to
resolve. The bays are based on 15 feet and 18 feet, 9 inches modules and the cross walls have
a minimum dimension of seven inches. Block A was also designed as an acoustic wall to shield
the estate from the noise and vibration of the adjacent railway. The estate was also one of the
first examples of terraced housing to be carried on anti-vibration mountings, consisting of
layers of steel and rubber: they were more common to bridge design.37 Double glazing was
applied to the north facing windows and internally the north facing walls had built-in
cupboards to add further layers of insulation against the noise. The scheme brief had required
that a heating solution be installed that avoided condensation in the dwellings and that was
cheap to run. The project’s Building Services Engineer, Max Fordham, has explained that the
dwelling floor to ceiling windows allowed no space for heating appliances under windows and
Brown wanted to avoid radiators obstructing wall surfaces. Heating was therefore provided

33
Adapted from Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, p.79
34
Freear A. (1995), p.35
35
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, p.76-92
36
Brown N. in ‘One Below the Queen: Rowley Way Speaks for itself’, film
37
The Architects' journal, Sept. 1976, p.441-5

155
in the form of steel coils cast into the party walls. These were fed by water from the district
boiler house that was regulated according to the outside temperature. This was the first time
that such a system had been used in this country.38 Although it had been tested in France the
coils had been located in the flats’ concrete floors and not in their walls. According to
Fordham placing the coils in the party walls seemed to be the best cost solution as it avoided
the additional structural implications of putting them in the floors.39

The Dwellings

At the Alexandra Road Estate pairs of dwellings are accessed by external staircases. In Block A
these also lead to the upper walkway. Balconies in Blocks A and B have thick reinforced
concrete handrails with glass panels beneath and floor to ceiling glazing on the Rowley Way
façade. At Ainsworth Way (Block C) the dwellings on the ground floor are slightly raised over
garages. The top storey is also set back providing a roof terrace with floor to ceiling windows
and heavy reinforced concrete balustrades with glass panels beneath.40 According to
Schneider & Till (2007) the estate exemplified Brown’s notion of ‘flexibility’ as opposed to that
of ‘flexible housing’ that produces flexibility through open space or loose planning and often
demands a lot of space, which in the case of public housing was not always available.
Flexibility for Brown, involved understanding how people may use a house over time and then
to design for those scenarios which could be adapted to changing social use. The dwellings
were therefore based around the notion of ‘zones’ with internally sliding walls, so rooms could
be opened up or closed off. Bedrooms are downstairs and living rooms upstairs which
decreases the space needed for circulation. This also means that noise from living areas is
contained within the dwelling and not over neighbour’s rooms and that family members can
enter dwellings without disturbing others. In some dwellings the ground floor could
potentially be ‘cut-off’ either through plan or by a separate entrance and handed over to a
different user, so over time it has the potential to be used for ‘granny flats, workplaces or
separate rented accommodation.41

38
Building, 23 Sept. 1977, p.49
39
Fordham M. ‘Radiant wall heating for flats’ in Building services engineer, April 1978, p.A23-5
40
<http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk,No. 477882> [retrieved 4 March 2013]
41
Schneider T. & Till J. (2007) Flexible Housing, p.58

156
 Figure 117: Typical Dwelling Layout Types in Block A 42

42
Adapted from Architectural Review, Aug 1979, p.82

157
 Figure 118: Images of the Dwellings after Construction43

43
Architectural Review Aug. 1979, p.83

158
The Project Difficulties

According to Swenarton (2011) when Brown presented his design to the CLBC they applauded
its ‘ambitious and imaginative quality’ but constructing such a complex project stretched their
management capabilities to ‘breaking point’. By the time the first tenants moved in costs had
soared and the development had been plagued with numerous problems. The scheme budget
had been £5m but the eventual cost was given as £20m.44 The enormous cost overruns were
caused by the complicated construction, unforeseen site and foundation problems and
inflation. Construction complications resulted from using non-standard elements with tight
tolerance levels and a workforce that was unaccustomed to working with unconventional
details. Industrial disputes also caused shortages and delays in the supply of steel
reinforcement. The contractor ran into financial difficulties and a construction delay also
occurred when a main sewer running across the site burst during heavy floods.45 There were
also inter-departmental tensions between CLBC’s Planning and Architects’ departments that
resulted in further delays and project under-resourcing.46 In 1980 Camden resident and
former Chief Housing Officer, Alex Henney, was very critical of the Borough’s social housing
building programme. He considered the Alexandra Road scheme had become a ‘development
nightmare’, highlighting the various problems including changes in the uses planned for the
site, failure to get a road closure properly organised, poor site management and inadequate
information provided to the contractor which resulted in difficulties over foundation work.47

Brown defended his scheme indicating it was the opinion of the people who lived there that
counted and that in his experience people did enjoy living there. He considered Henney had
misrepresented ‘either by factual error or distorting a situation for which an architect is held
responsible’. He refuted Henney’s accusations considering that he had ‘defamed many
people, compromised their reputations and obstructed an understanding of the real situation
(Camden’s record in development) that it purports to examine’.48 CLBC, now with Ken
Livingstone as its Chair of Housing, also commissioned an independent enquiry by the National
Building Agency, but the resultant report in 1981 proved something of a ‘damp squib’. The
contractor was largely exonerated and CLCB’s project management procedures rather than the
architects, as some councillors had hoped, were blamed for the cost overrun.49 Due to all

44
‘One below the Queen: Rowley Way speaks for itself’, film
45
The Architects' journal, Sept. 1976, p.441-5
46
Freear A. (1995), p.35-46
47
RIBA Journal, June 1980, p.43-5
48
RIBA Journal, Sept. 1980, p.24
49
Swenarton M. (1981) ‘Creating a Piece of City: Neave Brown and the Design of Alexandra Road’ in The Architects’ journal 25 Feb. 1981, p.339

159
these problems, Alexandra Road Estate arguably remains the most expensive social housing
ever constructed in this country.50

The Responses to the Scheme

By the time the estate had been completed ideas about housing had moved on with reduced
density targets. CLBC appeared to want to ‘wash their hands’ of the scheme condemning it as
a ‘white elephant that no one would want to live in’. Despite all the problems, however,
people did want to live there and the residents praised their new flats, especially the balconies
so that at the beginning it was christened ‘Costa del Alexandra’.51 When it was finally
completed the estate’s architectural confidence and technical innovation ensured that it
attracted ‘enthusiastic favourable attention’ professionally, establishing the international
reputation of Brown.52 It was also heralded as ‘the last grand design for council housing’.53
Maxwell (1979) gave a very positive account of the newly opened estate declaring ‘at
Alexandra Road one could still believe in the power of design’. He highlighted how everything
was ‘brave and new’ and that every aspect of the exterior from access guardrails through to
the communal flower boxes had a ‘well-designed robust feel to it: nothing is skimped, nothing
cheap; there is nothing makeshift to invite casual violence’. Maxwell particularly liked the
estate’s democratic design considering the project ‘to be a very epitome of social democracy
at work’ adhering to ‘the innovative tradition of modern architecture where rational design is
the agent of liberation from defunct social hierarchies’. He also thought it to be a ‘positive and
courageous attempt to solve the problems of mass housing’. He liked the design’s
cohesiveness, the street’s sociability and the way inhabitants had a connectivity with it’. He
considered Brown had ‘attempted to reconcile the demands of rationality with the
expectations of ordinary people’. His one reproach was that Rowley Way could have been
more of a street in the traditional sense if ‘the various institutional buildings had been inserted
along it’ and as ‘a perspective of houses alone it lacks that vital quality of intervention’.54
Mckean & Jestico (1976) described Alexandra Road as an example of ‘the larger more
enterprising schemes to be designed in Camden Borough’. They considered it responded well
to site constraints and the dwellings contained a high level of design detail that provided

50
‘One below the Queen: Rowley Way speaks for itself’ film
51
Freear A. (1995), p.42
52
Croft C. (1996) ‘Alexandra Road, London’, p.48
53
Building, 23 Sept. 1977, p.49
54
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, p.76-92

160
’spatially interesting and useful rooms with generous windows and terraces and a high
standard of internal finishes.55

The Alexandra Road Estate was considered not just a housing scheme but, as in Brown’s
words, ‘a piece of city’ and while it was designed to meet the local authority housing
requirements in terms of costs and space standards, it incorporated the ‘dramatic centrepiece
of a 350 metre long curving pedestrian street, Rowley Way, lined on either side by stepped
terraces extending along its full length’.56 In his architect’s statement Brown defended his
newly opened development saying ‘the current official low densities and suburban ideas that
are being foisted onto the public are an attack on urbanity to which attitudes of fifteen years
ago are certainly preferable and against which the prepositions of Alexandra Road stand as
criticism…Alexandra Road represents an effort to restore to urban development the common
and traditional devises of formal control that permit an ordered and systematic environment
to be created using its most common place elements, housing, streets, open spaces etc…they
are the essential devices of coherent urban development. It was our intention to produce an
architecture composed of elements belonging to a common culture and render irrelevant the
sad distinction between public and private housing.’57 As Freear (1995) has since indicated,
despite all the problems, there can be no doubts about the architectural achievements at
Alexandra Road, including: ‘the extraordinarily high density in relation to the building heights,
the array of different accommodation types that are well laid out and the attention devoted to
the design of cupboards, kitchen fittings, sliding partitions etc., the generous landscaped area
and provision of the acoustic barrier along the railway.58 And, as Brown has indicated, his
project represented an effort to produce new buildings that ‘belonged’ in scale and texture
and which related to two traditions: that of the Modern Movement and that of an older formal
tradition of English housing and the street. 59

The Case for Conservation

Brown had always anticipated that the estate would need looking after with regular
maintenance.60 An estate office was initially established which ensured ‘firm’ management
but as the years went by it was disbanded and the estate became neglected.61 The estate’s

55
Mckean C. & Jestico T. (1976) Guide to Modern Buildings in London 1965-75, p.38
56
Swenarton M. (1981), p.339
57
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, p.85
58
Freear A. (1995), p.35-46
59
Architectural Design, 8/9, 1978, p.523-34
60
Brown N. in ‘One below the Queen: Rowley Way speaks for itself’ film
61
Knowles E. quoted in The Sunday Times, 26 Sept. 1993, p.6

161
appearance and fabric therefore deteriorated rapidly and the public areas became dirty and
unkempt.62 The concrete was not cleaned and weathering allowing mould, algae and moss
growth to darken its surfaces. Graffiti was a particular problem and some overpainting was
undertaken. In an attempt to clean up their immediate environment some occupants also
painted their flat and balcony walls giving the estate a chequered effect.63 Many residents
believed that since completion CLBC had done its best to forget about it, carrying out minimal
maintenance. The few repairs that were carried out further eroded the estate’s visual
appearance.64 In 1989 a group of residents decided to take action to improve the situation and
in 1991 they established the South Hampstead Housing Co-operative which became
responsible for day to day management. The Co-operative was in effect a Tenant Managed
Organisation (TMO) and with a management agreement it received a CLBC allowance to
deliver the housing management services. Also at that time a major repair programme had
started that was part of an Estate Action Programme, financed by the Department of the
Environment. Budgeted at £8m it was to include: concrete repairs, roof repairs, new
landscaping, replacement public lighting and installation of new security doors and uPVC
windows to all properties.

The concrete repairs were necessary because in many areas there was insufficient concrete
cover over the steel reinforcement. This had corroded leading to spalling of the concrete. Also
the original aggregate had contained iron pyrites, lumps of which had slowly oxidised to
produce ‘weep-holes’ where rust had stained the concrete (see also Golden Lane Estate
Chapter 2).65 Structural movement had also caused expansion joints to open, allowing water
to penetrate and rainwater pipes located within the structure had become blocked leading to
further saturation of the concrete (see also The Brunswick Centre Chapter 5).66 The Co-
operative had hoped to gain control of the programme funds to appoint their own
professionals to administer the repairs and ensure they were of a satisfactory standard.67
Several architectural firms tendered for the work but their decision was overruled by CLBC’s
Housing department who wished to continue to use their own Building Design Services (BDS)
team for the repair programme.68

62
‘One below the Queen: Rowley Way speaks for itself’ film
63
Brown N. (May 2004), 7.4
64
Croft C. (1996), p.48
65
EH (2012) Practical Building Conservation: Concrete, p.203
66
The Architects’ journal, 1 Sept. 1993, p.14-15
67
Section 27, 1985 Housing Act, the right to manage is open to 25 secure tenants or more
68
Freear A. (1995), p.42

162
Despite the establishment of the Co-operative little consideration was actually being given to
the estate’s conservation. Indeed the Co-operative was mainly concerned about renovating
the estate to a satisfactory standard and ensuring the improvements provided them with
modern comfortable homes. Some residents still believed that the renovation proposals, like
replacement of the timber framed windows with uPVC, would damage the estate’s historical
significance. They also thought the concrete repairs that were being carried out by the BDS
team were being done with little regard for the estate’s architectural features. These were
being completed with a proprietary bagged product and had resulted in very dark patch
repairs.

Figure 119: Wall Section showing Dark Patch Repairs69

A lighter blend had been trialled but because it was not available as a standard factory mix and
covered by the manufacturer’s guarantee it was rejected in favour of the darker mix. No
attempt was also being made to match the texture and board marking of the original concrete.
The residents were also concerned about the new lighting proposals. The original public
69
Croft C. (1996), p.55

163
lighting had run along conduits in the concrete but the cast-in system had become corroded so
surface mountings were being installed on the walkways and stairways. They felt that the new
fittings would not only damage the building’s appearance but could lead to further staining
and streaking.70 Proposals for reroofing of the terraces, including the roof edge detail, were
also of particular concern for DOCOMOMO and Neave Brown who described it as: ‘ugly and
insensitive, inappropriate to the situation’. 71 Resident Jane Beaton was quoted as saying: ‘I
remember how absolutely stunning it looked when I first moved in. I felt privileged to be here.
But there has been a history of incredible neglect over the years’. She thought the patched
concrete was ‘outrageous’ and that the new lighting system a ‘total overkill, really obtrusive
and unpleasant’.72 Infuriated by the situation the small group of residents began a campaign,
headed by resident Elizabeth Knowles and Docomomo’s Christopher Dean, to get the estate
listed and save it from ‘inadequate and inappropriate repairs and return it to its original
glory’.73 In 1991 Knowles had petitioned residents and written to EH to recommend that the
estate be listed. Neave Brown had become involved and the campaign had gained the support
of the Royal fine Arts Commission and prominent architects such as Richard Rogers and Philip
Powell.74 The campaigners argued the estate was: ‘both an outstanding architectural
achievement, an exemplar of ambitious, humane modernism on a scale that was unlikely to be
repeated and a historically important record of a period when a generously funded socialist
housing policy could produce a distinctive architectural form and style’. As the estate was less
than thirty years old it had to be considered for listing under the ‘Ten Year Rule’ and qualify for
Grade II* listing. This meant it had to satisfy two criteria. Firstly it had to be considered of
‘outstanding national interest’ and it had to be shown ‘at risk of demolition or damaging
alteration’. Contrary to expectations in August 1993 the campaign was successful and with a
Grade II* listing the estate became not only the youngest and potentially the largest building
ever to have been listed at that time, but also the first Modern housing estate.75 It was also
only the second post-War social housing to be listed (Keeling House had been listed earlier
that year, see Introduction). 76 Peter Brooke, then Secretary of State for National Heritage,
was quoted as saying the Alexandra Road Estate was: 'one of the most distinguished groups of
buildings produced in England since the Second World War and of exceptional architectural
interest’. He also indicated that it was being listed because of the concerns about the quality

70
Camden New Journal, 30 Sept. 1993, , ‘Heritage fiasco ends in darkness’
71
Croft C. (1994) The Alexandra Road Estate and the Impact of Listing, p.59; originally Brown N. letter to DoCoMoMo 15 Nov. 1992
72
The Architects’ journal, 1 Sept. 1993, p.14-15, quoted Brown A., Head of BDS
73
See also Knowles E. account of living on the estate
74
E.g. letter 18 May 1993 to Secretary of State, Environment from RFAC, copy obtained from Knowles E.
75
Croft C. (1996), p.49
76
List Entry Number: 1130403 <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 1 March 2013]

164
of the repairs.77 Harwood (2003) similarly described the Alexandra Road Estate as ‘the most
formal and visually impressive of the distinctive low-rise, high-density schemes developed by
young architects working for LB Camden in the 196’s and 70s’. She also considered that ‘Brown
had an underlying ideal of how city living could be, each home at the same time identifiable
and part of a larger organism based on the street’. 78

According to Croft (1996) the estate’s listing presented an unusual case because its original
architect was still alive and it had recently undergone a change in management, being
controlled by the Co-operative. The listing was further complicated by the fact that at that
time only those elements considered Grade II* quality could be listed and those deemed to be
only Grade II standard could not be considered for listing until they were at least thirty years
old. Croft states that it was also unclear from the list description which parts were actually
covered by the Grade II* listing and which were not and that this ambiguity caused later
problems. With some buildings having no protection they were subsequently demolished,
predominantly those in phase two like the old people’s home (the effects of uneven listing on
large estates are investigated further see Chapter 6).79 Croft also indicated that EH realised a
conservation strategy for the Alexandra Road Estate needed to be devised for managing
change and one which would recognise the architectural and historical importance of the
estate. She further acknowledged that at that time the estate’s preservation presented new
and unprecedented technical problems for EH, especially with regard to the concrete repair,
which it had almost no experience of dealing with. And, because the repair works were
already in progress, a strategy had to be developed while EH was dealing with day-to-day
questions about repair-led changes that seemed to have been given little consideration before
awarding the repair contract to the BSD. The repairs already carried out before listing had
been mainly undertaken to the two northerly blocks facing Rowley Way. These had been left
flush with the surface and could only have been intended to be painted, either just over-
painting the patches or all over painting. EH decided that the best way of handling these was
to cut back and resurface the larger patches and paint over the smaller ones. It considered
overall painting would be a mistake as the ‘subtlety of the carefully selected aggregates would
be lost and more importantly there would be long term maintenance problems’.80

77
The Architects’ journal, 1 Sept. 1993, p.14-15
78
Harwood E. (2003), England: A Guide to the Post-War Listed Buildings, p.580
79
Croft C. (1996), p.50
80
Croft C. (1996), p.56

165
Croft highlighted that as the estate had been the first of its kind to be listed there were a
number of practical lessons that could be learned for other similar future conservation
projects. She believed it was imperative, for example, to understand the technical
specification of the building and the involvement of the original architect may prove
invaluable. It was also important to understand the properties and failings of the propriety
products and components which may no longer be available, to learn about the repair
techniques for modern materials like concrete and to make sure this information was drawn
together and accessible. Macdonald (2001) has indicated, however, that despite this
recognition the subsequent repair programme in 1997-8 was far from satisfactory.81 No
attempt was made to either remove the corroding reinforcement steel or to sink it further into
the concrete. Brown was not consulted about the repairs and the original specification using
white Portland cement and the workmanship needed to achieve the required finish to the
concrete, was not used to inform the work. Also, when the repairs were first discussed with
EH the intention was to restrict works to those that were deemed absolutely necessary and to
attempt traditional concrete repairs, matching the original concrete as closely as possible.
Although EH had approved a number of sample repair panels in 1993, subsequent changes to
the repair mix, poor workmanship and the failure to limit repairs to what was technically
necessary had a ‘disastrous visual impact’. All defects were cut out to the lines of the original
board marks to minimise visual disruption but were again repaired using a proprietary bagged
product with polymer-modified mortars (which improve adhesion, workability, strength and
durability). The contractors were paid according to the size of the patches and as a result
many repairs were larger than necessary and rectangular to facilitate measurement which
meant they stood out from the existing concrete. Cutting out included even the smallest rust
stains left by small clips and nails which were causing no long term damage which resulted in
excess of 11,000 patch repairs. Macdonald felt aiming for minimum intervention would have
reduced the visible disruption and the cost of repairs considerably. She believed the
disappointing results had less to do with the technical difficulties of achieving like-for-like
repairs and more to do with poor specification and workmanship, and poor communication.
She also considered that an estate conservation management plan would have been invaluable
in establishing appropriate levels of repair and intervention before any work was undertaken.

In April 2001 EH conducted further trials, to investigate the previous repairs and to trial new
ones using like for like materials. Although it was known that the Alexandra Road Estate was
constructed using ‘white concrete’ incorporating white Portland cement no documents
81
Macdonald S. (ed.) (2001) Preserving Post-War Heritage: The Care and Conservation of Mid-Twentieth Century p.38

166
survived that described the origin of the exact constituents of the concrete.82 Various blends
of cements, sands and aggregates were therefore tested to match both its colour and texture.
A number of techniques were also tested to achieve the required board marking finish
including the use of pre-casting panels made from silicon moulds. In November 2004 EH
revisited the trials and concluded that the size of the patch repairs should be kept to a
minimum in all cases and that the rectangular patches that the estate had been subject to in
the 1991 repair programme should be avoided, unless the edges coincided with board marks
or architectural features. It also concluded that in repairs including corroded steel
reinforcement the steel should be cleaned and either hammered back to a depth of at least
20mm or removed if it was not structural. Polymer-modified repairs were deemed unsuitable
for both the estate’s fair-faced and board-marked concrete. EH’s trials had shown that
successful patch repairs could be made using simple combinations of sands, cements and
aggregates that could be varied to match to the cleaned original cement (testing had revealed
that the aggregates were very similar to those used in the construction of The National
Theatre). Although such ‘like to like repairs’ may not be backed by written guarantee EH
indicated that the ‘underlying chemistry ensures that such repairs, if properly carried out are
as sound and durable as the original surrounding fabric’. The trials also concluded that the
texture and surface treatment of the board marked concrete could best be recreated using a
custom roller system.83

The Alexandra Road Estate Listed Building Management Guidelines

In order to help address the issues concerning the estate’s conservation, Listed Building
Management Guidelines (LBMG) had been drawn up in March 2000, setting out the
agreements made between CLBC, EH and the South Hampstead Housing Co-operative. Their
primary objective was stated as being to clarify which works to the estate needed listed
building and/or planning permission, and which did not. The LBMG also set out the principles
concerning the roles of the various parties; the uses of the buildings and the conservation
status; practical responsibilities for maintenance; how both internal and external alterations
were to be controlled and the concept of heritage flats. They also contained an ‘occupants’
guide’. In 2003 these Guidelines and their effectiveness were included in the review by EH and
the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (see Introduction). This review criticised the LBMG for
having ‘no coherent attempt to discern and summarise the design philosophy and language’ of

82
Rowan technologies Ltd (Dec. 2013) Alexandra Road Estate: Cleaning, Coating and Repairs for the Park Concrete, Appendix D
83
EH (2012), p.210

167
the estate. It also considered their drafting had been complicated by division of
responsibilities over the estate management. This was because consultation with residents
and the ‘Right to Buy’ leaseholders had been handled by the Co-operative who would not
formally adopt the LBMG until the extra costs of maintaining the estate’s listed buildings to
conservation standards were reflected in management allowances and/or a sinking fund to
cover major periodic items.84 These management complications were also confirmed by Croft
(1994) who also questioned the extent to which the Co-operative represented residents’
views.85

Since the introduction of the LBMG there is evidence of works being carried out with more
respect to the estate’s architectural and historical significance. In 2005, for example, Levitt
Bernstein Architects were commissioned to ‘resolve detailed design issues’ and complete a
programme of works. Working with Neave Brown key repairs were undertaken including
replacement of the dwellings’ roof, which, covering approximately 15,000 square metres, is
considered one of the longest in Europe.86 Major repair programmes like this, however, have
had a financial impact for the 154 leaseholders who now live on the estate. 87 In March 2004 it
was reported that some leaseholders were taking legal action against CLBC to contest the
repair programme. They considered the Levitt Bernstein solution costing £7.2m ‘unreasonably
extensive and expensive’ preferring the cheaper option of patching the existing membrane.
Fifty-eight private leaseholders applied for a Leaseholder Valuation Tribunal to challenge the
service charges for the repair which averaged out at £16,000 for each flat.88

In 2005 the South Hampstead Co-operative arrangement ended when its shareholders voted
to hand back management control to the Council and its contractors. The LBMG were also
revised as ‘an updated and expanded version of the 2000 document’. Issued in Jan. 2006,
these now have four key objectives: ‘to provide a greater understanding of the special
architectural and historic interest of the estate by describing its history and significance; to
make clear what works or alterations do not require LBC; to provide an indication of what
works may require LBC; and to provide guidance on acceptable change to the building where
LBC may be required’.89 The revised LBMG contain a Statement of Significance which indicates
that the Alexandra Road Estate was ‘one of the most ambitious examples of the innovative
new social housing emerging from the (Camden architects’) department at this time, and of

84
EH and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (June 2003) Streamlining listed building consent Lessons of management agreements
85
Croft C. (1994), p.95
86
<http://www.levittbernstein.co.uk/architecture/historic-buildings> [retrieved 30 Jan. 2013]
87
Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate Regeneration Consultation document, Nov. 07, p.11
88
Building Design, 19 March 2004, p.5
89
Alexandra Road LBMG 2006, 1.03

168
new housing in Britain’. It highlights the street in the form of Rowley Way as the key design
element and also the importance of the estate’s construction in white board-marked concrete
with areas of self-coloured render and the quality and detailing of the materials and internal
fittings.90 Part 2 of the LBMG is in the form of an estate Conservation Manual which is very
comprehensive and details for each estate element a description, the conservation objectives,
acceptable change (including precedent LBC cases and approved materials and suppliers) and
the relevant maintenance requirements. They specify exactly why and how each element
should be conserved. The requirements concerning the estate’s concrete structure are now
duly included, indicating the need to use the original aggregate mix and board-marking
techniques. There is no reference, however, to any of the EH trials, their conclusions and
recommended treatment.

Figure 120: The LBMG’s Concrete Conservation Entry91

According to CLBC Planning Officer, Catherine Bond, the revised LBMG have never been
formally adopted by the Council and as such have no legal status. She feels that although they

90
Alexandra Road LBMG, 2006, 1.04
91
Alexandra Road LBMG, 2006, p.45

169
can be useful in aiding guidance on conservation issues they are over prescriptive, can lead to
ambiguity and have the tendency to get out of date very quickly which has caused problems,
as, for example, when supplier items have been included which are no longer available. She
also indicated that recommending products and services is something that the Council is not
legally permitted to do. Bond indicated that in respect of changes EH works with the Council
on pre-application planning. She feels, however, that the Council needs to do more to protect
the estate’s heritage, particularly in respect of flat interiors. Heritage Flats, for example, have
yet to be identified and Bond is keen to survey the estate to fully appreciate the extent to
which the original interiors have survived. She would also like to get the LBMG updated and
formally accepted by the Council but would prefer that they take the form of a Heritage
Partnership Agreement. Her concerns echo those of other estate planning officers, particularly
Golden Lane Estate (see Chapter 2). The area she feels causes most difficulty is how new
services can be successfully integrated into the estate and how redundant ones are dealt with.
This has presented problems because there are no grants for this type of work on heritage
schemes and sub-contractors generally provide only least-cost, engineering solutions and are
not concerned about a conservation approach. Like other estates Alexandra Road has a core
group of ‘owner-occupiers’ who are keen to restore their flats and conserve the estate’s
heritage. These residents are quick to notify planning officers of potential threats to the
estate’s heritage and Bond indicated the Council has taken enforcement action where
necessary. Also as at Golden Lane Estate, some elements of the dwelling interiors are not now
considered practical for contemporary needs. It is impossible, for example, to fit a washing
machine under the concrete kitchen counter, an element identified in the LBMG as being
significant and its retention necessary.92 In the one-bedroom flats this is particularly
problematic as there is no other place in which to position it. Furthermore the estate laundry
that is still used by many is to be demolished to provide a building to house a ventilation shaft
for the national HS2 project.

The Practicalities of Repair and Maintenance of Modern Concrete Estates

In 2001 Cherry had indicated that there was ‘a vital need to understand both the historical and
technical character of a building before decisions are reached about repair or alterations’.93
Macdonald (2001) had also stressed that a methodology was needed to manage change
without compromising significance and understanding a building’s materials and construction

92
Alexandra Road LBMG, 2006, 2.015
93
Cherry B. Foreword in Macdonald S. (ed.) (2001)

170
techniques, its prior use and maintenance history, how and why change had occurred together
with a sound knowledge of the potential repair options was essential if appropriate
conservation strategies were to be determined. She also admitted that in the majority of post-
war cases the main difficulty had been caused by the failure of the applicant to demonstrate
that the building has been properly investigated, any problems were clearly understood, that
the proposed repairs addressed the causes of the problems not mere symptoms and the
development of appropriate repair strategies took account of specialist advice. The early
repair programmes at Alexandra Road Estate illustrate a number of these failings but
concrete’s materiality is now more widely understood and lessons are being learned. Indeed,
in 2011 CLBC in conjunction with the Heritage Lottery Fund agreed to provide funding to
develop proposals for restoration of the Alexandra Road Estate’s park and open spaces and
measures are being taken to determine the appropriate action to conserve the Grade II*
concrete hard landscaped elements of the park.

Croft also highlighted that as many of these buildings were constructed in living memory this
offers the potential to understand them in a way that has not been possible before as the
architect may often be able to explain the buildings raison d’être, the construction process,
why certain materials and technics were selected, the original maintenance expectations etc.
Drawings and specifications are also valuable resources to highlight past problems,
maintenance issues and repair that can be used to inform future maintenance, repair and
conservation. Indeed, involving the original architect in the conservation of Alexandra Road
was an unprecedented opportunity and a useful one in providing information to help
understand the estate buildings more fully. During the 2001 concrete trials Brown lectured EH
about the development of his design. His housing articles and discussions with him about the
estate’s objectives were also useful in developing a broader understanding. EH also
encouraged CLBC to employ Brown on a consultant basis to identify how certain aspects of the
project were originally designed to work including the complex drainage systems for the
largest blocks.94 Brown gave his account of the estate in 2004 in a report that which made
‘suggestions for work to improve its present condition and to maintain its good appearance
consistent with original intentions and its inherent qualities’.95 In this he described the
concrete is now ‘as it is’ and the outcome of unavoidable neglect and long term weathering,
the individual action of some residents who have taken the ‘law and their immediate
environment into their own hands’ and programmes of repairs and additions by the Council

94
Macdonald S. (ed.) (2001), p.55
95
Brown N. (May 2004), 1.1

171
involving surface damage that were ‘well-intentioned but defacing and now after further
weathering looking over extensive, inappropriate and ill advised’. He stated that ‘the
(concrete) surface is now spotted with the scars of many ‘repairs’ so extensive that a study of
repairs is underway’. He also indicated that the rendered surfaces have similarly deteriorated
and that that they should have been painted twenty years ago and periodically maintained.
This is also recommended in The LBMG.

Figure 121: The LBMG’s External Render Conservation Entry 96

Brown highlighted that repairs carried out to blocks B and C in the 1990’s have left them
uneven in surface and colour and the important distinction between the smooth render and
96
Alexandra Road LBMG, 2006, 2.025

172
the rough textured concrete is virtually lost.97 He still thought the form of Alexandra Road
‘magnificent’ despite its condition and proposed a general strategy, limiting the work to the
concrete and within which other works could be done that were compatible, progressive and
contributed to a consistent appearance. In his opinion ‘extensive work to the concrete would
be the wrong priority’, believing instead that this should be given to the rendered surfaces to
‘lift and brighten the buildings and create an optimistic environment’. The concrete would
then ‘immediately be in strong contrast and would gain in identity as weathered and stained
stone or old brick does in partly painted 18th and 19th Century buildings, a London
tradition…their texture and crudity would acquire a positive quality against the rendered
areas’.98 Indeed the concrete to the front of blocks A (south side) and B (north side) were
reportedly cleaned in 1997 but by 2001 they were again dirty and disfigured by mould and
algae growth and by 2004 the cleaned area had reverted back to its original ‘mould and algae’
appearance, due to the original concrete surface already being weathered (porous and
carbonated) allowing the growth to quickly re-establish itself.99 Brown also recommended
over painting of graffiti but that in some areas such as the walls of the football pitch and some
of the playgrounds the graffiti should be left and even encouraged to reduce its impact
elsewhere.100

Kindred (2007) believes that conservation of Modern buildings provides more challenges for
practitioners than for buildings from earlier periods as there are more wide-ranging problems
embracing issues of ‘appropriate’ repair, adaptation and alteration of modern and often
experimental materials with their associated technical and philosophical problems. There are
also increasing concerns about the sustainability of Modern construction and the application
of more stringent energy conservation criteria.101 Docomomo’s Anne-Laure Guillet similarly
indicates that one of the Modern Movement’s defining features was its use of materials
particularly the ‘modernist triad’ of concrete, glass and iron. She admits getting the right skills
and knowledge on how to deal with the fabric and aesthetic issues can often be a challenge
and that that during their construction this lack of experience often resulted in poorly
executed detailing and ensuing damage leaving structures vulnerable to material decay and
failure. This is further complicated by the fact that most of the original manufacturers do not
exist anymore and many of the materials are now obsolete.102 In the last fifteen years or so a

97
Brown (May 2004), 6.2/3
98
Brown N. (May 2004), 7
99
Rowan technologies Ltd, (Dec. 2013), 2.4/6
100
Brown N. (May 2004), 11
101
Kindred B. (2007) Forward in Macdonald S. & Kindred B. (eds.) (2007) Conservation of Modern Buildings
102
Guillet A.L. (2007) ‘Docomomo International: Modernity as Heritage’, p.152-3

173
number of approaches for repairing concrete have been redefined and published.103 In 2013,
and as part of its new Practical Building Conservation Series, EH published a specific guide on
concrete conservation, Practical Building Conservation: Concrete. This indicates that although
a great deal of research and literature has been produced on repairing concrete structures
very little has been aimed at actually conserving the character or appearance of historic
examples, which this volume intends to offer. This guide covers the principal methods which
can be used for the repair and preservation of concrete and provides guidance through a series
of case studies as to when particular treatments might be appropriate. It acknowledges
‘rigorous diagnosis of the causes of deterioration and damage is a precondition to successful
long-term maintenance of concrete buildings’, that a programme of intervention needs to be
based on ‘an understanding of the building’s history, significance, condition, local
environment, and any risks arising from the way it is to be used’. It also indicates that
normally the key aims of any repair programme should be to keep as much of the original
fabric as possible and to also maintain the appearance of the building. It highlights that
matching repairs to maintain the aesthetics of exposed concrete creates particular challenges
and if efforts are to be made to reinstate the original appearance it is important to establish
exactly what this was. It also states that once deterioration becomes widespread, repair and
remedial work to concrete is expensive and disruptive to the normal use of the building and
methods for reliable long-term repair of deteriorating concrete are only slowly being
developed but it requires good knowledge of the material and the way in which it deteriorates,
along with the appropriate skills needed to carry out repairs.

The guide also indicates that the interaction of the composite materials that make up concrete
provides additional complexities that do not exist in homogenous materials so the approach to
conservation, both in material and aesthetic terms, may be different to that adopted for more
traditional historic materials, such as stone, timber and plaster. Also for those materials
retention of a certain amount of surface decay and weathering is acceptable and perhaps
desirable, but on a more Modern concrete building, technical issues and design intent may
preclude this, even though patina can play an important part in its appearance. It also
acknowledges one of the problems with conserving this complex material is that, as yet, the
number of concrete conservation projects is small and there has been little opportunity for
long-term monitoring of the results. Materials and methods continue to evolve, therefore,
through improvements in understanding and technology, and as monitoring of treatments

103
See for example Lambert P. ‘Repairing Reinforced Concrete: An Overview’ and Davies K. ‘Conserving Concrete: Defining an Appropriate Approach
for Listed Buildings’ in Macdonald S. (2001), Chapters 8/9

174
reveal more about good and bad practice. Indeed EH’s investigations and repair trials on the
Alexandra Road Estate were subsequently used to inform a wider review on developing
methods for repairing concrete on listed and historically important structures subject to
corrosion, deterioration and spalling and the estate has been included in this EH’s guide as a
case study.104 At the time of writing, the effects of concrete deterioration and repairs continue
to be investigated at Alexandra Road Estate.105 The concrete tests and repair methods for Park
Hill’s conservation are also highlighted in the EH Guide (see Chapter 3) and serve to
demonstrate how attitudes towards concrete conservation have improved since the initial
repair programmes at Alexandra Road in the early 1990’s. Although Park Hill’s concrete was
not of the same ‘high grade’ quality or with the same level of detailing as that at Alexandra
Road it needed conservation treatment to be undertaken in a way that was sympathetic to and
respected the building’s historical and architectural significance and which at the same time
improved the estate’s external appearance and demonstrated a new image for the estate.
Consequently a number of remedial treatments were trialled to try and overcome corrosion
problems and a range of repairs were developed which would maintain as far as possible the
appearance of the buildings; these included hydrophobic treatments, like-for-like patch
repairs, anti-carbonation coatings and selective replacement.106

The Alexandra Road Estate Residents and the Estate’s Conservation

In 1990, critic Martin Pawley had thought Alexandra Road like: ‘an epic silent film…it suffers
from having been released into a different world to that which it was conceived…set on the
very cusp of the change from socialism to the ‘me-generation’’. Twenty years on he thought it
still retained its ‘cinematic wonder’ and having suffered the problems that have blighted much
of Britain’s post-war social housing it was ‘emerging from the shadows, not only as a valuable
part of our national heritage but as a viable example of how mass housing can succeed.’ 107 The
Alexandra Road Estate residents have and continue to be to be very supportive of their estate,
despite its past problems and neglect. Many have grown up there and have fought to protect
it and secure its listing and preservation. Of the 520 dwellings about 360 remain as council
housing. Since the Co-operative’s demise the Tenants and Resident’s Association has been
very committed to making the estate a good place to live, as evidenced on the TRA website.108
As Elizabeth Knowles recently indicated ‘the estate has turned itself around and come full

104
Knowles E. interview, 25 June 2014
105
EH (2012), p.203
106
EH(2012), p.157
107
Pawley M. in ‘One below the Queen: Rowley Way speaks for itself’, film
108
<http://alexandraandainsworth.org/tra/what-we-do> [retrieved 24 June 2015]

175
circle’ and a recent poll to establish satisfaction with the estate revealed that over 80% of
residents were very happy with their homes.109 The estate’s graffiti problem is also is
significantly lower than it has been in the past. 110

Figure 122: Rowley Way’s Residents111

For years, however, the residents have seen their estate depicted on film and TV, often
incorrectly as a ‘crime ridden hell-hole’ and they decided to put the record straight. In 2011 a
number of events were held to celebrate the estate and its history including an exhibition in
the Tenants Hall.112 Residents also made their own film: Rowley Way speaks for itself: One
below the Queen.113 In this they describe how they love living on the estate and see it more as
an urban village or hill-town located within the city. They particularly like the way the homes
connect with the street and prefer this arrangement to living in a high rise block. They
consider that it still feels ‘connected and like one place’. Several recall when they first saw the
estate and how progressive, modern and bold the architecture looked. Some felt the

109
Knowles E. interview 25 June 2014
110
Rowan technologies Ltd (Dec. 2013), 2.3
111
<http://www.islingtontribune.com/reviews/features/2010/may/feature-film-one-below-queen-rowley-way-speaks-itself-candid-look-neave-br>
[retrieved 6 march 2013]
112
<http://alexandraandainsworth.org/estate-history-3> [retrieved 24 June 2015]
113
<http://alexandraandainsworth.org/on-film> [retrieved 30 Jan. 2013]

176
experience ‘daunting’ and ‘scary’ as the architecture was so white and its design was unique
like nothing they had seen before. Others described how it was a great place in which to grow
up. Many were impressed with their flats that they considered were well laid out, open, light
and spacious. A number have recorded their experiences of what it has been like to live on the
estate and two very personal accounts are detailed below.114

Elizabeth Knowles

114
<http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Alexandra_Road_Housing.html> [retrieved 24 June 2014]

177
 Su Cross

178
Conclusion

‘if we now feel that buildings showing such defects are worth preserving, it is not to
economise on their replacement, but to recognise their value as a record of quest, as part of
a historical and cultural development that is crucial to our own identity, and in some
instances, as an embodiment of values that make them part of an artistic and spiritual
heritage’

Robert Maxwell115

‘The price of beauty as of liberty is unblinking vigilance and determination’

Elizabeth Knowles, Alexandra Road Estate listing campaigner116

This case study has demonstrated how concrete as a material of the Modern Movement has
presented new conservation challenges for heritage professionals. In Alexandra Road Estate’s
case many of the repairs to its concrete structure were carried out at a time before its heritage
values were acknowledged and understood. Although methodologies have now been
developed these continue to be redefined as concrete’s materiality and the reasons for its
deterioration are more clearly determined. Effective communication and adoption of these
methodologies is essential for the conservation effort. The drawing up of estate LBMG and a
Conservation Management Plan appear to have been helpful in documenting detailed
guidance on the estate’s conservation. The management, status and extent of adoption of
these guidelines, however, is unclear. The involvement of Brown also proved useful in
directing the estate’s preservation effort. This chapter also serves to demonstrate how
protective residents can be about the place they call home and how they can be instrumental
in ensuring its conservation. The Alexandra Road Estate residents’ actions were pioneering in
securing the estate’s listing at a time when it was less than thirty years old, making it a
precedent case as the first Modern housing estate to be listed. Residents’ involvement in the
protection of Modern estates, the complexities and complications that can result from their
listing and the specific repair challenges that this brings continue to be investigated in the next
chapter.

115
Maxwell R.(1998) Preface in Modern Movement Heritage
116
Originally RFAC Chair, Lord St. John of Fawsley, Elizabeth keeps this quote on her noticeboard at home to remind her of battle to conserve the
estate

179
Chapter 6 Windows, Facades and Space: The Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates and Towers

Figure 123: Goldfinger Talks to Children on the Cheltenham Estate 1

‘Few parts of the environment are as vulnerable as the fairly recent…too old for fashion, too
young for heritage’.

Roger Bowdler, EH Head of Designation2

‘History always constitutes the relation between a present and its past’
John Berger3

This chapter considers the heritage protection of large Modern estates with reference to Erno
Goldfinger’s Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates, built for London Borough Tower Hamlets
(LBTH) (1965-70) and Royal Borough Kensington and Chelsea (RBKC) (1969-73) respectively.
Goldfinger tested his design at Brownfield and repeated many features in his Cheltenham
development. Both of these estates were large undertakings built in different phases. The
architectural landscape was considered important and designed with as much integrity as the
buildings. Goldfinger was an advocate of high, city living and built large imposing structures.
These case studies focus on the practicalities of conserving the facades of his large blocks and
towers. They also seek to highlight the problems associated with protection of these estates
as a single entity, not only in terms of their buildings and structures but in relation to their
compositional spaces and overall design integrity.

1
<http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/original_goldfinger_scheme.pdf> [retrieved 18 Aug. 2013]
2
EH, Conservation Bulletin Issue 59, Autumn 2008, p.26
3
Berger J. (1972) in Ways of Seeing, quoted by Allan (2002) in ‘A Challenge of Values’, p.21

178
Balfron Tower, Carradale House and the Brownfield Estate, Poplar

Site History

The area where the estate would be built was occupied by 19th Century terraced housing, built
for workers in the nearby docks and factories. Areas were cleared for widening of the
Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach and WWII bombing devastated the majority of the
remaining housing. The site, located between St Leonard’s Road, Andrew Street and the
Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach was acquired by the LCC in 1959. It took Goldfinger three
years to complete the design and building was scheduled in three stages: Stage I (1965-7)
consisted of a twenty seven storey building with an adjoining service and circulation tower,
twelve low blocks for the elderly, business premises and housing; Stage II (1967-70) comprised
a two winged eleven storey building with adjoining circulation tower; Phase III (early 1970’s)
was a fourteen storey block, not designed by Goldfinger, but a product of his studio. After
completion the blocks were named after the Scottish villages of Balfron, Carradale and
Glenkerry, following a pattern in nearby locations like the Aberfeldy and Teviot estates which
perpetuated Scottish associations within the Poplar area.4

Figure 124: 1890’s Area Map5

4
Warburton N. (2003) Erno Goldfinger: the life of an architect,p.155, originally GLC Press Release No 82, 12 Feb. 1968
5
Digimap, accessed 10 July 2013

179
 Figure 125: 1960’s Area Plan showing Location of Redevelopment6

The Brownfield Scheme Design

The Brownfield estate had an inward focus, possibly due to the inhospitable setting at the time
of bombsites, declining industrialised docks and the adjacent Blackwall Tunnel Approach. It
was designed to form an integrated neighbourhood with a nursery, playgrounds, ball courts,
teenagers’ rooms, the ‘Club’, a shop, elderly people’s housing with gardens and drying spaces,
as well as non-dedicated open spaces. Goldfinger placed great emphasis on a connective and
distinctive setting for the estate that functioned on three levels: at pedestrian level, vehicular
access level and as a canvas to be viewed from the flats above. Pedestrian routes were
primarily at street level and the podiums facilitated segregation of pedestrian and vehicular
movement, servicing and under-block car parking, allowed large areas to remain open for

6
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 4 July 2013

180
landscaping and amenity.7 The estate’s principal element was Balfron Tower. Constructed in
reinforced concrete, it was eighty-four metres high with twenty-seven floors and topped by a
thick cornice. The St Leonard's Road elevation had timber-clad balconies and the rear one had
access corridors running across every third floor. All the windows had rectangular timber
frames with a thick profile that contrasted with the horizontal rhythm of the balcony fronts.
The maisonettes on floors 15/16 formed a distinctive break in the pattern of the fenestration
and balconies of the flats on the other floors.

Figure 126: 1970’s Area Plan showing Stages I and II8

7
Brownfield Estate Conservation Management Plan (CMP), 5 Dec. 2007, 4.2.13
8
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 4 July 2013

181
 Figure 127: Early View of Phases I and II9

The services were housed in a separate tower so ‘all the noisy machinery such as lift motors,
water pumps, fire pumps, rubbish chutes and so on’ were ‘insulated from dwellings’.10 The
lifts served all entry floors on every third floor and were joined to the residential tower by
seven access walkways with the rounded cross section of a railway carriage. Supported across
the rear elevation on concrete brackets, they rested on neoprene to insulate for sound and to
allow movement between the towers.11 The service tower was topped by a boiler room with a
stepped profile and chimneys. A secondary stair was located at the block’s southern end. The
main entrance at the foot of the tower was approached across a bridge over a ‘moat’. An
underground garage with storage areas was accessed by a ramp following the natural gradient
of the site.12 The principal block in Phase II was Carradale House. At thirty seven metres tall
with eleven floors it was sited perpendicular to Balfron to create the suggestion of a large
courtyard. It had an in-situ reinforced concrete, cross-wall construction and also contained a
car park underneath. Its flats were grouped each side of a central lobby in the service tower
which was connected at the ground, third, sixth and ninth floors. The one and two bedroom
flats were denoted externally by the balconies on the south-facing elevations. Carradale’s
service tower also had slit windows in a stepped pattern, but as it shared Balfron’s boiler, its

9
Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, no. 120, 1966, p.41
10
The Architect’s journal, 22 May 1968, p.1133-4
11
Warburton N. (2003), p. 156
12
Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, no. 120, p.41; no. 130, 1967, p.50-1

182
top did not project out but had gargoyles resembling those found in Le Corbusier’s later works.
Carradale’s main entrance was reached across a bridge on the north elevation.13

Figure 128: Site Plan Phase I and II14

13
List Entry Number: 1334931 <http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk> [retrieved 2 July 2013]
14
Adapted from plan in Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, no. 120, p.40

183
Visually, the blocks do not deny their weight and mass. They were given a bush hammered
finish to control weathering and their volume is modelled by the deeply recessed balconies
and ‘projected box balconies’. The facades’ hierarchy was broken down with domestic scale
elements like window screens, flower boxes and flashings to balconies and the repetition of
these helps unify the whole. Tenancy separation, fire protection and noise insulation were
enhanced by the setting forward of the concrete frame beyond the balcony glazing line. This
also provided environmental benefits like shade and shelter.15

Figure 129: Goldfinger’s Drawings of Balfron Tower’s Elevations16

Goldfinger’s Design Methodology

Goldfinger considered that the building’s design and its construction technology should be a
complete composition expressed in a clear architectural language.17 As Dunnett (1983) has
highlighted, in his work ‘spatial freedom and austerity of treatment of the Modern Movement
is combined with a logical, visually comfortable expression of structure, a feeling for balance,
regularity and proportion and a clarity in plan’.18 For the monumental poured concrete frame
he is indebted to his tutor, Auguste Perret, who was able to resolve the classical grid plan with
a reinforced concrete construction. Studies that he undertook during WWII of multi-storey

15
Brownfield Estate Conservation Management Plan (CMP), 4, p.4
16
Image 22053 <https://www.architecture.com/image-library> [accessed 14 Dec. 2014]
17
Dunnett J. ‘The Architect as Constructor’ in The Architectural Review, Feb. 1983, p.46
18
Dunnett J. (1983) ‘A terrible beauty’ in Erno Goldfinger

184
maisonette blocks using a box frame structure, to minimise the risk of collapse in the event of
bombing, became the principle on which his large housing structures would be built.19 Former
Goldfinger employee, John Winter has stated: ‘people had done reinforced concrete before
but he (Goldfinger) was obsessively concerned with good construction…he didn’t like systems,
only tried and tested materials that worked…every building he did has survived pretty well’.20
Another key influence of Perret on Goldfinger was the inclusion of a cornice, as an aesthetic
consideration of the profile of the building against the sky to finish off a building ‘like the hat
on a man’s head’21 Amongst Goldfinger’s other key influences were Adolf Loos and Le
Corbusier whom he met during his time in Paris. Goldfinger had said his thing ‘was decoration-
less’ and that the materials of the construction and their textures, finishes and light provided
the ‘ornament’. 22 These aspects also echoed Perret’s narrative forty years earlier: ‘he who
hides any part of the framework deprives himself of the only legitimate and most beautiful
ornament of architecture…he who hides a pillar makes a mistake…he who erects a false pillar
commits a crime’.23 Goldfinger strongly opposed temporary building, but favouring
standardisation to ‘build more lasting, better equipped and cheaper houses’.24 The moral basis
of his work was CIAM and his high rise towers were in consideration of the environmental
conditions conducive to human welfare: sun, space and greenery. In order to achieve this he
considered it necessary to have ‘high density, high level living, with green spaces and traffic cut
to a minimum’.25 Warburton (2003) has also indicated that Goldfinger’s tower features were
present in a drawing he did for the CIAM cruise to Athens in 1933, which predated aspects of
high rise living that Le Corbusier used in his Unites, but it was only thirty years later that he
had the opportunity to realise his ambition.26 In his first local authority housing commission in
1956, for Watford Rural District Council, he worked out the section that was to become typical
in his housing. Throughout his career, he made use of proportional design systems, as he
indicated ‘I design all my buildings on a proportion derived from the square…and use the
rigorous control of the elements of facades and plans…the plans are also controlled by a grid
of 2 feet 9 inches…this gives me control of scale’.27 He also said ‘since the late 1920’s I have
used rectangles which all resemble each other but have quite different properties. 1:root
squared; 2:3; and the Golden Section (1:1.618)…looking at the building you cannot tell one

19
Dunnett J. (1983) ‘Erno Goldfinger in England’ in Erno Goldfinger, p.82
20
Winter J. quoted in The Brownfield Estate CMP, Dec. 2007, p.103
21
Warburton N. (2003) Erno Goldfinger: the life of an architect, p.34, originally G. May 1955 Gold/389
22
The Brownfield Estate CMP, Dec. 2007, 4.2.10
23
Quoted by Elwall R. (1996), Erno Goldfinger RIBA Drawings Monographs no. 3, p.10
24
Elwall R. (1996), p.67
25
The Architects’ journal, 22 May 1968, p. 1133-4
26
Warburton N. (2003), p.3
27
Goldfinger quoted in The Architects’ journal, 26 July 1957, p.134

185
from the other but when you build up the façade or the plan you must not mix them…they all
have their different, and sometimes conflicting qualities…they are all ‘drumbeats’.28

Figure 130: Goldfinger’s High Rise Living Vision, Drawing of a Modern Urban Enclosure, 194229

Goldfinger published a series of articles that constituted his vision on architecture. 30 These
analysed the psychological effects of enclosing space and the lived experience of architecture
rather than the production of aesthetically pleasing forms. For him, architecture’s aim beyond
providing physical shelter was the result of three integrated factors: functional needs (why it
was made), construction means (available technology) and emotional effect (how it is
experienced). He thought the exterior of a building had purely plastic effects. Seen at a
distance it could be valued for its sculptural qualities but closer to when the eye could not take
in the whole the building was appreciated as an organised surface. Indeed, Stamp (1983)
described Goldfinger’s buildings as: ‘international in conception, arrogant in scale,
unsentimental in finish and rigorous in detail’.31 Goldfinger was committed to solving
architectural problems in a rational way. The strength and consistency of his personality, his
unwillingness to compromise on matters he thought important, together with his pragmatic
policy of reusing successful features of earlier designs resulted in a consistency of approach
throughout his lifetime.32

28
Dunnett J. ‘Roots of Goldfinger's design’ in The Architects’ journal 28 March 1996,p.24-6, Goldfinger quoted from Architectural Review April 1983
29
Reprinted in Balfron Tower CMP, p.104
30
‘The sensation of space’ (Nov. 1941), ‘Urbanism and spatial order’ (Dec. 1941), ‘Elements of enclosed space’ (Jan. 1942), reproduced in
Architectural Review, April 1983
31
Stamp G. (1983), Erno Goldfinger, p.9
32
Warburton N. (2003), p.4

186
 Figure 131: James Dunnett’s Compositional Breakdown of Balfron Tower’s Façade33

Balfron and Carradale’s Detailing

Materials like stone, tiles and mosaics were widely used as finishes throughout the blocks’
common parts. Balfron’s interior had a marble-lined entrance hall and both Balfron and
Carradale had tiled corridors with coloured and sometimes perforated glazed tiles. These
marked and enriched key areas, distinguished between floors and provided human-scale,
decorative and durable elements to contrast against the concrete’s mass. Timber was used
widely to provide another counterpoint to the concrete in window frames, mullions and
screens and in painted form for front doors and kitchen sash windows facing the access
walkway. Sapele hardwood was used for the doors of the entrance routes and at high level in
the hallways. Cedar was used for both blocks’ balcony linings and to enclose internal

33
The Architects journal, 20 Nov 1997, p.34

187
staircases in Caradale’s flats. Metal was used for the window louvers of the access routes, the
flat’s stair and balcony enclosures and for balconies and windowsills. Goldfinger also
experimented with indirect light including: clerestory light in the main hallways and access
corridors where the continuous lighting slots were used to highlight openings or define routes,
sidelights on the access walkways and central glazed panels on the front doors and arrow slits
in the escape stairs and on the tower hallways.34

Figure 132: Balfron Tower with Elderly Persons’ Housing in Foreground35

34
Brownfield Estate CMP, 4, p.111-4
35
Image 2756-20 <https://www.architecture.com/image-library> [accessed 14 Dec. 2014]

188
 Figure 133: Carradale House36

Figure 134: Balfron Tower from Carradale House37

36
Image 28975 <https://www.architecture.com/image-library> [accessed 14 Dec. 2014]
37
Image 3514-62 <https://www.architecture.com/image-library> [accessed 14 Dec. 2014]

189
 Figure 135: Balfron’s Rear Elevation38

Balfron and Carradale Flats

Dwellings are entered via the access walkways and sets of three front doors are grouped
together. The middle leads to a flat at corridor level and the outer two have steps leading
either up or down to the accommodation. Living rooms and kitchens face the balcony and
bedrooms are located either above or below the access walkway. ‘Downstairs’ dwellings
contained an escape way, back up to the access walkway, which also allowed maintenance
access to the service duct.39 All dwellings have spacious, private balconies and frontages
defined by Goldfinger’s structural planning grid to streamline production and standardise
detailing (22ft in Balfron, 22ft 9in in Carradale). The dwellings were planned to achieve an
impression of spaciousness and light and have large screen-windows facing onto the balcony.
Those located above or below the access walkways are double aspect with full height partially
glazed screens. Dwellings on the walkway level (excluding end ones) have a single aspect with

38
2758-20 <https://www.architecture.com/image-library> [accessed 14 Dec. 2014]
39
LBTH, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment Report, 5 Dec. 2007, p.40

190
screens and a kitchen sash window opening onto the access walkway. End dwellings are wider
than those in the typical bays with a triple aspect.

Figure 136: Typical Balfron Flat Layout40

40
Adapted from Goldfinger Associates drawings, RIBA Goldfinger archive

191
All floors were screeded for sound insulation and double glazing and concrete walls provided
acoustic and fire protection. The interiors were planned with simple fit outs: timber partitions
between the concrete floor slabs and cross walls, and standardised detailing. Although the
dwellings were small the quality of services and accommodation was considered good for the
time. The use of sliding-doors, screens and built in cupboards optimised use of the limited
space. Some bedrooms had screens with solid panels so the rooms could be further
subdivided. Kitchens were fitted with built-in cupboards, ventilated larders, stainless steel
work surfaces and deep sinks. Goldfinger had made studies of kitchens measuring the activity
of the housewife and the fixtures were laid out to contribute to an increased quality of space
at the domestic scale.41 Dunnett (1983) has indicated that the flats’ technical specification was
high with attention to detail found in elements like the hermetically sealed double glazing and
the specially designed kitchen electrical control panels and light switches that were integral
with the metal door frames.42

Feedback on Balfron Living

In Feb. 1968 Goldfinger and his wife moved into Balfron’s flat 130 where they lived for two
months to experience the enclosed space he had created. He had stated: ‘families will spend
most of their lives in the flats I design. I want to experience, at first hand, the size of the
rooms, the amenities provided, the time it takes to obtain a lift, the amount of wind whirling
around the tower and any problems which might arise from my designs so that I can correct
them in the future’.43 In reporting his findings to the GLC he considered the building successful
‘socially’ because the people had ‘deep roots’ in the neighbourhood and the access corridors
reflected the previous East-end pavement pattern. As far as possible, people had been
rehoused together, street by street with only two of the 160 families coming from outside the
borough.44 Goldfinger had found that the tenants had taken to ‘high living’ and that they liked
their flats, particularly the floor level windows. He found some criticisms of a ‘technical kind’
as well as a ‘general lament’ about the lack of communal facilities that were still being
completed at that time. One major problem was that the residents had not received
information on the building’s facilities. Indeed, most complaints in the first weeks of
habitation came from the Council’s oversight in not providing information on how the heating
and hot water system worked, or advice on how to clean the windows. Then GLC leader,
Plummer, also confirmed there were some ‘teething troubles’ but he too considered ‘high

41
Brownfield Estate CMP, 4.2.12
42
Dunnett J. (1983) Erno Goldfinger, p.82
43
Warburton N. (2003), p.159, originally The Evening News, 13 Feb. 1968
44
Warburton N. (2003), p.161, originally East London Papers, vol. 12, no 1, 1969, p.33-42

192
living’ gave ‘decent conditions’. Goldfinger noted the design improvements needed, like to
improve dwelling front doors and ventilation. He found one of the most inadequate features
was that there were only two lifts in Balfron (three lifts he been intended but the Council had
refused this45) which resulted in long delays for users when people were moving in or out or
needing to transport large items. He concluded that he was ‘satisfied with the general
disposition’ and that he was ‘prepared to repeat the same design features in future
schemes’.46

Figure 137: Goldfinger in his Balfron Flat47

His stay in Balfron generated much positive press coverage but also some criticism. Alan Fox
writing to The Guardian asked: ‘whom is he trying to fool – himself or us? Does he really think
anything of sociological value can be gained from a few weeks? It would take an energetic
child that time to get over the novelty of looking down on the world from 200 feet up before
he realised that he would be physically separated from it. Does the GLC really have to build
this block to find out how long a person will wait for a lift, the effects of wind, or the layout of
the rooms? I do not think so’. Goldfinger, quick to refute accusations, replied: ‘May I assure
Mr Alan K. Fox that I do not intend to fool him and his friends, the public at large or myself. I
simply try to check, pragmatically, if the solution to the brief has, in fact been successful. The
architect’s job is to implement the sociologist’s brief. He builds the houses in which not one

45
Henrietta Billings, C20 Conservation Advisor, talk, 27 Aug. 2014
46
The Architects’ journal, 22 May 1968, p. 1133-4
47
<http://www.psfk.com/2012/09/homes-british-star-architects.html> [retrieved 25 June 2015]

193
but several generations of people will spend a lifetime. He obviously has to have ‘a perception
of living’ equal to his job. As to Mr Fox’s question if the GLC has ‘to build…to find out about
wind, layout’ etc. – this is simply putting the cart before the horse. His remarks about the
power of perception of children are very unjust to children. To reassure himself, he should talk
to the people who live in dwellings I have designed and not just theorise in vacuo’.48
Warburton (2003) has confirmed that Goldfinger’s stay was appreciated by the tenants.
Shortly after he returned to his Hampstead home, however, the Ronan Point disaster wiped
out any positive publicity he may have generated. Goldfinger visited Ronan Point and was
convinced that its frailty stemmed from using pre-fabricated elements. He considered his
buildings were far superior and less susceptible to this kind of failure declaring: ‘I do not hold
with any heavy prefabricated system…poured concrete is three times better’.49

Brownfield in Decline

The Brownfield Estate suffered from a lack of maintenance and social problems over the years
which was reflected in the poor condition of the fabric of the buildings and the estate
landscaping. Dunnett (1983) highlighted that features like Balfron’s marble cladded entrance
hall and its plate glass doors did not ‘long survive the attack of vandals’ and he considered that
‘better management than it currently receives is required to maintain the quality of the
environment’.50 In the 1980’s Balfron’s cornice and boiler room were removed due to
concrete decay and the concrete boiler flutes were replaced with metal ones. As an advocate
of high rise living, Goldfinger became vilified in the press. In 1983, art critic Sewell rallied: ‘let’s
kill off Erno’s sad eyesore’, describing Goldfinger as ‘no more than a pimple on the rump of
Wren’.51 Warburton (2003) considers that those who have lived in his buildings know his
success as an architect goes far beyond creating external forms that are pleasing to the eye of
architectural historians. And although some of his inhabitants still rail against him, in most
cases the blame for the building’s shortcomings lies with those charged with maintaining and
servicing them rather than with the architect himself. Warburton calls this the ‘fallacy of
architectural omnipotence’ and the idea, he feels is unique to Modern architecture, that
whatever happens in and to a Modern building is somehow the architect’s fault and
responsibility. As Warburton stated often the architect was powerless to affect local authority
policy on upkeep, amenities and security. Goldfinger had actually advocated the inclusion of

48
Warburton N. (2003), p.159, Fox The Guardian 17 Feb. 1968, Goldfinger The Guardian, 21 Feb. 1968
49
Warburton N. (2003), p.161-2, originally Sydenham Gazette, 23 May 1968
50
Dunnett J. (1983), p.82
51
Warburton N. (2003), p.3, originally The Evening Standard, 20 Sept. 1993, p.32

194
concierge systems in the Brownfield Estate buildings but LBTH refused to institute these.52 It
was not until the 1990’s that CCTV cameras and a concierge service were introduced.

Figure 138: The Brownfield Estate in the 1990’s53

Conservation of the Brownfield Estate

In 1995 LBTH planned to replace Balfron’s south and east façade glazing to upgrade sound
insulation because of works to widen the Blackwall Tunnel Northern Approach. Residents
opposed secondary glazing installation as it would have had to have been carried out inside
the flats so replacing the windows was seen as the viable solution. Due to budget constraints,
however, a standard uPVC window was selected which did not match the geometry of the
original windows. It had storm casements set proud of the surrounding frame, unlike the
original flush fitting window and frame detail.54 Dunnett (1995) called them a ‘crude
replacement’ and argued that the existing window design was ‘unarguably an important
feature of the original Goldfinger design’ which would be ‘irretrievably altered by the proposed
scheme’ so he preferred replacing ‘like with like’.55 He applied for Balfron to be spot-listed to
prevent ‘the inappropriate alterations’. Despite lengthy negotiations, LBTH refused to replace

52
Warburton N. (2003), p.3
53
Carradale House Design and Access Statement, p.5
54
O’Rourke M. (2001) ‘The Lansbury Estate, Keeling House and Balfron Tower: Conservation issues and the Architecture of Social Content’, p.175-6
55
Building Design, 26 May 1995, p.1

195
the windows with a design sympathetic to the original so EH recommended listing and Balfron
was awarded Grade II status in March 1996.56 Its list entry describes: ‘Balfron Tower is the
earliest of the two large blocks of flats and maisonettes that were arguably the most important
commissions of his (Goldfinger’s) career. Balfron Tower has a distinctive profile that sets it
apart from other tall blocks. More importantly, it proved that such blocks could be well
planned and beautifully finished, revealing Goldfinger as a master in the production of finely
textured and long-lasting concrete masses’.57

In 1998, with EH’s support, the Balfron Tower Conservation Area was designated to protect the
environment around the tower and prevent demolition of unlisted buildings forming part of
the original group. According to Croft (1996) Conservation Area designation offers protection
to the unlisted buildings forming an important part of an estate and it safeguards the setting of
the listed buildings and the quality of the landscaping. It also means the local authority has a
duty to formulate and publish proposals for the Conservation Area’s preservation and
enhancement and it allows for the possibility of funding through a Conservation Area
Partnership Scheme.58 EH also now recognises that some conservation areas are made up
largely or even entirely of 20th Century development but that this is ‘often the most
undervalued and vulnerable period of building and landscaping’ and it considers it important
to recognise the contribution made by more recent buildings.59

In 2000 Carradale House was listed.60 Its list entry indicates: ‘Balfron Tower and Carradale
House form a strong group, with the relatively long and low form of the latter complementing
the tall block of Balfron’ and that it is ‘a distinctive, unique reworking of the ideas first
embraced in Balfron Tower’. Without earlier protection, however, windows to Carradale’s
south and east elevations had been renewed in uPVC in 1999. In March 2007 LBTH adopted
Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Guidelines (CAAMG) to help manage the
estate as a Conservation Area. They aim to ensure: ‘sensitive new development and
refurbishment where appropriate to successfully preserve and enhance the quality and
character of the area’. They specify the open spaces, designed at the same time as the
buildings, are integral to the quality of the area and the arrangement of the buildings means
there is ‘little scope for new development within the Conservation Area’.61

56
Building Design, 22 March 1996, p.24, The Architects' journal, 21 March 1996, p.15
57
List Entry Number: 1334931 <http://list.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 3 July 2013]
58
Croft C. (1996) ‘Alexandra Road, London’, p.51
59
EH (2011) Understanding Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management, 2.2.9
60
List Entry Number: 1246931 <http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk> [retrieved 3 July 2013]
61
Balfron Tower Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Guidelines (CAAMG), 2007, p.9, p.6

196
 Figure 139: Balfron Tower Conservation Area62

The CAAMG recommended action to improve the open spaces, especially that between
Balfron and Carradale, subject to LBC and based on ‘an understanding of the original design
intent to ensure that the significance of the buildings is not compromised by insensitive work’.
They also stated that the most effective way to secure the historic environment is to ensure
that the buildings continue to contribute to the life of the local community and that they

62
Balfron Tower CAAMG, p.3

197
should fund their own maintenance and refurbishment, but that economic reasons alone
would not justify the demolition or alteration of a building in the Conservation Area. Priorities
for action were listed as: preparation of a detailed Conservation Plan, reinstatement of missing
original architectural features and securing appropriate new use for the car park at Balfron
Tower.63 An Estate Conservation Management Plan (CMP) was duly introduced Dec. 2007. 64 It
identified each key element to be protected and made recommendations for works to ensure
appropriate conservation in relation to its significance or special interest. This ranges from the
main structural elements, like the bush hammered concrete, to the more decorative elements
that should be preserved, like the tiled interiors.

The CMP also indicated Goldfinger’s writings suggest views from the roads and the experience
of the estate at speed are important, hence the spacing and the planned views towards and
between the buildings.65 Numerous perspectives from the road were drawn by Goldfinger’s
office and the CMP recommended these be taken into account in the significance of the
estate’s setting when considering any developments on its immediate boundaries. The CMP
also emphasised the importance of the estate’s preservation as a whole indicating: ‘the setting
of the Brownfield Estate is part of its local history and provides the environment from which
the listed buildings are seen and experienced’. It recommended that the immediate setting,
defined by the outer edges of the principal plot, remains. It also stressed that ‘the
preservation of space is as important as conservation of the buildings and that the fact that an
area of site currently landscaped might appear theoretically available for infill development
does not mean that such an intervention would be compatible with the correct understanding
of the building ensemble as an urban composition’. It also indicated that Balfron Tower,
Carradale House and Glenkerry House were dominant features in the immediate
neighbourhood and should remain so; that significant views of these must be considered and
any new building development should not challenge the dominance and height of Balfron
Tower and avoid obscuring the main views of Carradale House. It listed several views that
should be protected, including one from Willis Street that revealed the west elevations of
Glenkerry and Balfron together. It also suggested that if any high building were to be
considered it should not be located any nearer than the north west corner of the Willis Street
car park, neither should it rise any higher than Balfron Tower, if the latter’s significance were
not to be challenged.66 The plan’s conclusions are detailed below.

63
Balfron Tower CAAMG, 2007, p.17
64
The Brownfield Estate CMP, 4.6
65
The Brownfield Estate CMP, p.100, originally Goldfinger Archive
66
The Brownfield Estate CMP, 4, 5.3

198
 Figure 140: Brownfield Estate CMP Conclusions67

67
The Brownfield Estate CMP, 4

199
The Brownfield Estate Regeneration

In Dec. 2007, following a residents’ ballot, LBTH transferred ownership of Balfron, Carradale
and the low-rise housing (excluding Glenkerry House) to Poplar HARCA, who became the
estate freeholders.68 Refurbishment was a condition of the stock transfer and in 2008 plans
were announced for a £50m refurbishment and £34m investment in new housing, including
renovation of Balfron at an estimated cost of £137,000 per flat. With little public funding,
projected sales revenue from the new housing was a critical part of the business plan. In Oct.
2008 Poplar HARCA indicated: ‘we are striking a balance between the historical significance
and the future survival’. Scheme architects, PRP, indicated Balfron was being given a ‘sensitive
update rather than a wholesale upheaval’ but that an underlying problem was the conflict
between ‘brutalist authenticity', where the building's structural elements could be read in the
façade, and sustainability. With no scope to ‘over-clad’ as the building was listed, internal wall
insulation was needed to help meet current building standards and retain the visual integrity
of the exterior facade. Windows would now be replaced with timber-aluminium composites.
As the concrete fabric was still in good condition it would be cleaned and repaired. Internally
many of Balfron's finishes had proved resilient so these would be repaired and matched as
appropriate. Plans also included retention of a ‘heritage flat’ showcasing examples of original
fittings recovered during the renovation. Approval was also obtained in Jan. 2010 to demolish
some buildings outside the Conservation Area and to erect a 20 storey building on the Willis
Street car park.69 Although the car park lies within the Conservation Area, because no
demolition was involved, Conservation Area Consent was not required.70

The principle of a tall building on this site had been accepted and subsequent discussions
focussed on its height and design. A Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment in 2009 had
indicated it did not ‘challenge the dominance of the Balfron Tower as the main focus of the
estate’ and that the proposal was ‘subservient to the listed buildings in scale but
complementary in design’. It also concluded: ‘the Balfron Tower Conservation Area will be
enhanced through an appropriately designed building which will redevelop a vacant site and
provide a high quality designed building based on Goldfinger’s original design principles for
Balfron Tower. The design response builds on local characteristics and uses the local palette of
materials to ensure that the building will be a complementary addition to the Conservation

68
Poplar HARCA, established 1998, UK’s first Local Housing Company, Registered Social Landlord and Registered Charity, owns and manages 8,500 ex-
council homes in Poplar; Glenkerry House is owned by a housing co-operative
69
LBTH Planning applications: PA/08/01132, PA/09/02100, PA/12/01160
70
LBTH, Brownfield Planning & Regeneration Statement, Oct. 2009, 8.3

200
Area. The orthogonal plot pattern is maintained, with the proposal including a significant area
of landscaping, maintaining Goldfinger’s original ethos for the estate’.71

Figure 141: Actual and Proposed Views of Glenkerry and Balfron from Willis Street, 200972

It was reported that scheme proposals had been discussed with residents, the GLA, LBTH, EH
and the C20 Society and that a ‘broad agreement’ had been reached with the various parties
‘on the approach taken’.73 CABE’s review of the scheme in Jan. 2010, however, was scathing.
They did not consider it had ‘the necessary design quality needed to have a positive impact on
this part of Poplar’, that it lacked ‘depth of thinking’ and that the wider issues of the estate in
terms of public space, relations between proposed and existing buildings and future
developments beyond the site boundaries, had not been taken into account. Although CABE
thought a case could be made for a tall building on this site, they considered a convincing one
had not been made that met the design quality or sustainability standards set out in their
Guidance on Tall Buildings. This specifies that applicants seeking planning permission for tall
buildings should ensure the impact of the proposal is fully assessed with the effect on the
historic context to ensure it preserves and/or enhances historic buildings, sites, landscapes and
skylines. It also states that new proposals must address the effect on the setting of, and views
to and from historic buildings, sites and landscapes, including listed buildings and those in
conservation areas.74 CABE felt the proposal failed to ‘convince as a positive contribution to
the Conservation Area, that the architectural expression of the tower was poor, that it neither
successfully reinterpreted Goldfinger’s architectural language nor had it developed a quality of
its own.75

71
LBTH, Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment Report, Oct. 2009, 7
72
LBTH, Heritage and Visual impact Assessment Report, Oct. 2009, p.26
73
LBTH Brownfield Planning & Regeneration Statement, Oct. 2009, 9.3/12
74
CABE/EH (2007) Guidance on tall buildings, 4.1.2
75
CABE Review of planning application: PA/08/01132 <http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk> [retrieved 4 June 2013]

201
 Figure 142: Brownfield Estate Regeneration Plan showing Location of Willis Street Tower76

76
LBTH Planning Application: LA/100019288

202
LBTH conversely considered the proposals would ensure an ‘acceptable amount of affordable
family housing’ and that they would have ‘no impact on the strategic views, listed buildings,
open spaces, traffic or parking impact’. EH was reported to have not raised any objections.
The development generated a mixed response locally. Local resident, Malcolm Millington,
acknowledged there was a shortage of affordable family homes in the area but considered the
dwellings in the Willis Street Tower would be too expensive for local residents. He was also
concerned that the new development took away open space in the area and agreed with CABE
that the proposals would harm the Conservation Area, particularly in in relation to increased
traffic. Another local resident, Colin Woollard, stated there was a large contingency of local
residents who supported the application. Recognising that the housing shortage was an
increasing problem, they considered the proposal would meet people’s needs and it was
environmentally friendly as it would be a car free zone.77

Figure 143: Glenkerry and Balfron from Willis Street, Panoramic Tower in Foreground, 2014

Figure 144: Computer Image of Panoramic Tower and Built Reality, 201478

77
LBTH Planning Report PDU/2450/02, 26 March 2010, Planning application PA/09/02100, LBTH Strategic Planning Report Feb. 2010
78
Computer image <http://www.poplarharca.co.uk/search/content/willis%20tower> [retrieved 3 July 2013]

203
 Figure 145: View of Glenkerry with Panoramic Tower in Background, 2014

Figure 146: New Homes on the Brownfield Estate, Panoramic Tower in Background

Despite the concerns approval was given and Panoramic Tower was completed in 2013.
Although at twenty storeys it is seven floors lower than Balfron, it is a dominant feature in the
area and its mass effectively divides Goldfinger’s planned view of the west elevations of
Glenkerry House and Balfron Tower that were intended to be seen together. Other new

204
developments and improvements in the immediate vicinity of the Balfron Tower Conservation
Area have also been approved and building work is currently underway. These are works to
improve landscaping and also to provide new homes in the form of low ‘infill’ buildings.
Although these do not challenge or impact on Goldfinger’s original Brownfield design they still
reduce the area’s amount of open space and demonstrate the pressure that the local authority
is under to build on available land to provide much needed affordable housing in this area.

In 2010 Poplar HARCA planned the refurbishment of Balfron and Carradale.79 Residents were
initially to have had the option to stay in their homes, or to move into new low-rise homes
nearby, in which case the vacated dwellings would be sold to finance the works. In the event
the location and configuration of the services meant these could only be accessed via the
dwellings themselves and their replacement involved cutting works to each dwelling’s external
wall. It was not considered feasible for residents to remain in occupation during these works
and without sanitary facilities whilst the service pipes were replaced. In Oct. 2010 residents of
both blocks were sent notice that they would be required to move out with no undertaking on
whether they could return. In Dec. 2010 it was reported how distressed some residents had
become because of the uncertainty over where they would soon be living and that Poplar
HARCA needed to sell 130 homes, mostly in Balfron, to fund the works making it unlikely that
tenants would be able to return there.80 According to Paul Augarde, Head of Creativity and
Innovation at Poplar HARCA, however, since 2010 the HARCA had been working with Balfron,
Carradale and Brownfield residents, discussing the refurbishment, the technical and financial
position, residents’ individual needs and ambitions and helping them to find new homes as
required. The HARCA had held regular weekly surgeries on the estate, visited and engaged
personally with each resident/leaseholder and updated/discussed the project with the
Brownfield Estate Board. A large majority of Balfron’s former tenants moved to local new
homes, including a number to the newly refurbished Carradale House. The remainder moved
to homes within Tower Hamlets.81 Balfron Tower flat owner and resident association member,
Eleanor Fawcett, has also confirmed that most residents were living in very overcrowded
conditions. In some cases four generations of the same family were sharing in a two bedroom
flat. The flats were also particularly unpopular with residents with children and/or disabled
family members. Consequently most welcomed the opportunity to move into larger
accommodation with a garden.82 Carradale’s refurbishment was completed in August 2014
and its flats are now occupied. Its planning application had identified which works would have
79
PRP Project Services Ltd Report for Poplar HARCA on the Balfron Tower Delivery Strategy (AP1499) Aug. 2010, p.10
80
Kleebauer A. In East London Advertiser, 21 Dec. 2010
81
Augarde P. Head of Design and Innovation, interview, 13 Oct. 2014
82
Interview, 3 June 2014

205
an impact of architectural significance, necessitating a LBC application together with guidance
on alterations which would be likely to be incompatible with LBC criteria.83 The blocks have
been renovated and the concrete has been cleaned. The restored dwellings’ balcony facades
have new timber linings, white painted woodwork to balcony windows and doors and balcony
black metal railings, consonant with Goldfinger’s original design.

Figure 147: Refurbished Carradale House

83
LBTH, Carradale House Heritage Statement, June 2010

206
Due to its poor condition in 2011 Balfron Tower was included in EH’s Heritage at Risk Register
(condition: Very bad; vulnerability: Medium, Trend: Deteriorating). As an interim measure
pending the refurbishment artists were offered live/work accommodation within the tower.
The scheme provides affordable homes for artists at no additional cost to the HARCA and it
also creates social investment directly into the community from the rental income produced. 84
In January 2014 Poplar HARCA entered into a joint partnership with developers
Londonewcastle and the tower’s two year refurbishment was expected to start in 2015. The
planning application, however, proposed dramatic changes to the appearance of the building
which included removing the white timber windows from the principal facade and replacing
them with dark brown aluminium frames. Inside, original hard finishes, like the quarry tiles to
the access corridors would be lost, and the plan form of the building would be changed. The
C20 Society considered that these were ‘drastic and unjustified changes that will harm the
character and appearance of the building, and the wider estate’.85

On 15 Oct. 2015 EH also announced a listing upgrade for the tower to grade II*. The upgraded
listing description includes: ‘Architectural interest: strikingly sculptural, it is the precursor and
model for Goldfinger’s modernist high-rise towers, and a manifestation of the architect’s
rigorous approach to design and of his socialist architectural principles’ and ‘Materials and
construction: concrete aggregate, exceptionally fine bush-hammered concrete finishes and
precise joinery, establishing a consistency in planning, palette of materials and aesthetic
applied across the estate’.86 Following the listing upgrade, the C20 Society called on LBTH to
re-assess the proposals and either refuse the current scheme or secure major modifications
from the applicant. C20 Society Director, Catherine Croft, said: ‘It is great to see the historic
and architectural qualities of this building celebrated through its grade II* listing. It also sends
a strong signal about the importance of historic fabric and architectural authenticity. We
strongly urge the applicants to re-think their scheme and celebrate this building by enhancing
its special qualities rather than seeking to ‘transform it. With the current resurgence of
interest in post-war buildings, there has never been a better time to work with the
architecture rather than against it. The current proposals require a rethink and a conservation
led approach’.87

84
<http://www.bowarts.org> [retrieved 14 April 2014]
85
Twentieth Century Society welcomes Balfron Tower grade II* listed status <http://www.c20society.org.uk/news/twentieth-century-society-
welcomes-balfron-tower-grade-ii-listed-status> [retrieved 14 Dec. 2015]
86
List Entry Number 1334931 <https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1334931> [retrieved 14 Dec. 2015]
87
Twentieth Century Society welcomes Balfron Tower grade II* listed status <http://www.c20society.org.uk/news/twentieth-century-society-
welcomes-balfron-tower-grade-ii-listed-status> [retrieved 14 Dec. 2015]

207
Figure 148: The Old and the New, Carradale and Balfron, Aug. 2014

208
 Figure 149: Balfron, Prior to Refurbishment, Aug. 2014

Figure 150: Balfron’s Service Tower, Podium and Lower Service Areas, 2014

209
Trellick Tower and the Cheltenham Estate, North Kensington

Site History

The area where Goldfinger’s second commission would be built remained fairly
underdeveloped until opening of the Paddington branch of the Grand Junction Canal and the
Great Western Railway in the early 1800’s. Building of tightly-packed, small houses proceeded
in the late 1800's, mainly for railwaymen and migrants. In the 1900’s there was severe
overcrowding and over 55% of the inhabitants were classified as 'in poverty'.88 In 1950 a
twenty acre site bounded by Bosworth Road, Kensal Road and the railway was scheduled for
clearance. Eleven acres west of Golborne Road were redeveloped to plans by William Holford
in 1969. The remainder was redeveloped by the GLC to Goldfinger’s designs and called the
Cheltenham Estate. The site joined six acres of open space running along Regents Canal. To
the west was the shopping street, Golborne Road, and the south was bounded by newly
constructed thoroughfare, Elkstone Road. The development closed five roads and created a
predominantly pedestrian precinct of seven acres. Goldfinger highlighted that this
rearrangement saved 2.8m2 of public carriageway replacing it with a single main traffic artery
and pedestrian ways. The buildings were arranged so that only the gable walls of the terrace
houses and the elderly persons’ home gardens faced the traffic.89

Figure 151: 1870’s Area Map90

88
Survey of London: volume 37: Northern Kensington (1973), originally Charles Booth, Life and Labour of the People in London, vol. 1, 1902, p. 243
<https://www.british-history.ac.uk> [retrieved 15 Dec. 2013]
89
The Architects' journal, 10 Jan. 1973, p.79-96
90
Digimap, accessed 12 Aug. 2013

210
 Figure 152: 1950’s Area Map before Redevelopment91

The Cheltenham Estate Design

The Cheltenham Estate comprised 317 dwellings and was built in two phases. Phase I
consisted of three principal blocks (A, B and C) containing a nursery and shops and four low
terraces (D1-4). In Phase II had a further terrace (D5) and a six storey block (E) with a club
room, an elderly persons’ home and underground parking. Four acres of the site were
designated as open space with areas for ball games, playgrounds and grassed spaces. The
brief had been given to Goldfinger in 1966 and Phase I was completed in Sept. 1972. The
development was estimated to have cost £2.1m (excluding nursery and shops). Block A
(Trellick Tower) is joined to Block B by a central service tower. Dwellings in both blocks are
accessed from the entrance hall in the service tower at street level on Golborne Road. A
91
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 12 Aug. 2013

211
service entrance was also provided for moving furniture and accessing garages. Goldfinger,
true to his word ensured three lifts were provided and at 322 feet high, with 31 floors, Trellick
Tower became the tallest public housing building in the UK. A nursery school and doctors’
surgery were located underneath it and below that, two floors of tenants stores and three
floors of garages. Both blocks follow Balfron’s arrangement with dwellings grouped in sets of
three storeys to enable the lift to stop at every third floor. Bridges similarly connect the
service tower to the access galleries. Block A has ten access level floors and Block B, with six
floors has bridges serving floors three and six. Underneath Block B are two floors of six shops,
the higher of which opens on to an arcade. The second floor of the service tower contained a
clubroom and drying rooms. Hobby rooms were also located on intermediate floors.

Figure 153: 1980’s Area Map showing the Cheltenham Estate 92

92
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 12 Aug. 2013

212
Key: 1 - Block A (31 storey), 2 - Block B (7 storey), 3 - Service tower, 4 – Garage, 5 – Elderly people’s home, 6 - Block
C (6 storey), 7 - Blocks D (3 storey), 8 – Garage, 9 - Block E (6 storey), 10 - Reserved for Mission Hall, 11 - Service
yard, 12 - Nursery school play area, 13 – Playground, 14 - Ball games

Figure 154: The Cheltenham Estate Site Plan 93

The facades of the estate buildings have a strong and consistent rhythm expressed through
their cross walls and horizontal concrete bands. The bush-hammered in-situ reinforced
concrete with pre-cast pebble finished panels and brickwork defines the external appearance
of the whole estate. Blocks A and B and the service tower were built entirely in in-situ
reinforced concrete with a cross wall construction. Precast concrete elements were used for
the stairs, access bridges, and the cladding on the long elevations. The access galleries’
common areas had a different coloured tiling colour coded floor by floor, reportedly inspired
by the colour of the trams in Goldfinger's native Budapest.94 The external landscaping was also
constructed with in-situ reinforced concrete to create play spaces, retaining walls, ramps,
stairs and bridges. The low blocks consisted of load-bearing brickwork with either reinforced
concrete or timber floors.95

93
Adapted from The Architects' journal 10 Jan. 1973, p.79
94
Building Design, 10 Oct. 2008, p. 20-3
95
The Architects' journal, 10 Jan. 1973, p. 79-96

213
 Figure 155: Early view of Trellick Tower from Hazelwood Crescent96

96
<http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/Trellick%20and%20Edenham%20listed%20status.pdf> [retrieved 13 Aug. 2013]

214
 Figure 156: Goldfinger’s Axonometric of the Cheltenham Estate97

Figure 157: Children Playing outside Trellick and View of the Estate from the Tower98

97
<http://www.rbkc.gov.uk_idoxWAM_doc_Drawing-219690> [retrieved 18 Aug. 2013]
98
<http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/pdf/original_goldfinger_scheme.pdf> [retrieved 18 Aug. 2013]

215
Trellick’s Dwellings

There were nine dwelling types ranging from two room flats to five room (three-storey)
houses. All bathrooms were internal and mechanically ventilated. The majority of dwellings
had private balconies, south facing (Block A) and facing west (Block B). The ‘fully equipped’
kitchens had stainless steel sinks, mixer taps, cupboards and ventilated larders. There were
outside stores and fitted cupboards in all but the main bedrooms. Windows were either
reversible for cleaning or sliding for easy access to the balcony. ‘Stable doors’ were positioned
between kitchens and balconies for child safety. Some dwellings had sliding partitions for sub-
dividing double bedrooms into two single bedrooms. Electric socket outlets containing
electrical, telephone and television wiring were on a specially designed skirting trunking,
projecting only ¼ inch from the face of the plaster. As at Balfron, light switches were
incorporated into the metal door frames. Heating was provided from the central boiler and
was piped to a hot air heat exchanger in each dwelling and distributed through specifically
designed glass fibre ducts. Hot water to kitchens and bathrooms was by means of under-sink
electrical heaters.

Figure 158: Cutaway Model showing Flat Layout and Interlocking Stairs99

99
Adapted from The Architects' journal 10 Jan. 1973, p. 81

216
 Figure 159: Plans and Section showing Typical Flat Layout100

100
Adapted from The Architects' journal 10 Jan. 1973, p. 81

217
Figure 160: Trellick Common Area Interiors (from top left) Link Bridge, Access Corridor, Service
Tower Window Slits, Main Entrance with Coloured Window Panels

218
 Figure 161: Trellick’s Southern Elevation101

Responses to the Cheltenham Estate

Richardson (1973) considered that by the time Phase I had been completed housing
development had moved on to more ‘high density low-rise schemes’ so to him it appeared
‘anachronistic’. He thought it to be an integrated neighbourhood in that it contained different
sized dwellings and facilities and that it was integrated in terms of materials and detailing but
that the various housing blocks formed ‘decisively separate entities’. He considered the
positioning of the dwelling types ‘curious’ in that the largest were in blocks A and B and not
‘favourable for small children to play on balconies with steep drops the other side’. As the
children grew older he also thought they would find the lifts, stairs and access galleries more
inviting places to play (where they would annoy other people) rather than the long descent to
the ground and the play areas further away. Richardson was very critical of the estate’s setting
indicating: ‘apart from the crushing effect of the slab above you, winds are exaggerated, the
noise of the railway exposed all along the edge of the site echoes back from the face of the
building and the view is to the motorway to the east and the railway below…the public open
space to be formed along the canal should to some extent relieve the pressure within the site
itself but I fear will not solve its problems’. He also disliked the tower’s distortion of scale with
the surrounding neighbourhood and thought its ‘oppressive quality’ was due not only to its
size, but to its form and treatment describing: ‘the superhuman, broad-shouldered,
honeycomb front, the colossal concrete service pylon perforated with scale-less slots, and its
101
Image IN37280 <http://www.museumoflondonimages.com> [retrieved 12 Dec. 2013]

219
cyclopean eye at the top…it is a quality of almost obsessive insistence on total organisation
which seems to go beyond normal control. Forms are shaped three dimensionally into
patterns with a symmetrical, hieratic, totem-like full frontal quality which reinforce the effects
of size’. He was, however, impressed with the detailing, particularly the marble lined entrance
hall and the heavy hardwood lobby doors with their narrow glazed strips. He liked that the
access galleries’ dwelling wall had been finished with glazed tiles to contrast with the concrete
outer wall and felt the quality of the materials did a great deal for the building, although not
enough to prevent vandals from ‘seeking out the few weak-spots’ like the wired glass and the
light fittings. Richardson also considered the dwellings were spacious and well planned,
particularly highlighting the wide bay frontages, generous balconies, ‘easy to clean’ windows,
stable doors, between balcony and kitchen, and metal door frames with their ‘neat light
switches’. In fact Richardson thought the dwellings were the most successful element and that
‘Goldfinger’s liking for massive scale gives an agreeable simplicity and sturdiness, realized in
bull-nosed 330mm party walls, big ply sheets and broad paned windows’ so that whatever the
tenants’ criticisms had been they were almost invariably prefaced by ‘the flats are lovely’, so
the interiors were certainly enjoyed.102

Figure 162: Trellick’s Main Entrance103

102
Ekistics, Nov. 1973, p. 333-6
103
<http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/35814,> [retrieved 18 aug.2013]

220
Trellick the ‘Tower of Terror’

Work had started on Trellick in 1968, the same year as the Ronan Point explosion, so public
opinion had already turned away from high rise living before it had even been completed.
From the time it was occupied its residents experienced ‘antisocial and criminal behaviour
including vandalism, arson, physical intimidation, even attack of residents, and regular burglary
of flats’.104 As Carroll (1999) has highlighted the cause of its problems has been laid at many
doors including Goldfinger, the tenants and vandals but he considers the GLC was another
‘villain’ as they refused to have a lobby concierge despite residents' pleas.105 Without security
Trellick became a target for crime and uncontrolled access to the public areas allowed
vandalism before the dwellings were even occupied. Trellick often featured in the tabloids as
the ‘Tower of Terror’, and there were stories of ‘women being raped in the elevators, children
attacked by drug addicts, and homeless squatters setting fire to empty flats’. Goldfinger’s
utopian vision for high density housing was dramatically failing. Over Christmas 1972, just
after the tenants had moved in, vandals opened a fire hydrant on the twelfth floor landing
releasing gallons of water into the lift shafts resulting in loss of heating and power for more
than a week. In 1982, the GLC spent over £343,000 on an entryphone system and repairing
electrics, lifts and lights, but breakdowns and system failures continued. In 1984 Trellick joined
Robin Hood Gardens as being voted one of the three worst buildings in London.106

The Tower’s Reprieve

Many people date Trellick’s turnaround to Oct. 1984 when a new residents' association was
formed.107 Its influence developed slowly with petitions on security, phone calls and letters to
the Council, lobbying councillors, articles in local papers and by encouraging other tenants to
help. Gradually things started to improve. Measures were taken to alleviate the problems,
create a more stable community and reduce crime and abuse against people and property.
Although some dwellings had been purchased under Right to Buy the vast majority remained
as social housing (80%).108 In 1986 the Council changed its lettings policy, insisting flats only be
let to those who wanted to live there and surprisingly demand was strong. Other
improvements started: a new hot water system was fitted, a derelict site was redeveloped as a
playground, three new lifts were installed as were new security entrance arrangements, CCTV

104
Buckingham S. (2000) ‘Points and slabs of Interest’ <http://ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/65/slabs/buckingham.html> [retrieved 12 March 2013]
105
Carroll R. ‘how did this become the height of fashion?’ in The Guardian 11 March 1999
106
Building 6 April 1984, p. 10
107
Carroll R., 11 March 1999
108
Goodchild S., Trellick resident, interview, 27 Aug. 2014

221
cameras and in 1994, 24-hour security. Carroll (1999) indicated, when a character in TV’s ‘The
Bill’ scorned ‘who'd want to live in that hell hole?’ twenty-five furious residents wrote to ITV
saying they did. Carroll has described what happened inside the blocks as ‘an evolution’ and
when the residents’ association had formed friendships were forged. But outside nothing
changed, the concrete never shed its austere presence. In 1991 the C20 Society and
DoCoMoMo had written to the DOE to nominate Trellick for listing as they were concerned
about alterations including removal of the block’s cornice and the destruction of the entrance
hallway’s coloured glass panel. They also feared the Council would develop the land in front of
the tower.109 The case received support from Lord Palumbo, then chair of the Arts Council of
Great Britain, who wrote to the DOE to endorse the application. At that time EH were also in
negotiations with the National Trust regarding preservation of Goldfinger’s Hampstead house.
If Goldfinger’s home was considered worthy of protection then potentially the buildings he
had designed could be offered similar protection.110 The listing attempt proved unsuccessful.
At that time Trellick was less than 30 years old and would have had to have been considered
under the 10 year rule. It would also have set a precedent as the first public housing to be
listed.

Figure 163: Trellick’s Iconic Image against the Horizon111

109
Building Design, 12 July 1991, p.5
110
The Architects’ journal, 17 July 1991, p. 7
111
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/willfaichneyphotography/9163191648> [retrieved 26 Sept. 2013]

222
A further listing submission was successful and in Dec. 1998 Heritage Minister, Alan Howarth,
granted Trellick a Grade II* listing (blocks A, B and service tower).112 Its list entry describes:
‘the service tower is a slim and very sculptural composition with narrow, slit windows except
to the fully glazed boiler house, its form a contrast to the highly glazed, trabeated grid of the
main blocks’. It indicates that the tower is ‘the ultimate expression of Goldfinger's philosophy
of high-rise planning’, that it ‘embodies the best ideas of the time on high rise housing’ and it is
‘a nationally important building which is highly regarded by architects and historians as an
outstanding example of Brutalist Architecture’ with ‘iconic status’ as ‘a monumental landmark
that has a great impact on the west London skyline as a piece of ‘urban sculpture’’. Goldfinger
is acknowledged for his ‘meticulous planning, construction and detailing using the best
available constructional and mechanical means at his disposal’ and his striving to create
‘comfortable domestic accommodation’. In 1999 Trellick was ‘the star’ of the London Open
House programme and it has been a favourite ever since. For the 2013 event, queues formed
to view selected flats early in the morning of the open day and the tours were booked up as
soon as the organisers arrived on site.113 The change in appreciation of Goldfinger’s work was
highlighted at a 2002 DoCoMoMo conference held to celebrate his work on the centenary of
his birth. Here former Goldfinger employee, James Dunnett, indicated that Goldfinger’s
reputation was now more established than it ever was and his major works still stand if
somewhat ‘ravaged by the effects of time, neglect and misinterpretation’.114

Trellick’s Refurbishment

In 1996 responsibility for the Cheltenham Estate management had transferred to Kensington
and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (KTMO). Renovation was a condition of the
stock transfer and in 2002 a £16.9m phased renovation was announced to: repair and restore
the tower to ensure it was ‘safe, wind and watertight and to prevent further deterioration of
its exterior’; refurbish internal areas to ‘maintain satisfactory levels of health and safety,
security, community and amenity’ and ‘restore the special architectural and historic interest of
the building’.115 Unlike Balfron, works would be undertaken with residents in occupation. Part
of the renovation proposed replacing all of Trellick’s windows.116 EH had accepted the case for
complete replacement and ‘did not wish to comment on the detail of the replacement unit’. 117

112
List Number: 1246688 <http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk> [retrieved 12 Aug. 2013]
113
The Architects’ journal, 12/19 Aug. 1999, p. 10
114
The Architects’ journal, 10 Oct. 2002, p. 52-3
115
Ref LON/00AW/LSC/2009/0418 <http:// www.residential-property.judiciary.gov.uk> [retrieved 20 June 2013]
116
RBKC Planning applications: LB/05/00165, PP/05/00164
117
EH London Advisory Committee in LB/06/00293, RBKC Observations Conservation and Design Report

223
Both the C20 Society and a number of Trellick’s residents, however, opposed this referring to
an abseiling report that claimed only 8-10% of the windows needed replacing.118 The project
architects, emphasising the difficulties in surveying a large building, indicated the abseilers
were used to get a ‘general feel’ for the work needed and that 8% was a ‘conservative
estimate of the windows that needed replacing’.119 The Trellick Tower Residents Association
(TTRA), however, petitioned against the refurbishment plans. It lodged an objection with RBKC
and offered corrections for the proposed windows that it claimed had been drawn up
incorrectly.120 Dunnett (2005) highlighted that the new sections would be ‘a lot heavier and
the building will look a lot heavier…the windows comprise a large part of the façade of the
tower and are obviously a matter of great concern’. 121 The C20 Society considered the original
windows were ‘elegant, early, double glazing timber framed windows’ that made ‘an
important contribution to the aesthetics of the listed building’.122 They thought the applicants
had not given ‘sufficient evidence to justify such a large intervention’ and that the new
windows differed from the originals ‘to an extent they found ‘unacceptable’’. The architects
had also indicated installation would have to be undertaken using scaffolding, but the C20
Society and residents believed that a cheaper option would be to use a ‘suspended cradle’ to
carry out the work.123

The C20 Society were also concerned that the proposal conflicted with PPS 5 which states:
‘Doors and windows are frequently key to the significance of a building. Change is therefore
advisable only where the original is beyond repair, it minimises the loss of historic fabric and
matches the original in detail. Secondary glazing is usually more appropriate than double-
glazing where the window itself is of significance. As with the building as a whole, it is more
appropriate to deal with timber decay and similar threats by addressing the cause of the decay
rather than treating the symptoms, but where remedial works are shown to be necessary,
minimum interference to achieve reasonable long term stability is the most sustainable
approach’. 124 They considered the principle at stake was one of ‘20th Century architect
designed mass produced products versus older fabric‘, and whether ‘old windows’ are
‘considered more significant than those in 20th Century buildings’. The Society believed that
the philosophy of the replacement scheme seemed to imply the 20th Century windows ‘are less
valuable’ than, for example, windows in a Georgian building. They believed this case should be

118
RBKC LB/05/00165, letter from Tenant’s Association 12 April 2005 to RBKC, Marteck survey 2003
119
The Architects’ journal, 10 March 2005, p. 7
120
RBKC LB/05/00165, Trellick Tower Tenant’s Association Window Reports: Nov. 2003 and June 2004
121
The Architects’ journal, 31 March 2005, p. 4
122
Building Design, 22 Nov. 2002, p.4, ownership details LB/06/00293, planning documents other 59290.pdf
123
The Architects’ journal, 2 June 2005, p. 6, RBKC LB/05/00165 C20 letter of objection, 24 May 2005
124
PPS 5, p.43

224
challenged because it might otherwise ‘set a precedent for an understanding of conservation
which favours the old compared to the new’ and one that ‘negates the economic and
industrial realities of 20th Century buildings and overlooks the merit inherent in the best of
their industrially made elements’. In the Society’s opinion Trellick’s windows were ‘a crucial
element of the building’ contributing ‘significantly to its architectural integrity’ and as they
constituted a great percentage of all the elevations they set an ‘important rigorous rhythm
which defined the surface and appearance of the listed building’ and should be treated ‘as
valuable as windows in any other Grade II* listed building and ought not to be removed unless
no other option is possible’.125 Approval for a revised unit and complete window replacement
was given in April 2006.126 EH were satisfied the applicants had ‘justified the requirement for
the comprehensive replacement of all the windows’ and supported the incorporation of
‘further refinements to the window detailing, thereby achieving a closer visual match to the
Goldfinger original’.127 The C20 Society, however, restated their opposition of whole-scale
replacement and although they appreciated that modifications had been made to ‘resemble
more closely the originals’ they were ‘very disappointed’ that the new frames still differed
considerably from those designed by Goldfinger.128

DoCoMoMo also thought repair rather than whole-scale replacement should be considered
and that the revised application ‘did not demonstrate that the windows could not be
refurbished satisfactorily’.129 Dunnett also felt this was an example of where EH’s attitude
appeared inconsistent with PPS 5. He thought that window replacement in tower blocks was
‘almost automatic’ and that it was particularly unjust in Trellick’s case, as the majority were
found to be ‘in sound or good condition’, probably to their being sheltered by the projecting
balconies. Dunnett also indicated that DoCoMoMo had found contractors able to replace the
windows where necessary with a closer match than that proposed and to ‘renovate with good
guarantees the remainder at much lower cost than renewal’. He felt that wholesale
replacement of such an important feature would ‘scarcely be tolerated in an older structure
like the Chelsea Hospital or Hampton Court, at least not without a detailed technical study’.
Dunnett has since indicated that to save money only the windows on the two narrow end

125
RBKC LB/06/00293, Zeidler C. C20 Society caseworker, letter 4 April 2006
126
RBKC LB/06/00293, planning correspondence shows support and opposition to application; DoCoMoCo also requested Government Office for
London call in the application but they saw no reason to withhold consent (Government Office for London, correspondence 25 March and 25 April
2006)
127
RBKC LB/06/00293, Stones S., EH Historic Buildings and Areas Advisor letter 30 March 2006
128
RBKC LB/06/00293, Zeidler C. letter 20 March 2006
129
RBKC LB/06/00293, Dunnett J. correspondence 3 March 2006, 15 March 2006 (John McAslan and Partners), 27 March 2006 (RBKC)

225
facades are in the first instance to be replaced, but he feels this will unfortunately set a
precedent for the rest.130 Residents were also reportedly concerned about the proposals.131

The project architects defended complete replacement indicating: ‘there was an argument for
preventative repair because of the cost of the scaffolding…it was more cost-effective to do
everything at once’ and although the majority of the windows were in satisfactory condition at
that time many would soon begin to show major defects. RBKC, who were spending a
disproportionate amount of its maintenance budget on the tower, also wanted the
‘reassurance of warranties that new rather than refurbished windows would bring’.
Goldfinger’s proportioning of the elevations and ‘carefully articulated fenestration’ were
recognised as being integral to his design but the replacements also needed to comply with
current regulations and guarantees which could present problems when aiming to ensure a
similar appearance to the originals.132 The replacements were indeed slightly different to
accommodate heavier glass and improve draught and waterproofing. The C20 Society
appreciated the architect's efforts, given the design constraints and the need for a warranty
but was ‘disappointed’ that although 90% of windows were functioning well, ‘the decision was
taken to replace them all’. It believed this was ‘symptomatic of a lack of appreciation of the
actual fabric of post-war buildings’.133 A few original windows will remain in a ‘heritage flat’
recreated with the original 1972 fittings. The replacement windows’ cost was eventually
estimated at £1m, whereas the repair cost would have been about half that amount.

Leaseholders were also reportedly concerned about the amount they would have to incur,
particularly as they had considered repair the more appropriate solution.134 In accordance
with their lease terms costs for these works were added to leaseholder’s service charge costs
for 2008-9. This resulted in 24 of the 34 leaseholders presenting an application for ‘limitation
of landlord’s costs of proceedings’ at a tribunal in March 2010 in which the costs were
contested. The Tribunal considered, however, that a repair option ‘would not provide a long
term solution and therefore there would be an additional cost implication within a fairly short
period of time’. In view of this it determined that the costs were ‘relevant and reasonably
incurred and properly chargeable to the service charge account’. 135

130
Dunnett J. (2007) ‘DoCoMoMo: Questions of Assessment’, p.159
131
RBKC LB/06/00293, letters from Trellick Residents: Nicola Herman, 16 Feb. 2006; Anna Mosler, 3 March 2006
132
RBKC, Observations Conservation and Design in LB/06/0293
133
Croft C. in Building Design, 10 Oct. 2008, p.20-3
134
Building Design, 22 Nov. 2002, p.4, ownership details LB/06/00293 planning documents other 59290.pdf
135
Ref: LON/00AW/LSC/2009/0418, paras. 167-187 <http://www.residential-property.judiciary.gov.uk> [retrieved 20 June 2013], The tribunal
reduced the management fee from 12.5% to 10%, but not to 4% as applicants requested

226
Preservation and Listing of the Cheltenham Estate

In Feb. 2008 residents and heritage groups had also campaigned to oppose a potential
demolition of the other Goldfinger designed buildings. RBKC had commissioned a feasibility
study to consider options for the site, alerting fears of demolition of the unlisted buildings,
especially after the elderly people’s home had received that fate in 2005. A petition calling for
the Council to avert its plans and create a Conservation Area around the site attracted a
number of signatures including those of C20 chair, Alan Powers, and DoCoMoMo’s James
Dunnett. Dunnett was quoted as saying ‘there are only two housing estates by Goldfinger,
around Trellick and around Balfron and we should recognise them for what they are and
protect them’.136 RBKC duly issued a proposed strategy for the land adjacent to Trellick which
required ‘development on the site to deliver in terms of land use allocation: a minimum of
sixty residential units to fund regeneration; improvements to social and community facilities
and housing’. The principle was ‘restoration of the Grade II* listed Trellick Tower’ and in order
to do this it would ‘establish a trust fund to ensure that the profits from redevelopment were
reinvested in the restoration of Trellick Tower and/or other social, community and
regeneration benefits’.137 In July 2009 the C20 Society submitted a bid to get the blocks
around Trellick listed. It also asked that the relationship between the estate and Trellick be
acknowledged in Trellick’s list description and that the blocks ‘be considered as important
architecturally as the tower’ as they ‘express the same dramatic features, but incorporate a
more delicate design’. The Society considered that their destruction would constitute ‘a
dramatic loss of Goldfinger’s legacy’, and as Goldfinger’s work is recognised as nationally and
internationally significant, they represent one of his ‘few surviving low-rise public housing
projects’. The listing bid was reportedly welcomed by local residents.138

In Sept. 2009, and as part of a campaign against demolition, residents with the support of their
local councillor, commissioned their own site master-plan.139 The garage block and access
ramps had been demolished in 1989 and the remaining garages and tenant storage units
beneath the tower had become derelict and unused. Their vision was to ‘highlight Trellick
Tower’ with a large public square where the former garage had been located to provide ‘new
life and amenities for the community, but also for people interested in Trellick Tower and

136
Building Design, 27 Feb. 2009, p.5
137
Policy CA 3; Trellick-Edenham Planning Brief Supplementary Planning Document <https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk> [retrieved 30 June 2013]
138
Building Design, 10 July 2009, p.4
139
<http://www.emmadentcoad.co.uk/a vision for edenham; Goldfinger’s housing at Trellick> [retrieved 12 Aug. 2013]

227
Goldfinger’s architecture’. The plan also included sheltered housing, a health centre, a
community centre, a café and shops.140

Figure 164: Trellick’s Residents Masterplan141

The listing bid was successful and in Nov. 2012 the remainder of the estate was awarded
Grade II status.142 Dunnett was quoted as saying ‘to pull it down would have been
outrageous…that’s no way to treat the setting of one of the greatest pieces of architecture of
the 20th Century…the tower and the setting should be seen as one’.143 Its list entry indicates it
was designated because of ‘architectural interest: a late exemplar of a mixed development
housing scheme…it is highly accomplished in both design and execution’. In respect of
materials and craftsmanship the estate is considered: ‘the best crafted example of a mixed
development scheme of any date, exhibiting the rigorous attention to detail that is a hallmark
of Goldfinger’s best work. Despite increasing restrictions on public spending, the lower blocks
were finished to the exemplary standard seen at Trellick Tower, with the same immaculately
detailed bush-hammered concrete and high-quality brickwork’. The group value is that ‘the
houses and flats form an integral part of the original design and have a strong visual as well as

140
Building Design, 9 Oct. 2009, p. 4
141
<http://www.golbornelife.co.uk_edenhamplans, Novarc Architects> [retrieved 7 Aug. 2013]
142
List Entry Number: 1402356 <http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk> [retrieved 4 Aug. 2013]
143
Building Design, 4 Dec. 2009, p.6

228
social unity with Trellick Tower…the scheme as a whole ranks among Goldfinger’s finest
works’. The residents’ Masterplan, however, was not accepted by RBKC and in 2012 architects
Levitt Bernstein were commissioned to develop a masterplan for the site.144 In July 2014
architects Haworth Thompkins were appointed for the development which will include new
homes provision, 50% of which will be affordable, a landscape strategy and re-use of the car
park behind Trellick.145 At the time of writing, the C20 Society is in pre-planning application
meetings with the designers.146

Figure 165: Renovated Trellick Flat Interiors147

144
Building Design, 21 Dec. 2012, p.3
145
<http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/PDF/Trellick%20and%20Edenham%20newsletter%20issue%203%20June%202013.pdf> [retrieved 12 Aug. 2013]
146
Billings H., talk at C20 Society Event, 27 Aug. 2014
147
<http://www.wowhaus.co.uk/tag/trellick-tower> [retrieved 26 Sept 2013]

229
 Figure 166: Avanti Architect’s Masterplan options 148

The Battle for Protection of Modern Estates

Both the C20 Society and DoCoMoMo UK have campaigned over the years to protect large
Modern Estates like Brownfield and Cheltenham, particularly in relation to their fabric and
spaces. C20 Society caseworker Jon Wright (2011) confirmed their involvement with
numerous London cases where it has defended or tried to protect space on Modern estates.

148
<http://www.rbkc.gov.uk/housingintheroyalborougho/regenerationandcommunity/trellickandedenham/whathashappenedsofar.aspx > [retrieved
15 Aug. 2013]

230
As he indicates, the space between, in front of and around buildings is usually significant for
heritage assets, regardless of their date and the idea of protecting ‘setting’ is well established
in UK statute and in PPS 5, which defines the concept as broader than simply character or
context. 149 Wright feels, however, that the significance of the spaces around buildings and the
various artistic or sculptural elements within them is not seen as important to the overall
significance of the architecture and recent cases have highlighted a particular problem with
the appreciation and protection of spaces that are an architectural element of post-War
buildings. And, as he indicates, Modern architecture is about space, both inside and out
therefore its protection is vital. Wright feels there are a variety of reasons why space, so often
the raison d’être of Modernist projects, comes under threat. At RHG, for example (see
Chapter 7) the site is so attractive for redevelopment because the Smithsons incorporated
such a vast public space as part of the project. Despite the high degree of heritage protection
and adoption of management guidelines Golden Lane Estate has seen its open spaces at risk,
including a scheme to infill the upper level of the recreation block (see Chapter 2). Wright
indicated that the Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates have been ‘long running’ C20 Society
cases and although both are now listed he feels that the Goldfinger’s compositions have been
‘drastically compromised’ largely due to the uneven nature of the listing and the fact that the
whole estate was not listed at the same time as the principal buildings. This has meant that
some estate buildings and structures have been demolished, walkways and garden areas have
been lost and a series of unsympathetic changes have been made to the unprotected low-rise
housing.150

Dunnett (2001) also considers a consideration of specific importance to Modern buildings is

space and this means there are situations where there is only a void and no fabric to conserve,
only its absence. He feels that this is something towards which ‘current architectural culture
seems blind’ and that the spaces in and around Modern buildings are often the ‘point of their
design’ and increasingly ‘vulnerable to encroachment’. He cites Lubetkin’s Priory Green Estate
as a recent example that has been subject to this (see Chapter 7). Dunnett also considers EH’s
policy on tall buildings ‘embraces the Picturesque principle of ‘clustering’ rather than the
spatial approach of the modern movement’.151 Although the guidance indicates that proposals
for new tall buildings should be assessed in relation to context, including natural topography,
scale, height, urban grain, streetscape, built form, open spaces, important views, and
panoramas etc., it also specifies that: ‘proposals for tall buildings should have a positive
149
PPS 5, POLICY HE10: Additional policy principles guiding the consideration of applications for development affecting the setting of a designated
heritage asset, p.33-5
150
Wright J. C20 society Casework Jan. 2011 <http://www.c20society.org.uk/casework/saving-londons-modern-spaces> [retrieved 21 June 2013]
151
Dunnett J. (2007) ‘DoCoMoMo: Questions of Assessment’, p.170-3

231
relationship with relevant topographical features and other tall buildings; the virtue of clusters
when perceived from all directions should be considered in this light’.152

Dunnett also indicates one of the main issues voiced at conferences concerned with the
preservation of Modern buildings by both practitioners and regulators is the need to accept
change.153 He feels that on the face of it this appears reasonable until the details of the
proposed change emerge. Dunnett feels that ‘Modern buildings are at least as sensitive to
apparently minor changes as those of earlier periods and for elements like the ‘design of the
windows’ this often is ‘the architecture’. He indicates that although there may not be ‘a strong
overriding and independent architectural language, such as a classical order within which such
changes can occur, aspects that may be incidental in a Classical building may be central in a
Modern Building’. Furthermore in blocks such as Balfron and Trellick the windows are an
intrinsic element of the façade. EH guidance, however, considers that ’tall blocks could more
easily withstand the impact of new glazing because it is more subsidiary to the impact of the
overall design (see Introduction).154 Dunnett highlights that the loss of original frameless glass
windows of Goldfinger’s Player House in Kingston-on-Thames, an important feature but one
which he feels could have quite simply have been replaced to match, was presented as a
reason for its rejection for listing. With no protection from listing it was demolished in 1994.

Conclusions

‘Goldfinger’s is a demanding architecture, whose place is at the centre of intellectual life’.

James Dunnett155

‘Modernism is still an emotive cause and a band wagon which shows no sign of coming to a
quiet halt’

Andrew Saint 156

These two case studies demonstrate the complexities that can arise in the conservation of
large Modern estates. The means of conserving the window facades of large blocks and
towers, like Balfron and Trellick has divided heritage professionals and due to the technicalities

152
CABE/EH Guidance on tall buildings, July 2007, 4.1.1
153
Dunnett J.(2007), p. 172
154
EH Domestic 4: The Modern House & Housing, p.11
155
Dunnett J. (1983) ‘A terrible beauty’ in Erno Goldfinger
156
Saint A. (1996) Park Hill What Next, p. 7

232
associated with their repair and/or replacement they may demand a different conservation
treatment than that of windows in a listed building from an earlier period. As only the
principal blocks on these estates were listed initially, this allowed the demolition of unlisted
buildings and alterations to estates features and landscaping as they were not considered
important at the time and/or integral to the overall design. This has resulted in a loss of
overall design integrity. The listing of the other estate buildings and external features now
ensures they are now offered more protection. However, both estates continue to face
challenges. Local authorities are under great pressure to redevelop land that they own to
build new affordable housing. They also need to build new housing to fund regeneration and
the restoration costs of the heritage assets. Any new development within the boundary or on
the perimeter of the Goldfinger estates affects the estates’ composition and their setting.
Both the Brownfield and Cheltenham estates eventually obtained listed status, being
considered worthy of protection under the heritage protection system. The final chapter
considers two estates that failed to make this grade and it considers the very different
outcomes that resulted.

233
Chapter 7 Preservation without Designation: Robin Hood Gardens and Wynford House

Figure 167: The Smithsons’ RHG City1

‘The architect or planner will be fortunate if he can add one genuine thing to a city. Let this
thing be large or small it must be big in its solution, its idea immediately apparent to the
ordinary man so that each and everyone can re-orientate himself in relation to it’.

Alison and Peter Smithson2

‘Social circumstances rather than design quality are still what decides whether a building
lives or dies’

Hugh Pearman3

This chapter examines the contrasting fates of Robin Hood Gardens (RHG) and Wynford House
on the Priory Green Estate, which failed to obtain listed status. Both estates suffered from
neglect, vandalism and perceived social problems but their outcomes have been different.
RHG, built 1968-72, to the designs of Alison and Peter Smithson, is being demolished and
serves to demonstrate that heritage values alone are not always thought important enough to
save a famous building. Wynford House, built 1952-78, was designed by Berthold Lubetkin and
Tecton for the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury (MBF). Its renovation has been considered
instrumental in the regeneration of the whole estate.

1
Smithson A and P. (2001) The Charged Void: Architecture, p.299
2
Smithson A and P. (1970) Ordinariness and Light, p.24
3
‘Estates of grace and favour’ in The Sunday Times in 26 Sept. 1993, p.6

231
Robin Hood Gardens, Poplar

Site History

Impetus for site development where RHG would be built came from the East India Docks’
construction. By the late 1800’s living conditions in the area were very poor, prompting
government clearance schemes.4 In 1885 most of the land was sold to developer James
Hartnoll who built seven blocks of 'model dwellings' called Grosvenor Buildings. Evidence
suggests, however, they were unpopular and overcrowded conditions and rent increases later
led to rent strikes in 1915 and 1939. 5 In the 1890s the LCC acquired and demolished
properties for widening of the Blackwall Tunnel approaches. The outbreak of WWII prevented
further work and bombing destroyed or severely damaged much of the remaining housing.

Figure 168: Site Map c.1870, Land Owners: A East India Dock Company, Ashton & Hale;
C. Grigges6

4
Survey of London: volumes 43 and 44, Poplar, Blackwall and Isle of Dogs, p.188-99, <http://www.british-history.ac.uk> [retrieved 8 March 2012]
5
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-99
6
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-99, figure 68, Ordnance Survey 1867-70

232
 Figure 169: Grosvenor Buildings7

In the 1950’s redevelopment was mainly carried out by Poplar Borough Council under the
Bazely Street Area Housing Scheme, consisting of traditional brick, low-rise flats and terraced
housing. High council housing waiting lists and increasing Government pressure on local
authorities to embrace the newly developed industrialized building systems, together with the
greater space demanded by the Parker Morris Report created a need to increase densities with
high-rise developments.8 The 1960s consequently saw in Poplar a move to the construction of
high-rise flats.

Figure 170: Typical Construction in the Bazely Scheme9

7
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-99, Plate 35c
8
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-99, originally MDR 1809/5/245
9
<http://www.ideastore.co.uk/en/articles/housing_estates_poplar> [retrieved 11 April 2012]

233
 Figure 171: 1960’s Site Plan, showing Grosvenor Buildings and the Bazely Scheme10

The Robin Hood Gardens Scheme

The LCC had appointed the Smithsons in 1963 to design housing on three small sites between
Manisty Street and Robin Hood Lane. This consisted of two common theme buildings with
dwellings’ access off decks.11 Tensions in the Grosvenor Buildings had continued, however,
when a change of ownership prompted rent increases that tenants considered unjustified due
to the building’s insanitary conditions. This culminated in a court case in the mid-1960s, which
halted the Smithsons’ development.12 The westernmost blocks had been destroyed during the
War and although the remaining ones were structurally sound, there was much debate over

10
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 3 April 2012
11
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.188
12
Smithson A. and P. (2001), p.296

234
their future.13 The GLC, under great public pressure, finally agreed to deal with the ‘problem’
and in 1965 acquired an area of five acres, bounded by Robin Hood Lane, East India Dock Road,
Cotton Street, and Poplar High Street. The Grosvenor Buildings and other older properties
were demolished. Over 1,200 people were displaced and the estimated cost of acquisition and
clearance was £709,000. 14

Figure 172: The Smithsons’ College of the Manisty Street Scheme15

Due to the enormous rehousing problem this presented, the Smithsons were given a new brief
for the larger consolidated site of seven and half acres. They had hoped to develop all of this,
leaving the schools in the centre of a largely traffic-free 'super-block', but in the event only the
southern part, of about five acres was built.16 RHG’s layout was directed by two factors: the
traffic on three sides and the need to create more open space in this part of Poplar. GLC
planners had zoned the site for residential use at a density of 136 persons per acre, with the
requirement to provide two thirds of an acre per thousand persons from residential land.17
Lidgett, Mackrow, and Manisty Streets were abolished and the adjacent parts of Cotton Street

13
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-199, originally ELA, Jan./Feb. 1963
14
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-199, originally GLC Minutes 1964–5, p.346–7
15
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.188
16
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-199
17
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.193

235
and Poplar High Street were widened.18 Work began in 1968 and it was completed in 1972, at
an estimated cost of £1,845,600. 19 RHG consisted of two similar, relatively slim, 'slab' blocks,
oriented north-south and slightly cranked in plan. The lower western block was designed to
allow more sun into the open space while the higher eastern one helped keep out noise from
the Blackwall Tunnel approach. As the south side facing the old Poplar High Street was
relatively free of traffic with low buildings, the layout was kept open ‘to allow long views out
and sunlight in’.20

Figure 173: Site Plan Post-development, c.197221

The buildings were designed to shield a central 'stress free' zone, protected from noise without
any vehicular movement: 'a quiet, green heart which all dwellings share and can look out

18
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-199, originally GLC Housing Committee Minutes, 1967, p.106–7
19
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-199, originally GLC Housing Service Handbook Part II, 1974, p.82
20
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.190
21
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 3 April 2012

236
into’.22 Whilst much public housing failed to make anything positive of the space between it,
the Smithsons’ enclosure of the open space was a reference to pre-modernist planning and the
traditional urbanism of streets and squares. They called it a ‘charged void’ in that a building
was only interesting if it was more than itself and ‘if it charges the space around it with
connective possibilities’.23 It contained grassed mounds ‘to prevent noisy football games from
spoiling the quiet’ which were also symbolic. In their writings the Smithson’s refer to the
Egyptian creator, depicted as the god Ani (a swallow) who emerged from the waters of chaos
to make a mound on which he could stand. RHG’s mounds were formed from the demolition
rubble of the Grosvenor Buildings.24 The development provided no shops but facilities at
Lansbury and in Poplar High Street were considered within easy reach and ‘to these existing
facilities and to the local bus connections the main flows of people from the site are
directed’.25

Figure 174: RHG Aerial View, c.197226

22
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.189
23
Smithson A. and P. (1973) Without Rhetoric, p.34
24
The Smithsons on Housing BBC2, Broadcast, 10 July 1970: reproduced in Powers A. (2010) Robin Hood Gardens re-visions, p.65; Smithson A. and P.
(1973), p.21
25
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.193
26
Powers A. (2010), Smithsons’ Archive Photograph

237
 Figure 175: The Smithsons’ Drawings ‘visual connectedness of people to their district’ and
‘traffic patterns with desire routes of tenants’27

27
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.189/191

238
The Smithsons’ Design Methodology

As Independent Group members the Smithsons shared a vision of Modern architecture

grounded in art and throughout their professional life they presented their ideas in project
form, accompanied by poetic and often abstract texts. Their main themes were designed
around: ‘the restoration of the land, the invention of an architecture structured by notions of
association and place, the redirection of cities and towns towards safe-movement, and
openness and light by inserting into the old structure urban events at the scale of new patterns
of communication’.28 Disillusioned by the lack of innovation in new housing and suburban
sprawl they called for an urban revival declaring: ‘the task of our generation is plain – we must
re-identify man with his house, his community, his city’.29 Their vision centred on a multi-level
society with the ground used only for elements tied to it, like heavy, long distance transport
and industry. Re-populating the city would also result in identified ‘quarters’ as the
advantages of close physical association would draw certain people to different districts.
Indeed, a common theme running through their work was the belief that an effective society is
dependent on a coherent network of human relations and that urban planning should
strengthen and direct these relationships bringing about more meaningful association. They
criticised CIAM’s functional housing as being too prescriptive believing instead that social
groups cut across geographical barriers. To maintain ‘looseness of grouping and ease of
communication’ with population growth and ensure preservation of sunlight, space and
greenery, the Smithsons advocated increased building density with the creation of group
spaces that fulfilled the functions of the street. Their ‘street deck in the air’ would be
separately identifiable, acquiring special characteristics and having a large number of people
that were dependant on it for access. They used their rejected competition entry for the
Golden Lane project to illustrate their ideas presenting it as an urban redevelopment model at
CIAM IX in 1953. Webster (1997) has indicated that what was so radical about the Smithson’s
Golden Lane design is not so much the proposal for the blocks but the suggestion that they
might multiply to form a network overlaid over the existing bomb-damaged ‘ruined’ city.30 The
Smithsons’ Haupstadt Berlin project (1957-58) and their London Roads study (1959) continued
this idea. Their system contained two main urban elements: land-castles (areas requiring
rebuilding with large green central landmarks) and greenways (open space linkages to break

28
Smithson A. and P. (1970) Ordinariness and Light, p.11
29
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.18
30
Webster H. (1997) Modernism Without Rhetoric: The Work of Alison and Peter Smithson, p.32

239
old patterns of traffic bounded by open spaces). Their London Roads study, however, was
severely criticised for its total absence of respect for and response to the existing fabric.31

Figure 176: The Smithsons’ Golden Lane Project32

31
Webster H. (1997), p.84
32
Adapted from plan in Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.55

240
 Figure 177: The Smithsons’ Golden Lane City33

When and by whom the term ‘New Brutalism’ was introduced is still debated, but with
Banham as its main advocator, the Smithsons were heralded as its first architects.34 In
Banham’s attempt to formulate it into a cohesive movement, he based its manifesto on the
Smithson’s work, extracting four qualities which he believed marked a building as ‘Brutalist’:
‘formal legibility of plan; clear exhibition of structure; valuation of materials for their inherent
‘as found’ qualities; and clear exhibition of services’.35 The Smithsons have had considerable
influence on other architects. Both Jack Lynn and Ivor Smith were his students at the
Architectural Association (AA) and their collaborative input and exchange of ideas obviously
led to their design of Park Hill. The Smithsons’ published widely and this ensured their ideas
were exposed and their reputation constructed. Their involvement with CIAM and Team 10
ensured European links and as Higgott (2007) indicated ‘for the first time British architects
made European discourse their own, and an international dimension shaped British thought’.36
Bullock (2002) indicated, linked to the East-end world they observed, the Smithsons set out to

33
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.48
34
Webster H. (1997), p.24
35
Banham R.(1955) ‘The New Brutalism’ in The Architectural Review Dec. 1955 p.356-7
36
Higgott (2007) Mediating Modernism Architectural Cultures in Britain, p.91

241
recover in Modern form the structure of traditional working class living.37 They believed their
designs would be like passing a law against the construction of out of date buildings as the
stock answers would no longer be applicable.38 Although they were actively involved in
debating urban issues, an element of abstraction and detachment from reconstruction and
planning reality in their urban proposals precluded their immediate adoption. Their concept of
association was accepted, however, with a move away from the low densities and separation
of functions in New Towns like Harlow which had a multi-level and mixed use central area that
it was hoped would create a richness of association at the heart of the community. 39 However,
RHG was the Smithsons’ first and only opportunity to put their housing ideas into practice.

Robin Hood Garden’s Detailing

RHG was originally designed with a reinforced-concrete box-frame construction, but the
engineers suggested a casting construction system and the Swedish SUNDH system was
selected.40 In the event, the Cotton Street block had to be cast in-situ as there was no access
for large cranes.41 After work had started, the contractors also suggested substituting a dry-
partition system for the internal block-work walls and the flat’s layouts had to be revised to
take account of the reduced wall thickness.42 Following the Ronan Point disaster the new
standards to avoid the danger of progressive collapse also meant that the walls and joists had
to be strengthened and the fixings for the precast-concrete cladding changed.43 RHG’s
elevations are ordered by a repeating module 4 feet 6 inches wide. The deeper of two vertical
concrete fins corresponds to flat party wall divisions, reflecting the different flat types. The
shallower ones are located between windows.44 As at Park Hill, dwelling access was via decks
on every third floor. At RHG though, the cross-wall construction allowed cantilevering of the
walkways, avoiding the need for supporting columns. Also, rather than positioning front doors
directly onto the deck, the Smithsons designed ‘eddy-places’ where ‘the dwelling takes a piece
of the deck for itself out of the general flow of movement along the deck...so your doormat is
not kicked aside by passers-by and you can put out a few pots of plants or leave parcels’ (now
being installed at Park Hill).45 Colour also denoted individual living patterns. Flat windows and
doors were painted a colour for every main level: grey-garage level; green-garden level,

37
Bullock (2002) Building the Post-War World, p. 119
38
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.60
39
Bullock (2002), p.145
40
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-199, originally GLC Housing Committee Minutes, 1966, p.550-1
41
Maxwell R. (1994) Truth without rhetoric, AA files no. 28, p. 3-11
42
Architectural Design, Sept 1972, p.560
43
Survey of London volumes 43/44, p.188-199, originally GLC Minutes, 1969, p.575-6
44
Peter Stewart Consultancy RHG Report on potential listing, July 2007, p.6
45
The Smithsons on Housing, Broadcast

242
yellow-first deck, orange-second deck, blue-third deck. The Smithsons explained: ‘the actual
key colour is used for the lift lobbies, signs etc. and variants on the colour are used for front
doors, deck triangular windows and the French windows on the garden side. The variant
colours repeat as they relate to deck type. This colour coding is an attempt to identify the
individual flats for the smaller children and also of course build up with the tenant’s curtains
and so-on the life and interest of the faces of the buildings’.46

Figure 178: The Smithsons’ Axonometric Drawing47

46
Architectural Design Sept. 1972, p.563
47
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.192

243
 Figure 179: RHG Site Layout48

RHG’s main theme was protection and to provide shelter in the ‘wall-like’ building the
Smithsons’ developed a dwelling type with access decks and living rooms on the ‘outside’
nearest the noise, and bedrooms and dining kitchens on the ‘inside’, away from it. They felt
this was the correct arrangement because the deck was ‘bound to be fairly noisy’ and the living
room, being the dwelling’s chief common active area, would create its own ambient noise
which ‘acts to drown outside noise’.49 This arrangement also took advantage of the ‘wonderful
large-scale views of the docks, the river (Thames) and the famous East London churches’. 50
Also like Park Hill, habitable rooms are further separated from decks by dwelling entrances and
stairs. At RHG this acts as further insulation for the bedrooms, which have French windows

48
Adapted from plans in Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.196
49
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.190 and (2001), p.296
50
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.193

244
opening onto fire-escape balconies, ‘extending their use in expansive weather’.51 These
continuous narrow balconies were positioned on floors without decks on the other side,
providing an alternative means of escape. Stair and lift lobbies were located at each end of the
blocks, with intermediate escape stairs at the points where the blocks cranked.

Figure 180: RHG’s Cantilevered Deck 52

The Smithsons designed RHG with people’s actual use of it in mind, like the width of the decks
to accommodate foot traffic and allow women to pass with prams etc. They indicated that
RHG ‘explained its use’ in that ‘where ever you need to take hold of something or move
around some woodwork or concrete element, then there is a smooth rounded corner’.53 To
this end: ‘concrete near the eye is smooth and moulded to be self-cleaning and neat, able to
be touched…concrete further from the eye is coarser, it is concrete to be passed by not lived
with…joinery to be touched has smoothly rounded edges and is made of excellent
timber…inviting further waxing and polishing…where much wear or weather is expected
timber is protected by paint, glossy, suggesting wiping down, repainting and so on’. 54 The
Smithsons wanted the building to indicate how the place was to be used, so ‘the occupiers are
left in no doubt yet unaware of being having been told which is intended to be the noisy part
and which is the quiet part and where one is expected to walk and play…the form language of

51
Smithson A. and P. (2001), p.296
52
Powers A. (2010), Smithsons’ Archive Photographs
53
The Smithsons on Housing, Braodcast
54
Architectural Design Feb. 1972, p.96

245
the building to indicate and enhance use’.55 As Maxwell (1994) indicated, they wished for an
architecture that would be transparent not so much to the programme as to what might be
understood as the pattern of basic human needs and desires’56 To combat road traffic noise
the GLC had required living room sound levels, with open windows to be below 50 dBA (1960
Noise Abatement Act requirement). A GLC noise survey (assuming no protection) had found
70-75 dBA during the day. A further 20 dBA reduction was obtained through ‘rough planting’
and design features incorporated into the dwelling windows to absorb or deflect noise.
Additionally, a 10ft high ‘acoustic wall’, canted over at the top to reflect noise back into the
traffic, was built behind Cotton Street’s pavement and at the edge of the Blackwall Tunnel
approach.57

Figure 181: The Smithsons’ ‘Reasoning for Disposition of Accommodation’58

55
Architectural Design June 1973, p.621-3
56
Maxwell R. (1994), p. 7
57
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.190-1
58
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.190

246
 Figure 182: Children Playing on RHG’s Grass Mounds, c.1970 59

The Dwellings

The RHG created 214 flats, producing a density of 142 persons per acre and a site population
of 689 persons. This exceeded the GLC's requirement but was adopted to allow future
development (not carried out) nearer the noisy East India Dock Road to be at a lower level.
The flats ranged from two to six persons and were considered generous, even by Parker Morris
standards. Thirty-eight ground-floor flats were for elderly residents, with a clubroom for their
use. The scheme provided 143 garages, 10 motorcycle stores and visitors’ parking spaces,
which with service areas were contained in two 'moats' below street level, running along each
block’s outer edge that were open to natural light and ventilation. Extra parking, if demanded
could be made available on the play area at the site’s south end. 60

Figure 183: Newly Constructed Flat Interiors61

59
Smithson A. and P. (2001), p.311
60
Smithson A. and P. (1970), p.193
61
Powers A. (2010), Smithsons’ Archive Photographs

247
 Figure 184: Typical Flat Layout62

62
Adapted from plans Survey of London: volumes 43/44, p. 188-199

248
 Figure 185: Block Section showing Dwellings and Service ‘Moats’63

Responses to Robin Hood Gardens

RHG’s construction attracted some professional interest, mainly from abroad.64 The Smithsons
also featured in a BBC documentary about it.65 It did not, however, receive extensive coverage
in the UK and by the time it was completed, some twelve years after Park Hill had first been
occupied, Modern estates were now believed to encapsulate some of the worst public housing
in Britain and the Ronan Point collapse, some four years earlier, had finally undermined public
confidence in high-rise flats. If RHG tenants’ views of their new homes were sought surveys
have not survived.66 RHG resident, Shirley Magnitsky however, recently gave her account of its
initial habitation indicating: ’when this (RHG) was first built it was very modern and people
were fighting to get in here’.67 She also thought it was ‘very cleverly built’ indicating: ‘the way
it has upside down maisonettes, you never hear noise from anyone else…and the nice thing is
that every room has plenty of light, one wall is all windows and you're not looking into
someone else's house’. She also approved of RHG’s decks saying: ’these spacious landings
were designed by the architects to be a specific width so kids could play on it safely…all the

63
Adapted from section Smithson A. and P. (2001), p.302
64
L'Architecture D'Aujourd'hui, Jan/Feb 1975; Architecture and Urbanism Feb 1974; Architettura Cronache e Storia June/July 1973
65
The Smithsons on Housing , Broadcast
66
London Metropolitan Archives, visit, 10 May 2012, in the transfer of housing to London boroughs much information was destroyed.
67
Building Design 29 Feb. 2008, p.8

249
neighbours come out, all the children intermix…they all run along and play. You don't realise
the impact small things like this have on your everyday life’ She also thought RHG was still a
‘great place to live’ and that its ‘trees, grass and very pleasant surroundings’ made it ‘the most
peaceful part of the borough with plenty of facilities’. Irrespective of what the tenants may
have thought, however, the public disliked its Brutalist, concrete aesthetic voting it in 1984 as
one of the three worst buildings in London.68

Coupled with the public’s dislike came professional condemnation. Pangaro (1973) argued the
built reality of RHG was less convincing than ‘the theory behind it'.69 Curtis (1982), felt ‘the
street decks fell short of their symbolic intention of expressing and embodying the ideal
community’ and as a whole RHG ‘seemed propelled by a stark vision of working-class life more
in tune with the realities of the early 1950s than with the consumerism of later years’.70 The
fact that RHG appeared to belong to a period where ‘high rise, deck access living produced
more problems, both social and practical, than it solved’ was highlighted by Webster (1997).
She indicated the ‘impoverished and abused vertical circulation system and deck access made
the scheme, whatever its formal merits, unpopular’, concluding RHG ‘failed as a place of
human habitation’ and the ‘combination of its hard concrete aesthetic together with its
fortress like structure alienated the scheme from its context, in effect forming a ghetto of
housing for the lower classes’.71 Williamson (1998) described RHG as 'the apotheosis of public
housing in the borough’ and considered that ‘though impressively monumental’ the scheme
was ‘ill-planned to the point of being inhumane’.72 Jencks (2002) considered RHG ‘an
archetypal example of the failures of Modernism’ with ‘all the faults that the Smithsons had
previously criticised in other similar schemes’.73 Pearman (2003), called RHG ‘disastrous’,
indicating that ‘the brutalist concrete structure turned out to be defective, but the social
aspects were worse…RHG became a hotbed of crime…the Smithsons were exposed as both
arrogant and fallible…their reputation never recovered in Britain’. He also acknowledged,
however, it was still in existence and inhabited.74 Webster (1997) highlighted that RHG’s
concrete slab blocks and ordered facades marked a return to the imagery of the Smithsons’
1952 Golden Lane scheme, which she finds surprising because by 1966 they had ‘moved on’ to
a ‘gentler language’ and also because RHG’s design was undertaken at a time when it must
have apparent to the Smithsons that its ideology opposed the established Team 10 premise

68
Building 6 April 1984, p. 10
69
Pangaro A. (1973) Architecture Plus, June, p.37/41
70
Curtis W.J.R. (1982) Modern Architecture since 1900, p.533
71
Webster H. (1997) Modernism Without Rhetoric, p.77
72
Pevsner N. (1998) The Buildings of England: London Docklands, p.173-4
73
Jencks C. (2002) The New Paradigm in Architecture: the language of post-modernism, p.18
74
Pearman H. (2003)‘Meet the Smithsons: separating the hype from reality’ <http://www.hughpearman.com> [retrieved 14 April 2012]

250
that ‘a building’s first duty is to the fabric in which it finds itself’.75 Within a year RHG’s
communal parts had been wrecked.76 Alison Smithson had talked about vandalism in their BBC
Broadcast indicating: ‘I mean the society at the moment asked the architects to build these
new homes for them. But this may be really stupid…we may have to rethink the whole thing.
It maybe we should only be asked to repair the roofs and add the odd bathroom to the old
industrial houses and just leave people where they are, to smash it up in complete abandon
and happiness, so that nobody has to worry about it anymore. You know we may be asking
people to live in a way that is stupid. They maybe just want to be left alone’.77 Spoken a year
before RHG’s tenants moved in it is as if she could have foreseen its plight to come. And
although she makes no reference to RHG in her article ‘the violent Consumer, or Waiting for
the Goodies’, she voices concerns about a change to what she regarded as a more fragmented,
consumer driven society.78 The Smithsons’ son, Peter, also described how the old peoples’
social club, with its mural that his mother had made from broken pottery found on site, was
vandalised within weeks of occupation.79

Figure 186: The Elderly People’s Club Entrance with Alison Smithson’s Mural80

Any development on this location would have been challenging as the traffic problems and site
connectivity were difficult on completion and bound to intensify. The Smithsons’ design

75
Webster H. (1997), p.77, originally Smithson A. and P. (1993) Italian thoughts, p.68
76
Pangaro A. (1973), p.37, 41
77
Smithson A. in The Smithsons on Housing, Broadcast
78
Smithson A. ‘The Violent Consumer, or Waiting for the Goodies’ in Architectural Design May 1974, p.274-8
79
Smithson S. (2010) ‘We called it Robin Hood Lane’ in Powers A. (2010), p.79
80
Powers A. (2010), Smithsons’ Archive Photographs

251
provided a large, open green space protected by the buildings from the noise and pollution of
the surrounding highways. The blocks’ orientation allowed good day-lighting to the dwellings
and maximum sun penetration into the open space. The dwellings provided generous space
standards and magnificent views but any positive design qualities have been overshadowed by
its awful reputation making it as Dunster (1982) has said, one of their ‘most misunderstood
projects’. 81 RHG’s poor condition was highlighted by Maxwell (1994) after a visit in the 1980s.
He explained: ‘we looked all over it, which was not easy…many of the flats were boarded-
up…there were broken milk bottles and a smell of urine everywhere…there was hardly anyone
about. This was not the jolly street life envisaged for street-decks…we were all at a loss, and
not a word was spoken…we turned away’. Maxwell found the visit distressing but this was not
because of RHG’s design, as he went on to say: ‘the scheme is not entirely condemned by its
failure, and our failure to understand that built form does not reform society. It even seems
imbued with a sort of foreknowledge of the limits of good design, a foreboding of the distant
still separating us from the good society. What RHG has is a marvellous sense of the power
buildings have to make an urban landscape. If the social problems could be somehow
attended by social answers, if other factors could somehow be reassembled, if architecture did
not have to carry the whole responsibility, this could still be an inspiring place to live, but only
if living there is not to be stamped with the label of belonging to a deprived class’.82 Maxwell’s
realisation that good form alone cannot change society is perhaps the main lesson to be
learned from RHG. Obliteration of the Grosvenor Buildings did not ease the social problems it
just transferred it to its new built form which failed to do any better. The complex problems of
society need more complex solutions and perhaps RHG could have been a more successful
place to live if these had been attended to by other means and if its homes were not equated
solely with belonging to a disadvantaged class.

Subsequent Development of Robin Hood Gardens

Despite surrounding major urban development, RHG has seen little change over the years.
The site’s northern end was redeveloped with brick housing in the late 1990’s. In designing
their RHG layout, the Smithsons had presumed the East India Dock ‘inviolate’, placing the
higher block on the east side to provide views over its water.83 When the docks closed in 1979,
however, it was filled in and built over to house London Borough Tower Hamlets (LBTH)
council offices. RHG’s open space was designated a ‘millennium green’ and paths and tree

81
Dunster D. (ed.) (1982) Alison + Peter Smithson The Shift, p.7
82
Maxwell R. (1994), p.3-11
83
Smithson P. (2001), p.296-8

252
planting were added with steps to the top of the mound. The Smithsons original colour coding
has been lost and some of the ‘inner’ continuous balconies have been partitioned to provide
shallow but private spaces. Windows on the ‘outer’ elevations were replaced with double-
glazed units to reduce traffic noise and ground level concierge facilities were introduced,
enclosing the lobbies with security doors. The new entrance arrangements were designed
without consulting Peter Smithson and in 1995 concerned that some of the changes were not
sympathetic to the original architecture he called for the estate to be listed, but this was not
acted upon. 84 In 2007 LBTH became keen to regenerate the area and make better use of what
had now become a more accessible location, lying near Canary Wharf business district. In
conjunction with English Partnerships (EP), a regeneration scheme proposed new commercial,
community and leisure facilities, renovation of Woolmore School, provision of up to 3000 new
homes (including 35% affordable housing) and improved open spaces, pedestrian and cycle
linkages to the area.

Figure 187: Aerial View of The Blackwall Reach Project85

84
Building Design, 11 Aug. 1995, p. 1
85
Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Design Code, Revision A, March 2012, p.9

253
252 homes were affected, including those in RHG.86 The proposal considered RHG did not
provide adequate shops or community facilities and that the open spaces were poorly
maintained and under-used. It also highlighted significant defects in RHG’s structure and
services estimating £20 million would be needed to bring it up to Decent Homes Standards,
which LBTH could not afford. Two options were proposed: one retaining RHG and another
replacing it. Both planned to deck and build over the Blackwell Tunnel approach.

Figure 188: RHG Site and Extent of New Proposal87

86
LBTH Cabinet Report 1 Aug.2007, Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Draft Development Framework, Aug. 2007, Executive Summary
87
Adapted from Blackwell Reach Planning Application: PA/12/00001/2

254
The Campaign to Save Robin Hood Gardens

In July 2007 Peter Stewart Consultancy reported on the potential for RHG to be designated a
listed building, indicating LBTH had considered its future and the possibility it could be listed,
so had decided to apply for a Certificate of Immunity from Listing.88 The report ultimately
supported the Council’s application, concluding RHG did not reach the listing standard and set
out the case for the certificate to be granted. The C20 Society saw these actions as a direct
threat to RHG’s future and in Nov. 2007 they wrote to EH proposing RHG and its landscape and
boundary wall for listing at Grade II. They claimed RHG remained: ‘a salient proposition for the
problems of mass housing on poor quality urban sites where high density is required’. They
also highlighted that RHG was ‘fully let’ supporting a ‘flourishing community in individual units
of decent size and with magnificent views’ with ‘no significant problems with vandalism or
antisocial behaviour’.89 The estate’s uncertain future also caught the architectural press’s
attention and in Feb. 2008 Building Design (BD) started a petition to save it. BD also argued
the issue went beyond RHG, questioning why vast resources were being spent demolishing
buildings simply because they were seen to belong to the ‘unfashionable ideology of a
previous era’. Feeling that lessons had not been learned from the mistakes of the past they
felt the Government should be challenged on its housing policies and recognising in its present
state RHG was ‘not an easy place to live’, BD advocated it could be and that it deserved
another chance. 90 Cabe Chairman, Paul Finch, indicated concerns about the massive waste
involved in RHG’s early demolition. As social housing at that time was financed through sixty
year loans, this would mean continuing to pay for something no longer in existence, financing
alternative accommodation for former tenants and raising new funds for replacement
buildings.91 Indeed PPS5 indicates: ‘In considering development proposals, local authorities
will find it useful to take into account the embodied energy within existing buildings and the
whole-life costs of any new scheme or proposed alterations. The creative adaptation of
heritage assets can dramatically reduce the whole-life energy costs and waste impacts that
would result from demolition and replacement, even where the proposed development would
in itself be of an acceptable standard in terms of energy performance. The adaptation of
heritage assets need not be more expensive or difficult than replacement. It is quite possible
that the recycling of existing buildings at a site may cut the overall financial cost of

88
Peter Stewart Consultancy RHG Report on Potential Listing, July 2007, p.2
89
,Wright J. Caseworker letter, 29 Nov. 2007 <http://www.c20society.org.uk/listings-reports/winter-2007> [retrieved 6 March 2012]
90
Baillieu A. <http://www.bdonline.co.uk/rescuerobinhood> [retrieved 22 Feb. 2008]
91
The Architects’ journal, 10 Sept. 2009, p.19

255
development and even save time’.92 BD and The Architecture Foundation also launched a
design competition to create a ‘new vision for the estate’ reporting that RHG’s Tenants and
Residents Association (TRA) had also welcomed this move. RHG’s predicament also divided
professional opinion. Architect Robert Sakuta, for example, stated that although he believed
the Smithsons were ‘solid as theorists’ they were ‘pretty uneven as designers and architects’
and he thought RHG was ‘probably their worst building’. He was sceptical, however, about
what would replace it, so argued to keep it and not list it as then it could be transformed
taking advantage of its ‘too-expensive-to-build-now decent sized flats’ and its embodied
energy.93

In March 2008, however, LBTH agreed the ‘comprehensive regeneration of Blackwall Reach’
(Option 2).94 They argued RHG’s retention was unviable because it would reduce the number
of new homes that could be built by about a 1000 and as a consequence less ‘affordable
homes’ as a proportion with fewer sales receipts to fund the wider regeneration proposals. Its
retention would also mean losing a quarter of the potential green space which would impact
on the proposed community, health and school facilities. In May 2008 EH’s commissioners
recommended against RHG’s listing, which was contrary to the advice of its own advisory
committee and that of CABE. EH defended its decision stating that: ‘as a piece of community
architecture it fails as a place for human beings to live, with bleak entrance lobbies, a prison-
like boundary wall, too few, narrow, twisting stairwells and inadequate access to the long
decks and people's front doors’. EH felt RHG was neither innovative nor influential as by the
time it was built it was already out of date, at the tail-end of a movement. They also
considered it did not compare successfully with other 20th Century listed estates, like The
Brunswick, and that although the Smithsons had a strong reputation as architectural theorists,
and EH had listed three of their schemes, RHG attracted ‘little admiration’ at the time and it
was only recently that it ‘seems to have found favour in some vocal quarters’. The BD
campaign meanwhile, had gathered momentum with over 2000 signatories and prominent
architects and MP’s, including former Heritage Minister, Alan Howarth, giving their backing.95

On 1 July 2008, Heritage Minister, Margaret Hodge, ruled RHG should not be listed. The C20
Society immediately appealed with chair, Alan Powers, remaining adamant that RHG was ‘not
in crisis’ and that it had long-term potential. He indicated, contrary to reports, the first

92
PPS5, Practice Guide, Policy HE1: Heritage assets and climate change, p.22
93
Building Design, 7 March 2008, p.1, p.9
94
Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Development Framework (CAB 136/078), 5 March 2008
95
Richard Meier, Michael and Patty Hopkins, Toyo Ito, Robert Venturi, Peter Cook, Richard Rogers, Zaha Hadid and Stuart Lipton in Building Design,
23 May 2008, p.3/9

256
preference of the majority of residents was to remain in the refurbished building, therefore
money would be better spent on refurbishment as the waste of energy from redevelopment
would be substantial.96 BD also revealed the extent of CABE's backing, publishing
correspondence its Director of Architecture and Design Review, Diane Haigh, had sent to the
DCMS in May. In this Haigh had called the estate ‘unique’ and ‘highly significant in the national
context’ indicating RHG: ‘successfully creates a good place to live in a difficult urban
environment dominated by major roads. The robustness of the design together with the
generous landscaping remains striking today. It is an outstanding example of architectural and
social aspiration.’ She also considered that RHG met all of EH’s listing criteria for post-War
housing: architectural interest, intactness of design and whether the design was influential or a
particularly good example of its type. A number of professionals also wrote to the DCMS to
support the appeal, including housing expert Dickon Robinson who called EH's arguments on
its suitability as housing ‘selective and misleading’. He considered RHG provided ‘generously
sized and well planned homes’ and like many other 1970’s estates it was feasible to refurbish it
to meet modern standards.97 Dirk van den Heuvel of Delft University argued that EH had failed
to recognise the international standing of the Smithsons ‘as foremost representatives of British
post-War architecture’ and the influence of the project in Europe.98 Then RIBA President,
Sunand Prasad, highlighted that refurbishment of estates like The Brunswick had showed it
was possible to transform buildings of the same period at a reasonable cost. He acknowledged
many of the concerns about RHG but considered the individual dwellings had been
‘fundamentally soundly planned’. He felt with a ‘little intelligent design’ it could be
transformed and its overall perception was ‘significantly influenced by the appalling lack of
maintenance and care from which the buildings had suffered over many years’. He also
highlighted RHG was a significant part of Britain’s built heritage as the scheme marked the
pivotal point in the transformation of housing from mass provision of units to the making of
places for communities.99 The appeal also generated dissent with architect Terry Farrell
feeling RHG represented the worst of the ‘pseudo-intellectual, patronising architecture of
many UK architect’s post WW II social housing projects’. He felt the scheme was ‘shamefully
and badly designed in its grim layout and in its stylised indulgence of the fad for the raw
expression of rough concrete’ and its ‘its facade rhythms’ were ‘frenetically visually
unsatisfactory even by the standard of its unpopular genre’. Although he believed the
Smithsons were intellectually important, apart from their Economist HQ, he felt they never did

96
Building Design, 23 Jan. 2009, p.3
97
Robinson to DCMS, in Building Design, 8 Aug. 2008, p.3
98
Correspondence in PA/12/00001/2, letter 3 Feb. 2009
99
Correspondence in PA/12/00001/2, letter 26 Jan. 2009

257
work that really matched their ideas and RHG was an ‘unworkable doctrinaire piece of poorly
designed public housing albeit by architects for whom a generation of students feel affection
because of their influential writings’.100 In Jan. 2009 EH refused to amend its decision
announcing that although they thought RHG’s design showed an innovative approach to noise
reduction with the shaping the slab block form to act as a spatial enclosure, it failed as a
contribution to the area’s legacy of housing and as a major housing project marking the end of
the welfare state. In terms of design it also considered it failed in ‘adapting the street deck’
and in providing adequate high-level parking and service vehicle access as well as a ‘unique
and innovative landscape’. It did not consider that RHG or its architects had a significant
enough international reputation to justify its listing.101 In May 2009 Culture Minister, Barbara
Follett, endorsed EH’s decision and granted a Certificate of Immunity from Listing leaving LBTH
free to proceed with its demolition and the Blackwell Reach redevelopment. 102

The Revised Project Brief

Figure 189: Swan Housing & Countryside Properties Scheme Visualisation103

In July 2009 market conditions significantly altered the project’s economic viability. Decking
over the Blackwall Tunnel approach was no longer feasible and the reduced area limited

100
Correspondence in PA/12/00001/2, letter 17 Feb. 2009
101
Building Design, 23 Jan. 2009, p.3
102
Certificate of Immunity from Listing No. 1396625
103
Building Design, 19 Nov. 2010, p.1

258
commercial and retail space and site capacity to approximately 1,600 dwellings.104 In early
2011, Swan Housing, partnered with Countryside Properties, with Aedas as master planners
were selected as the developer partners. LBTH indicated that it was investing £13m to fund
acquisition of properties purchased under Right to Buy and to pay home-loss and associated
compensation payments to tenants and leaseholders. £1.5m had already been committed for
the planning costs.105 HCA funding was anticipated to ‘match’ that from the Borough. 106 As
the Blackwell Reach designs began to be unveiled, professional criticism continued, including
from the project’s own Design Steering Group. LBTH had reportedly failed to take account of
their concerns and recommendations with Eleanor Fawcett saying that panel members
believed the project did not justify the demolition of RHG as the scheme was ‘not radical
enough in its changes to the area’ and the proposals did nothing to ensure the site was ‘no
longer a cut off island’.107 The architectural profession also refused to go down without a fight.
A RIBA exhibition: Robin Hood Gardens: Re-Visions was held in summer 2009. In early 2011 BD
published a proposal by Sarah Wigglesworth Architects to convert RHG into ‘modern family
homes’ with extra flats on the roofs and over the perimeter car parks.108 Despite this on 31st
May 2011 LBTH served notice of its intention to demolish RHG 1 July 2015.

Residents’ Responses to the Blackwall Reach Proposal

In more recent years RHG had become home to a predominately Bangladeshi community, with
only thirteen flats reported vacant in 2011.109 Although in a very poor state there were little
signs of vandalism and residents had appropriated parts of the open space to grow vegetables,
which had remained untouched. The HCA and LBTH led numerous initiatives to involve
residents in the regeneration including home visits, workshops, community ‘gatherings’,
newsletters, a dedicated web site and a Community Charter. These indicated residents’
preference for a mixed use/ tenure development with sufficient family accommodation and
the desire to ‘keep the existing community together’ with improved facilities including parking,
site connectivity and access and reduced air and noise pollution.110 It also showed a desire to
retain the ‘Millennium Green’, have improved security, a preference for low scale buildings
and homes with similar or improved space standards, sufficient day-lighting, sound insulation
and storage. Feedback from design workshops and exhibitions in 2010 showed residents

104
Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Design and Access Statement, Jan 2012, 4, 5.4
105
LBTH Cabinet Report: CAB 056/101, 9 Feb. 2011
106
LBTH Cabinet Report: CAB 124/090, 10 March 2010
107
Building Design, 11 March 2011, p.3
108
Building Design, 28 Jan. 2011
109
LBTH Cabinet Report 056/101,9 Feb. 2011
110
Blackwall Reach Revised Development Framework, Cabinet Report, 5 March 2008

259
preferred dual aspect homes and that they wanted to keep the decks as ‘streets in the sky’ as
they felt these helped in fostering community spirit. It also highlighted concerns about the
scheme’s density, that the courtyards could create anti-social behaviour problems and that the
central open space may not be large enough to function as a park. They were also worried
about the new buildings’ impact on daylight.111 LBTH reported that most residents supported
the regeneration with the majority (63%) wishing to remain in the area after
redevelopment.112 A different opinion, however, was obtained from BD’s interviews about the
proposals, including those from resident Shirley Magnitsky who said she was unhappy about
the regeneration. She blamed poor maintenance for many of RHG’s problems stating: ‘it's got
nothing to do with the design…the homes are rundown because the council won't spend
money on them. This is a prime spot…that's why they want to build 3,000 more homes
here…the whole thing is about location and money.’ Magnitsky also indicated that other
residents shared her views but that most had been ‘hoodwinked’ into favouring demolition
because it had been linked to the promise of new homes or because they thought it was the
only way to guarantee their tenancy rights.

Figure 190: RHG Community Gardens113

Local councillor, Phil Briscoe, also considered poor maintenance had given RHG a bad image
and that this was now being used as a reason for demolition stating: ‘underlying the whole

111
Blackwall Reach Design and Access Statement 4, 6.2.1
112
Blackwall Reach Regeneration Procurement and Scheme Development Report, 9 Feb. 2011
113
<http://www.towerhamletshomes.org.uk/growing_communities/robin_hood_gardens.aspx > [retrieved 13 Dec. 2013]

260
exercise is the desire to get as much density on the site as possible and the consultation was
geared to that end…it's got nothing to do with the design. The homes are run down because
the council won't spend money on them. It's not good planning…we already have 8,000 units
in the pipeline for the area…there has to be a limit to how much we can squeeze in. There's a
real danger of overdoing it and not creating a sustainable community in the long term’. Aktar
Hussain, of RHG’s TRA, indicated residents wanted to live in the same community but naturally
in a better building but that people felt they have been ‘abandoned’. Hussain acknowledged
that some residents did not treat RHG ‘with care’ but he attributed this not to RHG’s design
but to the fact that LBTH was treating people ‘as if no one cared’. He also indicated that he felt
that most residents ‘didn’t have a clue what the council was suggesting’.114 Reports posted on
the RHG’s TRA website confirmed that they were concerned about LBTH’s intentions and that
they had ‘a lot of questions regarding their future on the estate’ which they now felt was
‘being taken away from them’.115 In 2009 it was reported that RHG’s residents had ‘walked out
of a consultation meeting with LBTH officials because there were ‘no satisfactory answers to
any of the crucial issues at stake’.116 A report in 2010 also indicated the TRA was considering
legal action against the Mayor because the redevelopment would result in their loss of their
tenancy security which could ‘price them out of the neighbourhood’. 117

Figure 191: RHG Cotton Street Block, 2008

114
Building Design 29 Feb. 2008, p.1-2, 8-9
115
See for example: ‘ Lutfur Rahman upsets the residents of Robin Hood Gardens’ 1 Dec. 2010
<http://towerhamletswatch.wordpress.com/?s=robin+hood+gardens&searchbutton=search> [retrieved 25 April 2012]
116
‘Robin Hood Gardens residents walk out of meeting with council’, 3 Nov. 2009 <http://towerhamletsrespect.wordpress.com> [retrieved 25 April
2012]
117
‘Robin Hood Gardens – residents consider legal action’ 2 Dec. 2010 <http://thtf.wordpress.com> [retrieved 25 April 2012]

261
LBTH had indicated that 81% of residents supported demolition and redevelopment.118 There
were also reports, however, about alleged manipulation of residents’ views and of LBTH
ignoring maintenance problems to encourage residents to favour demolition.119 A survey by
RHG resident Darren Pauling, carried out with Bengali interpreters’ help, suggested around
80% of RHG residents actually preferred RHG’s retention and refurbishment. LBTH’s figure
was also disputed by Martin Ginestie. Whilst making a RIBA documentary about RHG he raised
concerns about ‘manipulation’ of residents’ views. He indicated that he had spoken to about
200 people and was surprised how many ‘didn’t want it pulled down’, partly because of
distrust of the Council and also because of their liking for RHG’s features like the ‘streets in the
sky’.120

Figure 192: RHG Blackwall Block, 2008

The Blackwall Reach Scheme

In March 2012, approval was given for up to 1,575 new dwellings.121 All RHG secure tenants
are to be ‘re-provided new homes to meet their needs and there will be sufficient new
dwellings, of the required sizes, to accommodate current residents who do not wish to move
away before existing homes are demolished’.122 The scheme proposes: a northern part with a
new community square, new homes, a new school and mosque; a central area with a mix of

118
Blackwall Reach Revised Development Framework, Cabinet Report, 5 March 2008, 5.5
119
‘Council ‘running down’ Robin Hood Gardens’, 25 Sept. 2009 <http://www.bdonline.co.uk> [retrieved 25 April 2012]
120
Building Design, 26 June 2009, p.1
121
LBTH Planning application PA/12/00001, Core Strategy Blackwell Reach Regeneration Project Design Code Revision A, March 2012, p.10
122
Blackwell Reach Development Specification Revision, March 2012, 3.19

262
homes, open spaces and community facilities in mid-rise buildings flanking a new central,
landscaped open space; a southern area with a cluster of medium and high-rise residential
buildings and a new public plaza with access to the Blackwall DLR, joining the eastern Naval
Row Conservation Area.123 Four development phases have been scheduled over an eight year
period. Phase 1a will rehouse residents in RHG’s Cotton Street block and Phases 2 and 3 will
rehouse those from the Blackwall block.124 LBTH and the GLA retain land freehold ownership
and as the development is built, Swan Housing as leaseholders become responsible for
managing the Blackwall Reach estate and its public open spaces.125

Figure 193: The New Site Proposals126

123
Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project, Design Code Revision, A March, 2012, p.11
124
Swan Housing Blackwall Reach Affordable Housing Strategy, P/12/02740
125
LBTH is landowner of 4.0 hectares and GLA (formally HCA) 1.9 hectares together they control 77 %
126
Adapted from Blackwall Reach Design and Access Statement, p.204

263
 Figure 194: Indicative Tenure Mix127

In March 2012 a Design Council CABE review called for a series of changes. It considered the
plans lacked ‘clear logic’ and were ‘likely to have a ‘detrimental impact’ on the area. The
height of the buildings and masterplan layout gave them particular concern, indicating: ‘the
open spaces appear fractured and are likely to be overshadowed by the tall residential
blocks…a convincing case needs to be made for the amount of development and the height of
the buildings’. EH also had reservations about the project’s impact on the historic character of
All Saints Church and the Naval Row Conservation Area. In April 2012, along with all other HCA
London assets, developments and liabilities, the project transferred to GLA Planning. Detailed
planning approved was secured in Nov. 2012 and in April 2013 demolition work started for
Phase 1a and building work has started.128 In June 2013 architects Karakusevic Carson were
appointed to deliver Phase lb. Metropolitan Workshop Architects and Jestico + Whiles won a
competition to design Phase 2 and review and refine the masterplan.129 In July 2013
Architecture Initiative received planning permission for a new Woolmore Primary School.

Figure 195: The Old and the New, RHG and Blackwall Reach130

127
Report: LTGDC/12/PC17, 19 March 2012, 9.104
128
Swan Housing Zonal Masterplan Development Zone 1, Nov. 2013 PA/12/02740
129
The Architects' journal, 6 June 2013, p.9
130
<https://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2014/02/04/robin-hood-gardens-poplar-an-exemplar-a-demonstration-of-a-more-enjoyable-way-of-
living> [retrieved 2 July 2015]; Building Design, 19 Nov. 2010, p.1

264
Fifty years after the Grosvenor Buildings’ demise, RHG is now the problem that ‘needs to be
addressed’. As Powers (2010) stated: ‘the proposal to demolish is not driven by the serious
shortcomings on the part of the building, but by the fact that it does not represent an
economic density for housing in today’s terms…the money for refurbishment is harder for the
Council to obtain than it is for them to transfer the site to a developer as part of a larger
scheme, mostly consisting of housing for sale, with the addition of some affordable housing on
the site for displaced tenants’.131 And, as Woodman (2009) highlighted the towers will no
doubt be stocked with ‘luxury apartments’ at the south end that are there to ‘bankroll’ the
rehousing of RHG’s residents to the north and ‘the sad truth is that given the quantity of
market housing the developers were required to accommodate in order to make the scheme
viable, the reuse of the Smithsons’ buildings was an impossibility from the start’. 132 As Allan
(2008) indicated, however, listing is ultimately not about perceived threat, condition or
popularity of the designers but based on the concept of special interest. As a member of EH’s
London Advisory Committee, he did not consider RHG of special architectural interest believing
that it followed Park Hill without equalling that achievement. RHG architect Ken Baker
conversely has indicated being a ‘streets in the air project’ has clouded evaluations of RHG as it
was designed moreover as a ‘perimeter development’. This reflected the Smithsons’ thinking
regarding the car and urban development and their belief that as new roads are carved
through the city, buildings designed around parks could provide traffic free areas that they
called ‘land-castles - hard outer skins with soft centres’. So rather than simply copy Park Hill,
RHG deals with the problems of traffic providing a ‘private realm’ with a garden and the
‘public’ side facing the roads, which are ideals that could potentially support a case for special
interest.133 Despite Allan’s views regarding listing he did not think the buildings should be
demolished and that the estate could and should be rehabilitated.134 Indeed good precedents
exist for the refurbishment of post-War housing schemes without the support or constraints of
listing and such a case is illustrated in the final case study.

131
Powers A. (ed.) (2010), p.21
132
Building Design, 19 Nov. 2010, p.2
133
Baker K. ‘Robin Hood Gardens as a Perimeter Building’ in Powers (2010), p.51-2
134
Allan J. (2008) EH Conservation Bulletin Issue 59, Autumn 2008, p.30

265
Wynford House and the Priory Green Estate, Finsbury

The Priory Green Estate Design

Figure 196: The Busaco Street Site, Pre-development135

In the 1930’s the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury (MBF) identified an area for slum
clearance on Busaco Street in Pentonville. This was in effect an urban block, inhabited by
almost a thousand people.136 In 1937 Lubetkin and Tecton became involved in the scheme
that was part of the Finsbury Plan, an overall social programme for the Borough that intended
a better standard of living for its inhabitants.137 Tecton's original design consisted of two 400ft
long, north-south parallel blocks facing a central court and concrete construction with
colourful facings and private recessed balconies for all the flats. The site was cleared but WWII

135
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 21 Oct. 2013
136
Survey of London: volume 47: Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville, CHAPTER XVI. West of Penton Street, originally FBC Minutes, 1930–1
<http://www.british-history.ac.uk> [retrieved 1 Oct. 2013]
137
Coe P. & Reading M. (1981), Lubetkin and Tecton Architecture and Social Commitment, p.169

266
prevented any further progress. After the War questions were raised about the scheme’s
density, which at 270 persons per acre was now double LCC’s notional figure for the area. As a
result the site was increased to eight and three quarter acres.138 Lubetkin developed a number
of proposals and there were numerous budget cuts, design revisions and delays due in part to
reductions in loan sanctions for housing.139 In 1945 MBF finally agreed to have two, high and
long north-south slab blocks in parallel, as in the pre-War scheme, with four lower blocks to
the west, providing a total of 269 flats. Development of the northern part of the site near
Wynford Road was postponed but the notion of a future block commanding the top of the
open space between the slabs was retained.140

Figure 197: The Busaco Street Site, Post-development141

138
Survey of London: volume 47, originally FBC Minutes, 1943–4
139
Survey of London: volume 47, originally FBC Minutes, 7 July 1947 and BAL Archives, LUB/2/5/62
140
Survey of London: volume 47, originally FBC Minutes, FBC Mins, May -July 1945
141
Adapted from Digimap, accessed 21 Oct. 2013

267
 Figure 198: Priory Green Estate Site Plan showing Lubetkin’s Landscaping Proposals142

By the time work started in Feb. 1948 Lubetkin was busy with other work. At that time the
Tecton practice broke up and detailing and supervising the three-year construction fell to the
reconstituted firm of Skinner & Lubetkin with implementation of the structural system to Arup.
This resulted in a construction process that was fraught with disagreements and a lack of
communication between the two parties.143 As completion neared, the estate acquired the
name of Priory Green, after the Hospitaller priory that had once owned the land, with

142
Adapted from The Architects’ journal, 9 Oct. 1952, p. 433
143
Survey of London: volume 47, originally BAL Archives, LUB/3/2/15,22; Allan J. (1992) Berthold Lubetkin Architecture and the tradition of progress,
p.442-3

268
individual buildings called after priors of the order. The realised estate differed in aesthetics as
well as in plan from the pre-War model. The long slabs had been shortened and simplified to
cut costs and the run of projections and recessions in the original scheme was now a bold
jutting forward of the whole centre on either side. The three and four room flats were
accessed by twelve stairs and four lifts. The scheme also provided a caretaker’s flat, estate
office, workshop, electrical substation and a bike/pram store on the lower ground of Kendel
House.144 The four storey blocks were intended to provide variety in scale and aspect from the
high blocks and to form a link with the height of the surrounding terraces. They contained two
and three room flats with south facing living rooms and private balconies.145

Figure 199: The Priory Green Estate, Aerial View, c.1952146

Many of the facilities intended in the initial brief, including the nursery, were forgone but a
laundry was provided in a low circular building with sixteen cubicles and a high chimney
adjacent to the boiler-house which supplied hot water to the flats. The formal estate
entrance, off Collier Street, had a shelter with a coloured relief map of the project. Murals in

144
The Architects’ journal, 9 Oct. 1952, p.433-41
145
Coe P. & Reading M. (1981), p.169
146
Survey of London: volume 47,figure 552

269
cement paint by Feliks Topolski decorated each of the four ramped entrances of Kendal
House.147 In considering the overall site layout, Tecton had tried to overcome what they
considered deficiencies in other contemporary housing schemes, namely insignificant
entrances and barren surroundings. They paid particular attention to the transition from the
outside to individual dwellings. The blocks were arranged to enclose generous open spaces
creating a proportion and scale intended to reflect the quality of a London Square with trees,
hard surfaces and seats. 148

Figure 200: Early Images of the Priory Green Estate149

147
Architectural Review, Oct 1952, p.241-50
148
Coe P. & Reading M. (1981), London, p.171
149
<http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/search/results.html?n=11&qs=priory%20green> [retrieved 10 Oct. 2013]

270
 Figure 201: Early Estate Views150

Berthold Lubetkin’s Design Methodology

With a classical Russian education, followed by architectural training in the wake of the
Revolution in Moscow and Leningrad, Lubetkin counted Tatlin and Rodchencho amongst his
150
<http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/search/results.html?n=11&qs=priory%20green> [retrieved 10 Oct. 2013]

271
teachers. Throughout his life he remained devoted to the Constructivist belief in technology
and architecture as tools of social transformation. In Berlin he learned about modern
construction techniques, particularly reinforced concrete, and textile design under the art
historian Wilhelm Worringer, a specialist in carpet design.151 When in practice in Paris,
working with Ginsburg and Perret, he met artists like Braque, Gris and Leger and was highly
receptive to the powerful influence they exerted. Lubetkin moved to Britain in 1931 aged 30,
formed the Tecton partnership in 1932 and by 1936 his international reputation had been
established.152 According to Smith (1981) Lubetkin believed rational thought and imaginative
design went hand in hand and this led him to reject functionalism which he regarded as ‘the
best way to divest architecture of that living richness and complexity that have throughout
history given it significance and purpose’153 His theoretical insight and social concern were
combined with a drive for technical mastery to ensure that architecture was essentially an
agent for human betterment.154 Lubetkin is quoted as saying: ‘I have the unfashionable
conviction that the proper concern of architecture is more than self-display. It is a thesis, a
declaration, statement of the social aims of the age’.155 Coe (1981) also indicates Lubetkin’s
commitment was to find an architecture based on a radical but rational philosophy that
employed progressive techniques fused with classical principles. He began, therefore to
‘compose’ his buildings in a classical sense recognising that: ‘all composition involves a
deliberate choice, a relation of parts, an internal organisation reflecting in outline the concept
of order that we believe in’.156 Throughout his career he regarded art and philosophy as
guiding principles that would command the considerable technical expertise that he had
acquired, indicating: ‘art, like science is a guide to action – science enabling us to get what we
want – art showing us what it is we want’.157 From Perret in particular he learned technical
experience and also the necessity of an evident rational organisation of a building from
composition to construction.158

Lubetkin was a member of the Modern Architecture Group (MARS) and contributed
significantly to a MARS exhibition project in 1934 that studied the economic, social and
159
environmental history of the east London district of Bethnal Green. In 1936, however,
dissatisfied with their apolitical stance, he and fellow Tecton partner, Skinner set up the

151
<http://designmuseum.org/design/berthold-lubetkin> [retrieved 10 Oct. 2013]
152
Coe P. (1981) Lubetkin and Tecton Architecture and Social Commitment, p.38
153
Quoted by Ivor Smith in Coe P. (1981), Foreword
154
Ivor Smith in Coe P. (1981), p.11
155
Lubetkin in letter to Dr. Monica Felton, 13 July 1947, quoted by Coe (1981), p.17
156
Lubetkin quoted by Coe (1981), p.25
157
Lubetkin quoted by Coe (1981), p.38
158
Coe P. (1981), p.40
159
Coe P. (1981), p.19

272
Architects and Technicians Organisation (ATO) to examine housing conditions and pursue
various campaigns, challenging national government housing policy. The ATO produced an
important exhibition on contemporary housing in 1936 and was successful in mobilising
debate on housing issues and tenants’ rights, supporting rent strikes against ‘unscrupulous’
landlords and exposing ‘jerry-building’ by speculative housing developers.160 It was with the
work for the Metropolitan Borough of Finsbury and their ambitious ideas for developing a
whole programme of social building in the borough (The Finsbury Plan) that Lubetkin was able
to fulfil these aspirations. Tecton’s first project, the Finsbury Health Centre (now Grade I
listed) was envisaged as Finsbury’s first social element and this was followed by the
commission of the two housing estates, Spa Green and Priory Green. These offered the
opportunity to advance the design methodology that Lubetkin had developed for slabs aligned
in strict parallel, following the so-called ‘Zeilenbau site’ layout, prevalent in Weimar. This
design offered ‘generous flats’ off staircases instead of access galleries, and fuller services than
such dwellings usually enjoyed. It also drew on Tecton's experience at their Highpoint One
flats, using a concrete structure with solid external walls raised with sliding shuttering,
developed by Ove Arup. Savings by this method allowed better accommodation and
services.161 The new economic and political context that emerged following the War,
however, meant the Finsbury Plan was never fully realised.

Figure 202: Spa Green Estate, Tecton’s Interpretation of the Zeilenbau Site’ Layout162

160
Allan J. & Von Sternberg M. (2002) Berthold Lubetkin, p.33
161
The Architects’ journal, 21 March 1935, p.437–46
162
<http://municipaldreams.wordpress.com/2013/04/30/the-spa-green-estate-finsbury-an-outstanding-advance-in-municipal-housing> [retrieved 17
Dec. 2014]

273
Lubetkin’s buildings consistently demonstrated the way in which new architecture could serve
society with a programme associated with social problems like poor housing and ill health.163
Coe (1981) even considers Tecton’s zoo work was intended as a metaphor for a utopian
future.164 And as Allen (2002) concluded it was not the functional resolution but rather the
humanist values and social commitment of Lubetkin’s projects that constituted his core
message, his insistence that Modern architecture’s task extended beyond merely
demonstrating its own operational duties. The popularity and successful rehabilitation of his
social housing schemes and their statutory designation, now provides ample proof of his
original intentions and their value.165

Figure 203: Finsbury Health Centre166

Priory Green’s Detailing

The estate’s construction was a reinforced concrete box frame structure with reinforced brick
infill. The ‘egg crate’ structure dispensed with the need for beams and columns which opened
up the façades for maximum window space.167 There were cast iron gutters and downpipes on

163
Allan J. & Von Sternberg M. (2002) Berthold Lubetkin, p.42
164
Coe P. (1981), p.54, Tecton was commissioned by London Zoo to design buildings at Regent’s Park and for their reserve park at Whipsnade and to
design a new zoo in Dudley.
165
‘From Highpoint to low point’ in Architectural Review 18 Sept. 2013
166
<http://municipaldreams.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/finsbury_health_centre_avanti300109.jpg> [retrieved 17 Dec. 2014]
167
Spring M. in Building, 25 Jun 1982, p.32-4

274
the faces of the buildings and metal window frames with precast concrete surrounds. All
concrete surfaces were treated. Recessed and protected surfaces were covered in cement
paint or cement/lime slurry and the large plain surfaces were clad in cream tiles built up into a
rhythm of larger sheets.168 The access galleries were faced in concrete panels (although
reported as being of Portland stone).169 Lubetkin aimed to relieve the monotony of blocks of
flats containing piled-up repetitive units by alternating the flat plans on each floor and
staggering the rhythm of balcony openings, drawing inspiration for this from the chequerboard
arrangement of the Verneh Kilims from the Caucasus. He had studied at the Berlin Textile
Academy under art historian Wilhelm Worringer, a specialist in carpet design. Grounding
aesthetics within social history, Worringer’s lectures had a lasting influence on Lubetkin.170
Critics were wary about this creeping 'patternomania' however, with Posener (1951)
remarking: 'I fully appreciate the despair of the architect faced with elevating these big blocks
and his desire to do something about it, but I am at a loss to discover, in this pattern weaving,
the human scale…if one has to live in these enormous unites, I, for one, prefer being a number.
I would not be a knot in the master's carpet'. 171

Figure 204: Typical Flat Layout, showing Deck Access and Balcony172

168
Coe P. & Reading M. (1981), p.169
169
Survey of London: volume 47, information from John Allan; The Architects journal, 9 Oct 1952, p.437
170
Coe P. & Reading M. 1981), p.38,
171
Architectural Design, Dec 1951, p.354-6
172
Survey of London: volume 47, Figure 549

275
In 1952 plans for the northern part resumed. Wynford House, built 1954-7, was an eight-
storey block with four room flats on each floor. Its design responded to the slope of the site
and it had lower east and west wings extending northwards, that were joined to the main
block by bridge links. The recessed portion of each block was displaced and reversed in plan
allowing the continuous galley access to run along the block face. Stairs were positioned at
each block end and stairs and a lift at the two junctions of the three sections. The flats
spanned the blocks so each one was twin aspect. Wynford House’s structure had been
simplified and the patterning on its flatter elevations depended on a play between pre-cast
concrete panels and black-coloured concrete bricks. The balcony fronts and common
staircases were also now of exposed concrete.173 As recognition of its commanding role at the
head of the open space a concrete bas-relief by Kenneth Hughes of a 'Finsbury family' was
positioned on the southern end of the community centre. 174 A three storey block, Calshot
House was also built in 1958. Lubetkin’s landscaping designs, however, were never carried
through, nor did a nursery school planned for the site transpire.

Figure 205: Map of the Estate, from Tenants’ Handbook175

173
Survey of London: volume 47, originally FBC Mins, 1952–7
174
Survey of London: volume 47, originally BAL, Photographs Collection, Lubetkin photographs 5058/86
175
<https://barnsburyliving.wordpress.com/2014/08/14/a-slice-of-local-history> [retrieved 19 Feb. 2015]

276
 Figure 206: Early Views of Wynford House176

Figure 207: Wynford House and the Finsbury Family Relief177

Responses to the Priory Green Estate

Richards (1953) considered the Finsbury flats were ‘on an impressive scale’, well planned’ and
that they extracted ‘a lot of drama from their sloping site’. He also thought Tecton had taken
‘a stage further the experiments in façade patterning’ that the practice had been conducting
‘with the object of breaking down the monotony which large scale repetitions of identical
small scale elements otherwise produces’. Richards felt the results of this were ‘always

176
Image Numbers: 49515/55977 <https://www.architecture.com/image-library> [retrieved 10 Oct. 2013]
177
<http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk/search/results.html?n=11&qs=priory%20green> [retrieved 10 Oct. 2013]

277
interesting’ but also that ‘where so intense a concentration on the purely formal treatment of
facades is likely to lead modern architecture in their hands is a point about which many people
have their misgivings’ and that the ‘intricate weaving together of different materials’ was not
made more ‘agreeable in this case by their somewhat harsh colours’. 178

Former Councillor, and Priory Green resident John Worker has recounted that ‘the properties
were in great demand and people were queuing up to get on the estate, they were attracted
because even then people did not want to live in tower blocks’. The laundry also became a
‘social gathering place where the women of the estate would socialise and chat’.179 In the
high blocks, however, vandalism of lifts and problems in the open areas were reported as early
as 1952. Complaining in Nov. 1954 of the 'alleged rapid deterioration of this estate', the
residents association urged that it be fenced in by railings and that that the gravel paths be
replaced by asphalt. After damage to the Topolski murals the following year MBF’s Housing
Committee suggested that 'notes and information about the murals be published at the estate
directing the tenants' attention to the fact that they have a work of art in their midst'. 180 By
1980 the estate, now under London Borough of Islington (LBI) management, was in poor
condition with many vacant flats. Disillusioned tenants issued a mock-obituary notice of 'the
sad death of a once-loved friend - their housing estate', comparing their conditions with
Colditz.181 Some structural improvements took place 1981–2 including central heating
installation and over-painting in red of the balcony fronts.182 Spring (1982) indicated that due
to Government cutbacks the estate only received ‘basic repairs’ despite the fact it was
suffering from ‘serious technical failures’. He also described that it was ‘neither loved or
respected by the majority of its inhabitants’ and that it bore ‘all the familiar stigma of a sink
estate with aerosol graffiti, vandalised play equipment, landscaping and lifts and fouled
entrance and staircase areas’. He attributed this to little caretaking and maintenance over the
years, a ‘remote council building works department unresponsive to the day to day repair
needs’ and that the estate had ‘slowly sunk into a repository for problem families, as those
tenants with a good record are given the chance to move elsewhere’. Although Spring praised
the technical innovation of the box frame construction he considered that with no prior
experience to go on the concrete mix had been too porous and the slabs too slender to
adequately cover the reinforcing bars resulting in spalling of the concrete (see also Chapter 5).
He also highlighted that many of the decorative tiles had been falling off. Lubetkin had

178
Richards J. M. in The Architects’ journal, 15 Jan. 1953, p.920-1
179
<https://barnsburyliving.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/former-councillor-john-worker-reminisces-on> [retrieved 5 July 2015]
180
Survey of London: volume 47, originally FBC Mins, 2 April, 9 Sept 1952, 1 Nov 1954, 10 Oct 1955
181
Survey of London, volume 47, originally Islington Gazette, 2 Aug 1980
182
Survey of London, volume 47, originally LBI Housing Committee Mins., 23 Nov 1982

278
reportedly been invited to review the repairs.183 Further refurbishments in 1987–9 included
the creation of private gardens for the ground-floor flats and the redesign and glazing-in of the
main entrances, where tenants had 'feared to walk because of inadequate lighting and the
threat of muggers'. By now the Topolski murals had been ‘lost’.184

The Fate of Wynford House

In 1996 Wynford House was in a very poor state, swathed in scaffolding and netting after the
fall of a concrete panel. A structural survey was conducted and the flats were vacated on the
grounds of health and safety with tenants found alternative accommodation. LBI could not
afford the £4.1m repair so they explored alternatives of whether to demolish and redevelop
the site or refurbish the building, with the second option being urged by Lubetkin's biographer,
John Allan. An open competition, the Wynford Challenge, was held to help decide the
building’s fate. Most of the 37 entries favoured demolition and rebuilding private housing.
Very few included any provision for social housing.185 The judges’ panel chose a solution that
involved demolition and a replacement building, but this was rejected by LBI on the grounds
that the planning brief had indicated that the preferred scheme should involve restoration and
refurbishment of Wynford House.186 Allan was quoted as saying: ‘I would strongly oppose any
suggestion to remove Wynford House, or replace it with small scale housing. It must be
recognised the buildings have an architectural vigour and sculptural interest quite unlike the
bland, featureless anonymity of most conventional housing estates’. 187 In the event it was
Allan's firm, Avanti Architects, in partnership with the engineers Alan Conisbee Associates and
the Community Housing Association who were selected by the building’s residents for the
refurbishment.188

LBI disposed of the property freehold to Community housing Association, in return for a capital
receipt of £1m and nomination rights to make 30% of the ungraded properties at affordable
rates.189 In a new arrangement and the first of its kind in London, they were reconfigured as
sixty-two privately rented dwellings in the central and eastern blocks supporting twenty-six
social-housing homes in the western one. The privately rented flats are reached via a central
gate, while access to the social housing wing is via a passageway to the right. Apart from this

183
Spring M. in Building, 25 June 1982, p.32-4
184
The Architects’ journal, 19 Oct 1988, p.77–8
185
Middleton C. ‘They take from the rich’ in The Telegraph, 8 June 2002
186
The Architects journal, 1 Aug. 1996, p.13
187
The Architects’ journal, 3 April 1997, p.13
188
Community Housing now: http://www.onehousinggroup.co.uk
189
The Architects’ journal, 3 Sept. 1998, p. 32, Building design, 17 Nov. 2000, p. 16-19

279
there is no visible difference between the blocks and all the flats have been fitted out to the
same standard. The ground and first floor flats were also reconfigured as maisonettes for
larger families and the landscaping was renovated and redesigned to allow the lower level
dwellings to have front doors at ground level. The refurbishment intended to respect the
architecture, structure and colours of the original blocks with attention being paid to the
renewal of concrete surfaces. Allan (2008) described that for the exposed aggregate panel
repairs the task was to reveal and retain their original visual appearance but the cost of
replacing them was prohibitive, so artists were employed to repaint the aggregate in trompe
l’oeil.190 The bridge-links between the three blocks were removed and substituted with half-
flight stairs to make each block free-standing, which allows more light into the central garden
area. The gallery walls and the courtyard elevations of the wing blocks were also rebuilt to
improve thermal performance.191 The central block received a new entrance porch on the
northern side and two new roof-top penthouses to replace the obsolete plant and water-tank
installations.

192
Figure 208: Wynford House Front Elevation 2007

A concierge was created in the new entrance porch providing a permanent security
presence.193 Windows were replaced to the original fenestration pattern but also to current

190
Allan J. ‘Conservation of Modern Movement Architecture’ in ASCHB Newsletter spring 08, p.6
191
Building Design, 17 Nov. 2000, p. 16-19
192
Survey of London, volume 47, figure 556
193
Allan J. (2007) ’points of balance’, p.25

280
performance standards. Re-tiling was undertaken using matching tiles.194 Grants meant a
special children's facility could also be included within the redevelopment, located within the
disused tenant’s meeting rooms.195 The original concrete relief of a ‘Finsbury Family’ was
cleaned and restored. Work, estimated at £7.5m, ran from 1998 to May 2000, when the
refurbished blocks, renamed Priory Heights, were opened by the local MP and Culture
Secretary, Chris Smith.196

Figure 209: Typical Refurbished Priory Heights’ Flat197

Powell (2002) considered the project demonstrated ‘one way ahead for London's sometimes
problematic stock of post-1945 social housing’.198 The cross-subsidy formula generated
sufficient revenue to finance the scheme, eliminating any dependency on a social housing

194
Allan J. & Von Sternberg M. (2002), Berthold Lubetkin, p.117
195
The Architects’ journal 20 April 2000, p.6-7
196
The Architects’ Journal 1/8 Aug 1996, p.13; 3 Sept 1998, p.32; 20 April 2000, p.6–7
197
<http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property-history/54-wynford-road/london/n1-9sn/29099019> [retrieved 24 Feb. 2015]
198
Powell K. (2002) New London Architecture, p.181

281
grant.199 In 2002 the social housing tenants paid £90 a week whereas those let on the open
market paid the market rent, then £280 a week (private rent approximately £1470 per month
in May 2013200). What this project also demonstrated is that there is a market for relatively
cheap, centrally located, rented accommodation. In 2002 Citystyle (Community Housing
Association) director, Chris Natt was quoted as saying that price that was the paramount
consideration with the young, privately renting sector of the market and that whereas most
conventional flats have different-sized bedrooms, their tenants wanted them all the same
dimensions to avoid one flatmate having a much larger room than anyone else. Natt also
indicated that the location of the flats in what had been known as an area where crime could
be an issue had not deterred people, so long as the flats’ interiors were of a good standard and
there was effective security and concierge facilities. Natt concluded that there was a ‘huge
unsatisfied demand for rented properties in this price range’.201 Allan (1997) also considered
the scheme fits in with ‘the current drive to re-inhabit high density city centres’ which has also
been identified by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Mixed income communities could have a
valuable part to play in the revitalisation of Britain’s inner cities. 202

Responses to the Refurbishment and the Domino Effect

203
Figure 210: The Priory Green Estate, north from Collier Street, 2007

199
Allan J. (2007), p.25
200
<http://www.zoopla.co.uk/property-history/54-wynford-road/london/n1-9sn/29099019> [retrieved 5 July 2015]
201
Middleton C. in The Telegraph, 8 June 2002, Citystyle is the commercial element of Community Housing Association
202
Building 5 Dec. 1997, p.50-1; See for example: J. Rowntree Foundation (1997) The Market for a New Private Rented Sector JFR Findings 214 June; J.
Rowntree Foundation (2005) A Good Place For Children? Attracting and Retaining Families in Inner Urban Mixed Income Communities
203
Survey of London, volume 47, figure 546

282
The refurbishment won the DOE Housing Design Award in 1998, the Evening Standard New
Development by Housing Association Award in 2000 and the Concrete Society Mature
Structures Award in 2000.204 The Housing Design Award panel considered that many
‘thoughtfully designed post-War council estates’ had been subjected to the ‘crudest of
improvements’ whilst ‘leaving untouched the elements of physical and social obsolescence’
which really required ‘attention’. The Wynford house scheme was ‘a welcome contrast’
involving a ’balanced mix of physical and management intervention’. They also considered
that the change of ownership to the Housing Association, diversification of tenure including
private penthouses, and bringing families down to the ground floor maisonettes, had been
combined with ‘sympathetic restoration of Lubetkin’s original fabric and landscaping, internal
upgrading, security measures and new community facilities’. Although they considered that all
of this may all seem ‘fairly low-key’ it was ‘the very stuff of prudent housing management’ and
it offered ‘far better value for money in the long term than many more drastic and expensive,
instant solutions’.205 Powell (2002) indicated at first glance, Priory Heights looks much like
hundreds of other local authority housing blocks in London, but closer study of form and
details reveals ‘the touch of a master’. He considered the refurbishment emerged as the
marker for an improvement program for the entire estate.206

Indeed, as a result of the work on Wynford House the estate was designated a Conservation
Area by LBI. In Sept. 2000 the Council ceded the rest of Priory Green to the Peabody Trust
with the aim of restoring it.207 With Conservation Area status it was possible to attract
Heritage Lottery grant aid to ensure that the refurbishment and estate upgrade would be to a
conservation standard and also what Allan has described as 'a Lubetkin-friendly standard'.208
In Nov. 2002 Peabody was duly awarded a £2m grant from the Heritage Lottery Fund's
Townscape Heritage initiative and Avanti Architects acted as conservation consultants
throughout the project design implementation. The Heritage Lottery was quoted as saying it
was: ‘an outstanding example of the socialist health and housing policies of the then Borough
of Finsbury and had a major influence on public housing in London’. 209 In 2004 a £15.2m works
programme, completed with tenants in residence, included new kitchens and bathrooms, re-
roofing, concrete repair and tile replacement, new windows, new services and recoating
original colours. There was also an overhaul of the door entry system and new flat entrance

204
<http://avantiarchitects.co.uk/our-practice/awards> [retrieved 5 July 2015]
205
<http://www.hdawards.org/archive/archive/1998/projects/wynford/media/wynford.pdf> [retrieved 5 July 2015]
206
Powell K. (2002), p.181
207
Building Design, 17 Nov 2000, p.6
208
Survey of London: volume 47, ref. 152, information from John Allan
209
Building Design, 17 Nov. 2000, p.6, a £27m initiative to help regenerate 33 towns/cities across the UK, Priory Green received the biggest single sum

283
doors. Improvements to communal areas and facilities included new security and landscaping,
a new play area, improved lighting, and new refuse stores. Solar photovoltaic (PV) panels were
installed in Dec. 2011 to power lifts, communal lighting and the buildings’ communal TV
aerials.210 The re-landscaping of the estate grounds was based on a scheme derived from
Lubetkin’s original unimplemented design. There are now two community centres on the
estate: The Hugh Cubitt centre and the Old Laundry completing Lubetkin’s original concept for
Priory Green providing a range of services for local people. Both centres host activities as part
of Peabody’s Big Lottery funded Activate London programme, promoting physical exercise,
good mental health and healthy eating.

Figure 211: Priory Heights, 2010211

In 2003 Conservation Area Design Guidelines were drawn up to help preserve and enhance the
special character and appearance of the estate.212 These highlight Islington is fortunate in
having two grade II* listed estates designed by Lubetkin which constitute an important part of
the architect’s work and although not listed, Priory Green is part of the Lubetkin tradition, with
a number of innovations and stylistic devices which had been previously developed, including

210
Building ref. 15536 <http://www.londonopenhouse.org> [retrieved 4 Oct 2013]
211
<http://kingscrossenvironment.com/2010/11/02/how-the-priory-green-estate-has-changed> [retrieved 5 July 2015]
212
<http://www.islington.gov.uk/services/planning/plan_conserve/documents_and_guidance/conservation_area_guidance/Pages/ca37_priory_gree
n.aspx> [retrieved 5 July 2015]

284
the distinctive chequerboard effect of the elevations. The guidelines indicate that the
buildings on the Priory Green Estate have many distinctive details which the Council will seek
to preserve, and although some elements have been lost it will encourage reinstatement,
including doors, windows, light fittings, balcony rails, rainwater goods, painted artwork,
sculpture and tiling. LBI has added the estate buildings to their local list of buildings of
architectural or historic importance and considers their loss would greatly reduce the historic
and architectural interest of the area. 213

Figure 212: The Priory Green Estate, 2012214

213
Priory Green Conservation Area Design Guidelines, 37.7
214
<http://www.modernarchitecturelondon.com/pages/priory-green.php> [retrieved 12 Dec. 2014]

285
In 2013 Tony Molloy, once area manager highlighted how much the estate had changed: ‘at
the time Priory Green estate was infamous for issues of vice…today my biggest surprise is not
the physical changes but how well Priory Green estate is cared for after so many years of
neglect. It is unrecognisable from the rundown estate it once was, and it is safe…the play
equipment is used by children, needles are no longer an issue and the community is not
plagued with crime’.215

Allan (2007) considered that in his experience in the refurbishment Modern buildings it is
necessary to ‘keep a balance’ on the different priorities. Property owners are interested in the
economic value of the building as an asset, conservationists in authenticity and significance
and users in whether it is a good place in which to live. He also feels the challenge is
overcoming scepticism from the building owners that a dilapidated property designed to
obsolete standards is capable of being upgraded to compete with a new-build alternative and
the users that they can live in a building with capacity to change reduced by an inflexible
design or conservation constraint. As Allan also highlights all such renovation cases are
grounded in an economic context and much of the public sector heritage is managed by
departments who ‘want answers not history’. To overcome such issues Allen advocates a
‘revaluation of assets’ where the original social or use values of a building have declined but
where the embodied value is sufficient to justify regeneration. Priory Green has shown that
even in situations dominated by economic and social priorities there are still worthwhile
opportunities to recover and enhance original identities. Allan indicates the objective was to
regenerate and re-present the estate to make it attractive and relevant to both existing local
people and also a ‘new audience’. The conventional response would have been over-clad and
‘repackage’ the buildings but he wanted to try and ‘recapture the original vigour and contrasts
of the elevations’ which had deteriorated through years of weathering, restoring them to
retrieve their architectural identity whilst also fulfilling the client brief of warranted technical
repair. Other elements of the building’s fabric were mended or replaced and wherever
possible upgraded and Allan admits there have been ‘significant re-formations of the design’
but there are now 360 homes equipped to current standards that have a secure future and are
more authentic in terms of their architectural character than at any time since their
completion. Allan feels ‘Priory Green has been saved by being changed, but changed in a way
that gives the estate back a sense of its original identity’. 216

215
<http://kingscrossenvironment.com/2010/11/02/how-the-priory-green-estate-has-changed> [retrieved 5 July 2015]
216
Allan J. (2007) ‘Points of Balance – Patterns of practice in the Conservation of Modern Architecture’, p.24-8

286
Conclusion

‘Ultimately the planning system embraces more than heritage significance and the heritage
values in EH’s Conservation Principles must be weighed against other values that are
important to society’.
Simon Thurley 217

‘Architecture is defined by the actions it witnesses as much as by the enclosure of its walls.’

Bernard Tschumi 218

These two case studies have contrasted the plight facing much post-War social housing. Both
estates were designed by famous architects but they failed to obtain listed status, despite the
fact that other works by them have been deemed worthy of securing it. Due to the amount of
surviving buildings from this period only those considered to be the most innovative and
architecturally significant can be offered heritage protection and these two estates simply
failed to make the grade. Without listing they are vulnerable to destruction and, as the case of
RHG demonstrates, their demise cannot be prevented if heritage values are considered to be
outweighed by other factors. The case of Wynford House has shown, however, that
demolition does not have to be the automatic outcome and indeed Wynford House’s failure to
obtain listed status has liberated its renovation from heritage constraints but at the same time
it has resulted in a scheme that retains the architectural integrity of its original design, and
more importantly it has allowed it to continue to provide some of the services originally
intended.

217
Thurley (2006) ‘The Constructive Approach to Conserving Modernist Buildings’ speech at Mending Modernism conference
218
‘Architecture and Transgression’ in Oppositions, 7, Winter 1976, p.56-63

287
Chapter 8: Conclusions

‘Modern architecture is not a historical phase that is now over, or the subject of a revival…it
has hardly even begun and in the light of that new day, conservation and Modernism will
both wither away like the insubstantial spectres we know them to be’.

Saul Ostrow1

‘If I had to say which was telling the truth about society, a speech by the Minister for
Housing or the actual buildings put up in his time, I should believe the buildings’.

Kenneth Clark, 19692

This thesis has confirmed that there are underling factors hindering the heritage protection of
Post-WWII social housing and that for the examples examined there is an inconsistent
approach to their protection basis. This section offers therefore a recap of the different
factors that have caused the case studies to be so varied and which condition the entire field
of the heritage of Modernist architecture. These are as follows: the listing of this heritage
type and the consequences that can arise as a result of failure to secure listed status; the
inherent complexities of Modernism that manifest in post-War housing conservation and the
measures that have been introduced to help ensure more objectivity in listing decisions; how
Conservation Area designation can be applied to this heritage type; how the fabric of the case
study housing is being protected, the new conservation challenges that it poses for heritage
professionals and the differing views of the heritage sector over the acceptability of change;
the preservation of post-War social housing as a work of art and how this can present
challenges when renovation work is needed to provide modern, comfortable homes; the
threats that this housing faces in respect of erosion of design integrity and the measures being
introduced to protect the compositional whole; the problems and complexities associated with
the management of this heritage type and management’s involvement in heritage,
refurbishment and repair programmes; the use of Heritage Management Documentation in
the conservation of this heritage; residents’ involvement in estate conservation; and finally an
analysis of how the financing of the preservation and regeneration of Modern post-War social
housing is being achieved.

1
Quoted by Powers (2001), p.10, originally D Carrier (ed.) (1997) England and its aesthetics OPA: Amsterdam
2
Quoted by Allan (2002), p. 216

282
The Heritage Protection of Post-War Social Housing and Listing

This thesis has highlighted how examples of Modern, post-War social housing are now being
accepted as heritage. It has also shown how public attitude towards them has changed over
the years and that many are now enjoying a resurgence. Groups, such as the C20 Society and
DoCoMoMo, have had notable success in promoting and defending their preservation. Of the
eight case studies examined, six have secured heritage protection, being awarded listed
building status, two at Grade II* (Park Hill and Alexandra Road Estate) and a further three
estates have Grade II* listed elements [Crescent House (Golden Lane Estate), Trellick Tower
(the Cheltenham Estate) and Balfron Tower (the Brownfield Estate]. The others have Grade II
status (the remainder of Golden Lane Estate, The Brunswick, Carradale House on the
Brownfield Estate, and the remainder of the Cheltenham Estate). The recent reappraisal of
Balfron Tower has particularly shown how such attitudes have changed towards the
achievements of this housing. The listing of post-War social housing, however, is a relatively
new phenomenon, taking place since the early 1990’s and when the buildings had only been in
existence for an average of 31 years. Alexandra Road Estate was an exceptional case, having
been built for only 15 years, warranting consideration under the Ten Year Rule. Consequently
these estates are now deemed comparable in terms of architectural and historical significance
with listed housing from earlier periods, like for example the Grade II* 18th Century Georgian
terraces at Royal Crescent and Pelham Place (Kensington and Chelsea) and the 17th Century
terraced housing on Buckingham Street (Westminster).3 These older buildings have been
listed for their historical value and survival, and because they are representative of the period
in which they were built. The designation of the Pelham Place homes, for example, 115 years
after they were constructed, is stated as: ‘architectural interest: a good example of an early-
C19 stuccoed terrace’4. Being a relatively new phenomenon the case study examples do not
appear to fit the traditional notion of heritage, and because of their listing at such an early
stage after their construction they can be thought not yet to have ‘earned’ their status as
heritage. Unlike the earlier examples, the case study examples have not been listed for their
survival, but for their innovation and technical advancement: Golden Lane Estate - a
pioneering example of a diverse urban infill integrating housing and landscape using design
innovation and new construction methods; Park Hill - a ground-breaking development in its
use of streets in the sky and impressive scale; The Brunswick - a pioneering example of a
megastructure scheme and low-rise, high-density housing that developed the stepped section

3
See for example English Heritage List Entry Numbers: 265914/1357487/1220244/1066367
4
Pelham Place List Entry <http://list.english-heritage.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1357487> [retrieved 10 August 2015]

283
concept on a large scale; Alexandra Road Estate - a most formal and visually impressive
distinctive low-rise, high-density scheme based on Brown’s modern reinterpretation of the
notion of the house and the street; Balfron Tower - a block having a distinctive profile that sets
it apart from other tall blocks; Carradale house - a distinctive, unique reworking of the ideas
first embraced in Balfron Tower; Trellick Tower - the ultimate expression of Goldfinger's
philosophy of high-rise planning, embodying the best ideas of the time on high rise housing,
revealing Goldfinger’s meticulous planning, construction and detailing.

Although a building is ultimately listed for its architectural and historic interest, the case study
examples have shown that listing a building can be used as a means of preventing ruination
from inappropriate repairs and/or redevelopment programmes (Alexandra Road Estate,
Balfron Tower and The Brunswick), and to help protect land in its immediate vicinity (Trellick
Tower and the Cheltenham Estate). These are important considerations because if substantial
and damaging alterations are applied before listing, these can be presented as reasons for
failure to obtain listed status, as can whether or not the building has been completed as
originally planned (The Brunswick was refused listing initially for this reason). In all of the fore-
mentioned cases, however, the buildings were deemed so architecturally and historically
significant as to warrant their protection as listed buildings. Due to the amount of surviving
buildings from this period only those considered the most significant and innovative examples
can be listed. For Robin Hood Gardens (RHG) and Wynford house on the Priory Green Estate
this was simply not the case and without such classification there is no means to prevent their
alteration and/or destruction. In Wynford House’s case the local authority decided upon
renovation rather than demolition. Although it failed to obtain listed status it was renovated
with sensitivity to its architectural heritage but without listing constraints it could be more
easily changed to reflect current housing needs and improved standards for building
performance. The RHG and Wynford House case studies also demonstrated that the listing of
buildings is not an automatic process simply because the architects who built them are famous
and their other buildings have been afforded such protection.

The Inherent Complexities of Modern Post War Housing Conservation

RHG was refused listing because its design was not seen as seminal, following that of Park Hill
with respect to its deck access. This is despite claims that it did in fact represent the
Smithsons’ new invention of a perimeter development that they called a ‘landcastle’ providing
a private inner garden and a public ‘hard outer’ facing the roads. Indeed, RHG and the other
case studies have highlighted the inherent complexities of Modernism and how these have

284
presented difficulties for heritage professionals in defining principles to codify a consistent
approach. This is because these buildings are now ‘unintentional monuments’ that today
attract different values from those that they acquired at their inception. Operating in the
contemporary cultural context these values are the result of differing opinion and what is
considered to be a good example of innovative post-War social housing is open to
interpretation. EH’s Conservation Principles have been introduced to allow more objectivity
but the determination of their four heritage values (evidential, historical, aesthetic and
communal) and the comparative importance of each is still subjective as they are based on
relative art values.

EH’s listing criteria for post-War housing is now more stringent than that for earlier heritage.
This is to further ensure that only the most innovative and successful examples of this heritage
type are protected, so buildings have to demonstrate architectural interest and intactness of
design, whether the design was influential or a particularly good example of its type and
whether it met its objectives. The subjective and often contradictory nature of the application
of these criteria has also been illustrated in this thesis. For example, professional opinion
considered that RHG had met all the listing criteria but despite this it was refused listed
building status; Park Hill’s design was intact when it was listed at Grade II* but its subsequent
renovation has now removed a significant element of its original fabric. Most of the case study
examples were also listed before the new criteria’s introduction in 2011 and it is questionable
whether they would now satisfy these all these requirements. For example, for Golden Lane
Estate there is no evidence that the design was influential or ever copied. In respect of The
Brunswick, it is difficult to ascertain whether it met its objectives as these changed throughout
the build and it was not completed as intended. It would be interesting to note therefore
whether architectural aesthetic and design innovation alone would be considered sufficient to
guarantee their protection today. At the time of writing, Golden Lane Estate was the only case
study example to have been assessed to take account of EH’s four Conservation Principles with
respect to its heritage significance and values (see Listed Building Management Guidelines
(LBMG) Part 2, p.59).

This thesis has also highlighted the subjective and changing political context in which heritage
protection operates. It has confirmed that, although members of the architectural profession,
heritage protection groups like DoCoMoMo and the C20 Society and other advisory bodies
such as CABE and individual project steering groups can act in an advisory capacity, the listing
decision ultimately rests with the Government of the day (currently Secretary of State, DCMS

285
on the advice of EH). Although anyone can recommend a building for listing, generally
members of the public have little input into the listing decision making process. The case of
RHG in particular revealed the differing opinion of Government ministers, Government
advisory bodies, heritage groups and the architectural profession. The political dimension in
this case study is also heightened by the fact that the former Conservative heritage minister
Peter Brooke gave his backing to save the estate and the two successive Labour
heritage/culture ministers were responsible for the refusal to list it and to change this decision
following the appeal (Margaret Hodge and Barbara Follett respectively).

Conservation Area Status

In order to further protect the estate buildings and their immediate surroundings, including
demolition of unlisted buildings and structures forming part of the original design, four of the
eight case studies have been included in or designated as Conservation Areas: Alexandra Road
Conservation Area, designated March 1996 (Alexandra Road Conservation Area Statement
published 2000), Balfron Tower Conservation Area, designated 1998 (Balfron Tower
Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Guidelines issued 2007); Wynford House
included in the Priory Green Conservation Area in 2003 (Priory Green Conservation Area Design
Guidelines issued 2003); and The Brunswick included in the Bloomsbury Conservation Area in
2011 (Bloomsbury Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Strategy issued 2011). The
respective Conservation Area documents are helpful as they provide an assessment of the
character of the Conservation Area, including buildings and features that make a positive and
negative contribution. They also include Management Guidelines on how to preserve the area
together with guidance on the Conservation Area planning policies, opportunities, threats and
also resources that are considered necessary to maintain the Conservation Area’s character.
The Brunswick benefits, therefore, from the protection afforded by the Bloomsbury
Conservation Area. The respective Conservation Area statements, however, give no detailed
guidance of the conservation of the building as a specific entity. The Balfron Tower, Priory
Green Estate and Alexandra Road Conservation Area statements alternatively are more
beneficial because they are estate specific and provide a detailed account of the individual
estate elements such as: street furniture, paving materials, hard and soft landscaped areas, the
estate setting, significant views, unlisted/listed buildings and structures and they indicate what
is needed to maintain and enhance the estate itself as a Conservation Area. The Balfron Tower
Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Guidelines appear particularly informative in
setting out a detailed appraisal of the area’s architectural and historic character and they also

286
provide an overview of planning policy and guidelines on how the character should be
preserved and enhanced in the context of the ongoing challenges that the estate is currently
facing. In examining the case study examples it was unclear why some of the estates had been
selected for protection as Conservation Areas and why others, which are similar in nature and
design, had not. Indeed, other estates, particularly the Cheltenham Estate, could benefit from
such designation as this could further help to protect and enhance the estate and its environs
at a time of unprecedented change.

Protecting the Fabric of the Post-War Social housing and the Acceptability of Change

This thesis has highlighted how new, experimental materials and innovative construction
methods were used by the scheme architects. Notable examples include: the in-situ, complex
concrete stepped forms of Alexandra Road Estate and The Brunswick; the early curtain walling
and aluminium and glass facades of the Golden Lane Estate blocks; and Park Hill and
Goldfinger’s monumental in-situ constructions with their grid, regulated façades. Some of the
case study buildings have fared better than others. Goldfinger’s concrete structures in
particular have proved more durable and sound but in most of the other examples the
experimental materials have or are now failing in respect of building performance and this has
presented new conservation challenges for heritage professionals. The aging and
deterioration of concrete has been particularly problematic (see Alexandra Road Estate, Park
Hill and Wynford House). This has been attributed to little prior experience in its use,
knowledge about its deterioration (which differs from conventional materials such as brick and
stone) and how it should have been maintained. Repairs that were carried out also focused on
mending damaged areas to prevent further deterioration and little concern was given to the
building’s design and the impact of repairs on the building’s aesthetic (see Alexandra Road
Estate). It is only more recently therefore that appropriate methodologies on how to deal with
concrete’s conservation rather than solely its repair have been developed and work continues
in this area. In many of the case studies examined, decisions about the appropriate repair
and/or conservation methodology have had to be developed alongside and often in response
to a proposed course of action which has been deemed inappropriate by heritage
professionals. This has also highlighted the differing views of the heritage sector over the
acceptability of change and the conflicting application of the theoretical approaches in relation
to conservation of this heritage type. EH in particular has indicated that more change should
be acceptable in a Modern building and that 20th Century produced products are by their
nature more expendable as they can be replaced as and when required (see for example:

287
Thurley S. (2006) The Constructive Approach to Conserving Modernist Buildings). The C20
Society and DoCoMoMo alternatively appear to take a more conventional approach focusing
on issues such as retention of original fabric and design detail in order to protect heritage
significance (see for example Golden Lane Estate and the retention of dwelling interiors such
as room dividing screens). Indeed the traditional theoretical approaches concerning
conservation, like retention of original fabric, reversibility, minimum intervention etc. and the
advice outlined in PPS 5 (change is only advisable where the original is beyond repair, it
minimises the loss of historic fabric and matches the original in detail) do not appear to have
always offered a satisfactory approach in respect of the case study examples and this raises
questions as to what is important and of significance in Modern post-War social housing. For
example, Park Hill’s regeneration treatment contradicted conventional principles for a Grade
II* listed building in respect of minimum intervention and retention of original fabric as it not
only involved removal of a substantial element of the building’s fabric but also demolition of
elements that had been included in the list description, notably The Pavements shopping
podium and its shops. Instead its significance was deemed to lie in its heroic scale and the
siting of its monumental concrete frame within the landscape. The Brunswick’s listing at Grade
II instead of Grade II* acknowledged not only that it had not been completed as originally
planned but its possible future development, yet Park Hill’s conservation treatment has been
much more drastic in terms of change than The Brunswick’s.

Window replacement has been an area of particular contention between heritage groups.
Contrary to the conventional heritage response for a Grade II* listed building Park Hill’s Grade
II* listed windows were removed along with the rest of the façade infill and despite opposition
EH also approved complete window replacement in Grade II*listed Trellick Tower. Indeed, EH
advice suggests that Modern tower blocks are more accepting of changes to glazing believing
them to be more subsidiary to the impact of the overall design (see EH (2011) Domestic 4: The
Modern House & Housing). Contrarily other heritage groups, such as The C20 society, consider
that as the windows in Modern blocks were designed as an important and integral part of the
façade and that because they constitute a substantial part of the façade, they contribute
significantly to the architectural and historical significance and should be treated like windows
in any other Grade II* listed building. Trellick’s complete replacement was also justified on the
cost basis of preventative repair and the reassurance of new window warranties. The
replacements differed slightly as they needed to comply with current regulations and the need
to balance heritage requirements with modern performance and the latest technologies
appears to be a particular difficulty for this heritage type. Many of the other case study estate

288
buildings still have their original single glazed windows and will be facing similar dilemmas in
the future. At the time of writing for example and due to significant deterioration, Golden
Lane Estate’s Great Arthur House façades are being redeveloped and the single glazed metal
windows in Stanley Cohen House also need urgent attention. Balfron Tower’s current window
replacement proposals are also causing heritage professionals much concern.

The reason that these buildings are deemed to be more accepting of change than earlier
heritage could be possibly due to Modernism’s inherent values. As Modernism was deemed to
go beyond aesthetics to provide facilities commensurate with contemporary needs there is
perhaps a need for it to constantly demonstrate that it is meeting these. The case study
examples also illustrated how newness is valued and that the showing of passing of time and
aging is still considered unacceptable in a Modern building. The redeveloped elements of Park
Hill, for example, now look new and clean and therefore modern and acceptable again. This
may also explain why developers are keen to add elements of ‘newness’ that make the
architecture look contemporary, as in The Brunswick with its new shops and street. The
problems arise, however, when the newness is seen to threaten the building’s architectural
and historical significance and in this The Brunswick’s Eyecatcher restaurant may have been a
step too far. There is also perhaps a need to recognise and accept some of the Modern
Movement’s materials, like concrete, as a weathered material. No amount of cleaning of
Alexandra Road Estate’s concrete will return it to its former pristine condition and repair of the
rendered facades, as Brown had suggested, could form a distinction between the weathered
concrete and the newly painted render which is similar to the more traditional and acceptable
aesthetic of treated render and weathered stone.

Protection of Post-War Social Housing as a Work of Art Versus the need to Provide Modern
Homes

The classification of Modern post-War social housing as heritage architecture and therefore as
a work of art raises issues regarding their protection from ruination and alteration or
destruction by others (see for example Alexandra Road Estate). This thesis has highlighted
that there is no means to ensure that the original architect is involved in any subsequent
alterations or decisions about the building that they designed (see The Brunswick and RHG).
Indeed, the fact that some of the architects who designed these estates and/or members of
their original design teams are still living at a time when they are being designated as heritage
and important decisions are being made about their future is a recent phenomenon due to
their being listed at a more early stage than previous heritage. In the schemes examined the

289
original architects were naturally concerned about the future of their buildings, their poor
state and/or proposed alterations, and were keen to be involved in future work. Their
involvement proved beneficial in some cases, as in The Brunswick where involvement of
Hodgkinson and members of his original design team in the later redevelopment proposals
resulted in a more acceptable scheme. Brown’s involvement in the early Alexandra Road
Estate’s concrete repair programmes may also have prevented inappropriate and damaging
work. The involvement of the original architect in future works could ensure the conservation
effort and any redevelopment is undertaken with more respect to the original architecture and
it could also strengthen the case of authenticity. In The Brunswick’s case, however, it is
difficult to ascertain which design was authentic. A return to Hodkinson’s original design
intent could ensure authenticity and perhaps reflect more accurately how the place needs to
be now, but this ultimately threatens the historicity of the site. Similarly, redevelopment of
the landscaping of The Priory Green Estate to Lubetkin’s original plans could also be said to
contest the historicity of the place.

Examination of the case studies also revealed that, although the original architects were keen
for redevelopment programmes to be sympathetic to and enhance their designs and
demonstrate benefits for the people who lived there, they appeared less concerned about
preserving the detail of them materially. Ivor Smith, for example, welcomed Park Hill’s new
coloured aluminium windows and modified concrete balustrades and the new helix stair.
Hodgkinson agreed with the later changes to The Brunswick that respected the architectural
integrity of his original scheme but also those that made it more relevant to today’s needs. In
respect of the dwelling interiors, the architects also appeared more concerned about keeping
the buildings in use and using latest available materials and technology, rather than preserving
them completely (see for example Ivor Smith and Park Hill). Indeed, in the case studies
examined there is evidence that the initial residents appreciated their new homes because
they were so innovative and well planned using screens and movable room partitions to make
best use of the limited space and fitted out with the latest services and facilities. Consequently
the interiors of some, principally Golden Lane Estate, Alexandra Road and the Goldfinger
towers have been afforded protection and included in the list description. The protection of a
substantial element of the building fabric, including the interiors, places increased
responsibilities on owners, tenants and landlords to ensure conservation of historic character
and special architectural interest, particularly when renovation work is needed to the listed
elements to ensure homes comply with modern standards and they can continue to
accommodate facilities and services appropriate to contemporary needs. Technologies in

290
respect of building design have now moved on and the way domestic accommodation is now
used has also changed. The nomination of certain dwellings as ‘heritage flats’ and other
proactive conservational practices like establishment of a permanent exhibition and a
residents’ salvage store for donation of discarded original items for potential use by others
should ensure that some historic interiors and/or records about them can remain. It is
arguable, however, that Modern post-War housing may need to accommodate more change
to allow Modernism’s aims to continue to be met and ensure that these dwellings are able to
continue to provide affordable and comfortable homes. The renovation programmes of some
of the case study examples have also revealed improvements to help with building
performance but at the same time ensure sensitivity to the original architect’s designs in terms
of materials and aesthetics. Examples include: The Brunswick and its winter garden’s re-
glazing with low emissivity self-cleaning, safety glass; Wynford House’s rebuilding with thermal
bricks and reinstatement of the original façade effects in trompe l'oeil: Carradale House and
Balfron House’s proposed refurbishment using internal wall insulation to maintain the visual
appearance of the original façades.

Erosion of Design Integrity and Protection of the Compositional Whole

The case study housing was built as part of an integrated landscape, reflecting the relationship
and interplay of form and space that is an inherent part of the sculptural quality of Modern
design. This was achieved in a number of ways and it gives each estate a unique identity:
Golden Lane Estate – a series of linked, hard landscaped courtyards; Park Hill – a multi levelled
podium and shopping precinct and on the surrounding hillside a landscaped parkland;
Alexandra Road Estate – Rowley Way pedestrian street, a multi-level community precinct and
a central park with interlinked garden areas; The Brunswick - a hard landscaped, pedestrian
street and upper terraces; The Brownfield and Cheltenham estates - a multi-levelled
connective setting consisting of podiums with walkways over lower level service roads and
garages, surrounding landscaping and amenity greens; RHG - a large protected central park
with grassy mounds, lower level ‘moats’ with parking; Priory Green – an enclosed open space
reflecting that of a London Square. Most of the estates function on a number of levels,
allowing segregation of pedestrian and car, and within a varied landscape constructed with
reinforced concrete elements to create play spaces, retaining walls, ramps, stairs and bridges
which reinforces the estate’s material design pallet and the architectural whole. The
landscape of some of the estates, like Golden Lane, Brownfield and Cheltenham estates, were
also specifically designed to be viewed from above in the tall blocks, so consideration was also

291
given to floor treatments and the compositional effect when viewed from height. Over the
years a number of the ancillary services and estate features have become redundant, like
those occupied by former laundries, tenants’ halls and hobby rooms and also where former
plant and machinery was housed (see for example Wynford and Balfron Houses). In some
cases these have been or are being redeveloped to provide new facilities. Some estate
features have also been lost or altered over the years leading to changes in the original estate
layout and design. On the Cheltenham Estate, for example, several walkways and garden
areas have been demolished and/or altered and even at Golden Lane Estate, which has
remained basically intact, detail has been lost through successive repair and maintenance
programmes and alteration to elements like the main piazza. Previous work that was
undertaken prior to listing was often completed with little respect for the architectural
aesthetic of the buildings and with a least cost solution and this has had a damaging effect on
their fabric. Other day-to-day maintenance activities and installations like service updates
involving cabling and wiring have also been poorly managed and carried out with little concern
for conservation of the building’s fabric (particularly Alexandra Road and Golden Lane Estates).
The ‘uneven’ listing of some of the estates in respect of grade and over time, has also
contributed to their gradual erosion. For example, only Alexandra Road Estate’s Grade II*
elements were originally listed and unprotected elements, like the special school, were
demolished. Trellick Tower’s listing was restricted to blocks A, B and the service tower and
without protection the old peoples’ home was demolished and there have been changes to
the low-rise housing.

Most of the case study estates have also at some stage been threatened by the intention to
position new buildings within their boundaries and/or on their periphery which affects their
design integrity, like for example: Golden Lane Estate - infill building proposals in the 1990’s
and current proposals on its immediate perimeter; The Brunswick – has faced a number of
planning developments to provide new dwellings in the form of infill schemes/ penthouses on
the blocks and at the time of writing planning permission still exists for new buildings on its
pedestrian street; The Brownfield Estate - a number of new infill buildings have been built
close by, including Panorama Tower that is outside the perimeter of Goldfinger’s original site
boundary but within the Conservation Area and in a position that obscures a view of Balfron
Tower and Carradale house together that had been deemed significant according to
Goldfinger’s archive records and included as such in the estate’s LBMG’s and Balfron Tower
Conservation Management Plan; Trellick Tower - proposals are currently being discussed in
relation to new buildings to provide 100 new homes on the site of the former old people’s

292
home. Local authorities are under great pressure to build new homes and many Modern
estates, like the ones examined in this thesis, were deliberately built with large open spaces
that were an integral part of their design. As many were very generous it is particularly
difficult for heritage conservationists to protect them. Traditionally heritage protection under
the listed building process relates to the conservation of built form so this is further
complicated by the fact that there is no actual building fabric to conserve, only its absence.
CABE/EH advice also fails to reflect the particular nature of Modernist planning, ultimately
focusing on the clustering of buildings rather than the spatial interplay of Modernist solid and
void. Development threats continue despite the existence of LBMG and the designation of
Conservation Areas around the listed buildings and estates. In its National Heritage Protection
Plan (NHPP) EH has recognised that this is a particular issue but there is currently no guidance
that specifically addresses this problem.

Post-War Social Housing Estate Management

Apart from The Brunswick the case study housing was originally built and, until more recently
managed by the respective local authorities, as social housing. Although they were powerless
to affect local authority policy on issues like upkeep, repairs and security, it has often been the
architects rather than the local authority that have been associated with the problems of the
housing as if the failings were somehow solely their fault. This is unique to this type of
architecture but as Modernism’s aims were deemed to go beyond construction, with hopes of
providing a better life for all, the subsequent failure of these aims could be the reason that it
has been ascribed as such. Architectural design, however, was not principally the cause of the
case study buildings’ poor performance. Many of the structural problems were as a result of
cost cutting exercises that were outside the architect’s control (see for example The Brunswick
and Wynford House). Cost cutting also compromised the operational performance and
building security aspects of the designs (for example, Goldfinger designed three lifts in Balfron
and included appropriate security arrangements but the Council refused to implement these
proposals). With the possible exception of Golden Lane Estate, the case study housing has also
suffered from neglect and inadequate repair and maintenance over the years. The improved
security measures that have since been installed at a number of the estates, restricting
building access to those who live there, particularly The Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates,
RHG, Park Hill, The Brunswick and Wynford House, has shown that security problems can be
alleviated by the introduction of effective measures. Interestingly, access in Alexandra Road
Estate is predominantly as it was originally intended and the effects of crime and vandalism

293
are mitigated to a certain extent by the communal nature of the scheme and its inward focus
along Rowley Way.

The ownership and management of the case study estates now varies considerably: Golden
Lane Estate and The Alexandra Road Estate – still owned and managed by the local authority
(City of London and CLBC respectively); The Brownfield Estate (excluding Glenkerry House) -
ownership in 2007 transferred to Poplar HARCA; The Cheltenham Estate – responsibility for
estate management transferred in 1996 to Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management
Organisation; Park Hill - City of Sheffield retain land freehold and building ownership, the
leaseholders are private developers Urban Splash and social housing landlord Great Places
Housing Group (who will also be estate managers of the whole development as it is
completed); Blackwall Reach (replacing RHG) - LBTH and the GLA retain land freehold
ownership, as the development is built, Swan Housing as leaseholders become responsible for
managing the estate and its public open spaces; Wynford House - ownership transferred in
1997 to Community Housing Association (now One housing Group), in 2000 the rest of the
Priory green Estate was ceded to the Peabody Trust; The Brunswick remains privately owned
with its flats leased by the local authority. Due to their complex nature and size, management
of the preservation of the case study estates is a difficult process. This has been further
complicated in some cases by divided ownership and the split of responsibilities. In the
Brunswick’s case, for example, its shared ownership caused communication problems in
defining who was actually responsible for repairs and maintenance resulting in uncoordinated
scheduling of renovation works and high leaseholder charges. At the Alexandra Road Estate
the division of responsibilities between the South Hampstead Cooperative and CLBC similarly
caused management problems over administrating of repair funds. The transfer of the
housing to a Tenant Management Organisation or Housing Association, as in both the
Brownfield and Cheltenham Estate’s cases, appears to have been an effective way of
improving management not only with respect to estate management but also the
implementation of renovation and refurbishment programmes.

Heritage Management Documentation

Government advice recommends the introduction of heritage conservation documentation to

assist and direct the conservation effort (see for example English Heritage (June 1995)
Developing guidelines for the management of listed buildings). Heritage professionals have
also stressed that before any renovation and or development work is undertaken it is
imperative that a conservation management plan be established to ensure that all future

294
works correspond and support this (see for example Croft C. (1994) The Alexandra Road Estate
and the Impact of Listing: Lessons for the Preservation of Post-War Mass Housing B. Cons
Thesis: A.A. Library). Despite this, of the eight case studies examined in this thesis, only three
have commissioned heritage management documents to help in the estate’s conservation
(Golden Lane Estate Listed Building Management Guidelines adopted by the City of London,
June 2007 as a Supplementary Planning Document, revised in Sept. 2013; The Alexandra Road
Estate Listed Building Management Guidelines: initially compiled in 2000 and showing
agreement between Camden Council, EH and the South Hampstead Housing Co-operative,
revised in 2006 after the Co-operative was dissolved but never formally adopted by CLBC;
Balfron Tower Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Guidelines (CAAMG), issued
Feb. 2007 and the Brownfield Estate Conservation Management Plan(CMP), 5 Dec. 2007).

The heritage conservation documents examined appear to have been helpful in documenting
and providing a framework for managing change, detailing how the estate and its individual
elements are to be conserved, raising awareness of respective responsibilities, clarifying works
that may or may not require LBC and instigating other initiatives as part of a broader
conservation strategy. They also appear to have been helpful in analysing what is significant in
the listed estate to ensure that conservation effort is directed accordingly. This is particularly
important as although the respective list descriptions can indicate notable architectural
features and key building elements they do not specify in sufficient detail what is deemed to
be the building’s significance and cannot be relied on to direct any conservation effort. The
heritage conservation management documents have also been useful in highlighting areas
where change may be contested (like for example, the internal dwelling screens at Golden
Lane Estate’s Crescent House prompting more detailed advice to help in this area).

Despite the fact that some of these documents may have been adopted as supplementary
planning documents, their authoritative status is ultimately limited to that of guidance to assist
in the analysis of LBC applications (see for example Golden Lane Estate and approval of the ball
court and Balfron Tower and approval of Panoramic Tower). Ultimately each LBC will be
judged on its own merits and heritage values have to be weighed up and analysed with other
values in order for the most effective decision to be made. The extent of their jurisdiction and
communication is also questionable (see for example Alexandra Road Estate LBMG).
Furthermore, as a comprehensive document, they can get out of date fairly quickly and this
complicates how their content is to be managed and communicated effectively. Alexandra
Road’s LBMG, for example, do not take account of EH advice on recommended concrete

295
conservation methodology. Despite these limitations, however, there can be no doubt of their
value as documents to assist in the effective conservation of the heritage assets.

The Estate Residents and their involvement in Conservation

The social and economic make-up of the residents living in the case study housing has changed
dramatically over the years. As the estates were all built or leased as social housing their initial
occupants came mainly from one social group. Some of their initial success has also been
attributed to the fact that many people were rehomed from the areas the developments
replaced so old family and neighbourhood ties were transferred to the new estates
(particularly Balfron Tower, Alexandra Road Estate, Park Hill and The Brunswick). In order to
acknowledge the memory associated with the old areas the architectural design of some of the
estate buildings incorporated elements reminiscent of more traditional housing and this may
have also contributed to their early popularity (for example, at Golden Lane Estate the houses
resembled sets of terrace housing and at Alexandra Road the dwellings had direct access to
the street in the form of Rowley Way). The naming of some aspects of the estate was also a
deliberate attempt to perpetuate local associations: Park Hill - the decks and pubs named after
former streets and pubs; Golden Lane Estate - the houses named after former streets; The
Brunswick - the two blocks named after associations in the local area; Priory Green Estate - the
estate and its individual houses named after historical associations with the site; Balfron
Tower: the blocks named after local associations). Gradually, however, the older network of
family connections disappeared and changes in management, letting policies and social
choices in respect of housing all contributed to their declining popularity. Despite this there
appears to have been a contingent of long standing residents that have lived in the estates,
some from the time they were built (see for example, Alexandra Road Estate and Park Hill).
The estates have also become home to newer, often immigrant communities, as in the case of
RHG.

All of the case study housing continues to provide an element of social housing. The
introduction of Right to Buy has meant that there is now a mix between private leaseholders
and those flats let as social housing, the split being approximately: Golden Lane Estate - 50%
leaseholders/50% social housing; Park Hill - the regeneration is anticipated to provide 1/3 flats
for social rent/shared ownership and 2/3 market sale; Alexandra Road 20% leaseholders/80%
social rent; The Brunswick - 15% leaseholders/85% social rent; The Brownfield Estate -
Carradale House remains as social housing and the tenure of Balfron Tower following
refurbishment has not been finalised but it is expected that those flats not already purchased

296
under Right to Buy will be sold to private buyers; The Cheltenham Estate - Trellick Tower 18%
leasholders/82% social rent; Wynford House (Priory Heights) - 70% rented privately at market
rent/ 30% affordable rates.

The housing’s increasing popularity now means that flats offered for sale on the open market
can command high prices. This means that the tenants and residents now have more socially
and economically diverse backgrounds making the estates potentially more vibrant places to
live. The refurbishments that have provided new commercial, retail and community spaces
further add to this diversity (see The Brunswick and Park Hill). The case studies examined have
illustrated how social conditions on estates can be improved by the establishment of
appropriate letting policies, the actions of key members of the local community and residents
associations in instigating changes to improve the estate management, as well as the
mechanisms of the Tenant Management Organisations which now manage some of the local
authority housing stock. Trellick Tower’s turnaround in particular was attributed to the
formation of a new residents' association and implementation of a new lettings policy, estate
residents also pressed for improvements to management and security arrangements. The
cases studies have also highlighted that the involvement of residents in the management of
their estate can have a positive effect on its conservation and estate resident associations can
be particularly effective in providing a platform to discuss matters concerning planning, repairs
and maintenance and major renovations etc. For example, Golden Lane Estate residents’
association lobbied for boundary changes for the estate to be included in City and fought to
prevent new building proposals on site; Alexandra Road Estate’s residents were instrumental
in saving their estate from inappropriate repairs and getting its buildings listed. Residents
have also had the opportunity to provide input into Listed Building Management Guidelines
(see for example Golden Lane Estate). The new mix of residents can therefore bring benefits
and give the estate a voice to ensure problems are communicated and dealt with. Many of the
residents, particularly those who are private leaseholders have an interest in the estate’s
heritage and are keen to see the architectural and historical features maintained and
protected. They can often act in a self-policing capacity if they notice instances where heritage
values are being disregarded and where there are inappropriate repairs to the dwellings and
public areas, commenting on LBC applications to object if necessary to proposed alterations
(see Golden Lane, The Brunswick and Alexandra Road). Leaseholders have in many cases
renovated their dwellings to heritage standards, reinstating fixtures and fittings that have been
previously lost (see for example Golden Lane Estate and the room partitions between kitchen
and living area). The increased diversity can however present some management difficulties

297
for the local authority in satisfying the different requirements of the respective user groups
(see Golden Lane Estate). For some residents their requirements can be very different and
rather than heritage their focus is on owning a comfortable and affordable, well equipped
home on an estate that has plenty of facilities to serve their needs. The occupiers of the social
rented flats also do not necessarily have the same recourse to funds to modernise their
homes. Public resources are limited, focusing on meeting Decent Homes Standards and this
has led to disagreements between heritage professionals and the local authority over the
acceptability of dwelling improvements (See for example Golden Lane Estate). Examination of
the tenants and residents websites of the case study housing has also revealed the wide
ranging community events that these estates now host, particularly in respect of the estate’s
history and its heritage. Many residents have made films, pictorial and oral histories about
their estate to illustrate that it is a good place to live. Discussions with residents, visits to their
homes and examination of documentation relating to residents’ social events has particularly
illustrated how the estate residents are proud of their homes and communities (see Golden
Lane Estate, Alexandra Road Estate, The Brunswick, Trellick Tower and the Cheltenham
Estate).

The Financing of Preservation and Regeneration of Modern Post-War Social Housing

Apart from The Brunswick, the housing projects examined in this thesis were all built using
public finance. The thesis has shown that the listing of a building does not secure any
additional public funding for its conservation and although local authorities have often
financed project planning and ‘enabling’ costs they have to look at other ways to generate
funds for the major renovation and repair programmes of these estates today. Repair and
maintenance of both Alexandra Road and Golden Lane Estates is still the responsibility of the
local authority. Under the ownership of the City of London, Golden Lane Estate appears to
have fared better than the other housing examined in this study. The City is perhaps better
placed financially to deal with the estate’s repair and maintenance requirements but several
important renovations that are now needed, like Great Arthur’s façade replacement, are
currently placing great strains on the Council’s resources. As Europe’s professed largest listed
building, Park Hill’s refurbishment is an enormous undertaking, well beyond normal local
authority spending. Although some public resources have been made available from the City
of Sheffield and other Government agencies, the regeneration programme is ultimately
dependent upon private investment and successful collaboration with scheme development
partners in the private sector.

298
For both the Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates, renovation was a condition of stock transfer
to both the Polar HARCA and the KCTMO. The extent that the open spaces in and around
these estates are threatened by new developments illustrates the pressure that these
organisations are under to redevelop sites that they own in order to build additional housing
and community facilities and also to generate funds for the conservation of the heritage
assets. In Trellick Tower’s case the land development immediately adjacent to it is specifically
being used to establish a trust fund to ensure that the profits from the redevelopment are
reinvested in the tower’s restoration and other social, community and regeneration benefits.
Sale of the Balfron flats will fund the renovation programmes of both Balfron Tower and
Carradale house and the wider estate regeneration. The Brunswick’s redevelopment as a
shopping street for the local community was financed privately. Its success, however,
prompted renovation works to the dwellings that were funded by the local authority and the
estate was also fortunate to secure funds for window renovation from a design competition.
At the time of writing some essential renovations, like repairs to the first floor terraces are,
however, still outstanding. The major repair programmes also have considerable financial
implications for leaseholders, particularly as works may be more costly when repair
programmes are aimed at conservation standards. The extent of these may not have been
anticipated previously and considered prior to estate’s listed status. This has resulted in some
cases of leaseholders’ taking legal action to contest the costs of the repair programme (see for
example, Alexandra Road Estate where the service charges for the roof repair averaged out at
£16,000 for each flat and Trellick Tower where the window replacement costs were double
those anticipated for repair only). In both cases the estate leaseholders had to accept the
charges.

LBTH considered RHG’s repair and renovation unviable and well beyond their means. Fifty
years after the Grosvenor Buildings’ demolition, RHG is now the ‘problem’ that needs to be
addressed and Alison Smithson’s words still ring true today, perhaps people ‘just want to be
left alone’ and their homes made good. Despite indication that RHG has failed and it is not a
fit place to live, there is evidence that the people who live there would have preferred to have
it renovated so they could remain in their community and that they like the estate’s features,
for example the decks, that have been so derided by the critics. The campaign to save the
estate, however, has failed and at the time of writing, its demolition is imminent. The
regeneration will provide many new homes but are we still making the mistakes of the past?
The proposed level of development represents a very considerable densification. LBTH’s

299
justification is, as was 50 years ago, high demand for social housing and long waiting lists. The
Blackwall Reach submission is not particularly convincing because it is standard, generic,
developer fare. Neither is it particularly radical in its proposal as the central area more or less
follows RHGs footprint, retaining the central open space. Also the pressures that have always
blighted RHG remain very much in place. Decking over the Blackwell tunnel approach may
have been a lost opportunity to reconnect the site with its surroundings. As the detailed plans
are developed it is hoped that the idea behind the scheme becomes clearer to form a cohesive
identity for the area. RHG and the Blackwall Reach project also raise questions in the wider
context about how estate regeneration and the housing shortage is now dealt with in the UK.
The days of the welfare state may be well and truly over and there are no public funds to build
and/or renovate housing as there were 50 years ago. Transferring the risk over to a developer
appears to be the way that many schemes are handled these days. The Wynford House
example, however, has shown that this does not have to be the obvious outcome and that
there are alternative ways to secure a building’s renovation and its continued use in providing
some element of affordable social housing.

300
Chapter 9: Recommendations and Further Work

‘If architecture is to flourish and progress in an age when change is constant and development
rapid and relentless, it must with renewed vigour use society as a partner in the creative process.
Only then can the primary unchanging function of architecture be achieved: to provide decent
surroundings for people and help them to a wider vision of life’.

Denys Lasdun1

This thesis has revealed not only the problems and difficulties encountered in the conservation of
Modern post-War social housing but also their inconsistent treatment and varying degrees of
protection. As the case study analysis has demonstrated, this ranges from the preservation of
‘model estates’, like Golden Lane and Alexandra Road, to the more radical rehabilitative approach
that has been taken at Park Hill. Some, like Trellick Tower and Park Hill have achieved iconic status,
and this has been reflected in their Grade II* listings, whereas others, like Robin Hood Gardens that
is equally famous, has failed to obtain heritage ranking. The inconsistency of repair and renovation
treatment in relation to heritage grading has also been highlighted, for example, in the contrasting
treatments of Golden Lane Estate and Park Hill. For the former, where the majority is listed at Grade
II, retention of its original fabric is considered paramount, whereas for the latter, and despite its
Grade II*listing, all of its detailed fabric and some of its listed structures have been removed.
Conventional conservation practices, like retention of original fabric, reversibility of treatments etc.,
do not therefore always adequately address the challenges facing this heritage type, but areas of
best practice and lessons to be learned for the future have been highlighted. Current guidance,
however, is very limited (See EH Domestic 4) and EH has already acknowledged that more is needed
to protect 20th Century heritage in its NHHP by specifying: ‘Post-Second World War buildings and
landscapes are facing acute redevelopment pressures and their designation and protection is often
highly contentious, underscoring the need for an enhanced, authoritative knowledge base as well as
an increased public appreciation of their value. Consensus on strategies for management is vital.
Action should focus on a thematic or case-based approach to espousing values and practical
protection for heritage beyond the traditional’.2 In order to address this deficiency, therefore, this
final section makes some general recommendations about how greater consistency and
effectiveness in the conservation and management of Modern post-War social housing heritage in
the UK might be achieved, at least within conservation legislation and procedures as they stand
currently. It also recommends areas where the work may be extended.

1
Lasdun D. ‘The Process of Continual Cooperation’ in The Financial Times, 2 August 1961
2
NHPP Section 4A2, ‘Later Twentieth-Century Heritage’

302
Part 1: Guidance for the Heritage Protection of Modern Post-War Social Housing

In order to improve public awareness and appreciation of Modern post-War social housing with a
view to strengthening its heritage protection, it is recommended that specific guidance be
developed and issued by EH (now Historic England) using the case studies in this thesis as its basis
and including the following sections:

The listing of Modern post-War social housing

This section should summarise how this housing type has been brought into the heritage arena and
include an analysis of key Modern post-War social housing that has been listed. It should include
details of the circumstances in which listing was achieved, highlighting how listing has helped save
some of this heritage from inappropriate repairs, illustrated with the case studies Balfron Tower and
the Brownfield Estate and Alexandra Road Estate. It should also explain some of the inherent
complexities of Modernism, particularly in respect of the effect of contemporary art values on public
perception and the difficulties that this presents when decisions are being made on whether to list
this heritage type. This section should also acknowledge that, due to the amount of surviving
buildings from this period and of this type, only those considered most significant can be listed, but
that heritage protection can be achieved without statutory listing protection, illustrated by the case
study Wynford House and the Priory Green Estate. It should also show that in some cases
preservation must be achieved through documentation, with Robin Hood Gardens being used to
illustrate. This section should help improve a general awareness of the main post-War housing that
has been listed and the reasons why the listed building process has been used in specific cases to
protect and preserve this heritage type. It should also show that failure to obtain listed building
status does not automatically preclude conservation and the building’s preservation but that for
some buildings physical preservation cannot be achieved and other means, like documentation,
must be used to secure an historical record of achievement.

Reasons for the preservation of Modern post-War social housing

This section should highlight the architectural and historical significance of Modern post-War social
housing, describing the following reasons why it is being preserved. Firstly it should highlight that
this heritage is being valued for its design intent and the fact that the intentions of the Modern
Movement, particularly in respect of social housing, went beyond pure aesthetics in the hope of

303
providing better lives for all, using case studies Park Hill, Balfron and Trellick Towers to illustrate.
Secondly it should indicate that it is being valued for its grand, heroic scale and unprecedented
technical and structural design innovation in the form of large blocks and towers, with case studies
Alexandra Road Estate, The Brunswick, and Park Hill to illustrate. Thirdly it should acknowledge that
it is being appreciated for its use of new, experimental materials and construction methods, using
reinforced concrete, aluminium, steel, glass and plastics, which provided the complex and distinctive
visual elements of this housing type, illustrated using case studies Alexandra Road Estate, Golden
Lane Estate, Balfron and Trellick Towers. Fourthly it should show that it is being valued for its unique
spatial qualities and its design integrity, and the fact that much of this housing was built as a new
kind of multi-levelled and integrated landscape with the spaces and ancillary constructions being
designed with as much importance as the buildings themselves, illustrated using case studies Golden
Lane Estate, Alexandra Road Estate and the Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates. Finally this section
should highlight the innovative nature of the dwelling interiors that made use of the limited space
with new design devices like sliding screens and room partitions as well as incorporating modern
conveniences like heating and hot water supply, demonstrated by using case studies Alexandra Road
Estate, Golden Lane Estate and Trellick Tower. This section should help promote an understanding
of the significant achievements of the Modern Movement and show how these are reflected in this
housing type. It should also demonstrate why this heritage is considered worthy of protection,
showing how this is distinct from earlier heritage that is valued principally for its age and survival.
This should help encourage a celebration of the accomplishments in these buildings and estates
from the recent past.

Other methodologies available to help protect Modern post-War social housing

This section should outline the methodology currently available, in addition to listing, which can be
used to further assist in the conservation and protection of this heritage type, highlighting best
practice and benefits of its use. This should include Conservation Area designation, showing how the
housing/estate can be included in and form part of the designation of a wider Conservation Area,
illustrated by The Brunswick case study. It should also how the estate itself can benefit from being
designated a specific Conservation Area, using Alexandra Road Estate and Balfron Tower to
illustrate. This section should also show how Statements of Heritage Significance and Conservation
Management Plans can prove invaluable in helping to direct future conservation and/ or
regeneration works on the heritage assets, using case studies Golden Lane Estate, Park Hill and
Balfron Tower to illustrate. Finally this section should also illustrate how Conservation/ Listed

304
Building Management Guidelines can be used to help inform and manage the complexities of
Modern post-War social housing heritage protection, using the case study Golden Lane Estate to
illustrate. This section should help explain the benefits of using the different methodology available
and promote their use with a view to them being adopted for other similar heritage with the aim of
helping improving the quality of the management Modern heritage protection elsewhere.

Examples of practical interventions in the heritage protection of Modern post-War social housing

This section should illustrate some of the practical approaches being developed and used in the
conservation and protection of Modern post-War social housing. This should include examples of
how the design intent of the housing is being preserved to ensure the spirit and essence of the
building can remain evident despite renovation and/ or new developments and additions to the
building’s fabric and its environs, using the case study Park Hill to illustrate. It should also explain
how the idea of the ‘model estate’ is being conserved highlighting the difficulties that this can
present particularly in respect of protecting the detailed design of the estate’s fabric and interiors
and at the same time ensuring that this heritage can provide comfortable, contemporary housing
which continues to meet the needs of its residents, illustrated by using the case studies Golden Lane
Estate and Alexandra Road Estate. This section should also show how the design of the fabric of the
buildings is being conserved, highlighting the challenges this presents in achieving a physical repair
that respects the original design integrity but at the same time ensures that the work takes account
of modern construction and building performance standards, using examples from the case studies
of The Brunswick, Alexandra Road Estate, Balfron Tower, Great Arthur House on Golden Lane Estate
and Park Hill. Finally this section should show how the Modern post-War housing estate’s spatial
qualities can be protected, highlighting the difficulties that can be encountered particularly in
respect of dealing with the consequences of uneven listing, lost, altered, and/ or redundant estate
elements as well as an account of the threats and opportunities that this housing type is currently
facing with respect to its open spaces and ancillary structures, using the case studies Golden Lane
Estate, the Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates and Alexandra Road Estate to illustrate. This section
will demonstrate how the physical elements of Modern post-War social housing can be protected,
highlighting some of the lessons that have been learned with a view to giving practical help in the
preservation and protection of other buildings, constructions and designs from the Modern
Movement and adoption of the methodology with the aim of improving heritage protection
elsewhere.

305
Management and financing of the preservation and renovation of Modern post-War social housing

This section should give an account of the different ways in which this housing is now owned and
managed showing how this ranges from those estates that have been retained under local authority
control (e.g. Golden Lane and Alexandra Road Estates), those that are now owned and managed by
housing associations (e.g. Balfron Tower and the Brownfield Estate), to more complicated
arrangements involving leasing of the buildings to developers (e.g. Park Hill) and also where the local
authority is the building leaseholder (e.g. The Brunswick). It should also highlight the complexities of
modern estate management, including the effects of the introduction of Right to Buy, show how
successful management can improve the day to day running of the estate and have a positive effect
on its conservation, and how major renovation and conservation programmes are being
implemented. It should also analyse the ways in which the preservation and regeneration of this
housing type can be financed, showing examples of the different financing arrangements together
with an account of the financial complexities in ensuring continued social housing provision,
improved financial viability and preservation of the heritage assets. The case Studies Park Hill, the
Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates, and Wynford House and Priory Green Estate can be used to
illustrate the ways in which this is being achieved. This section should provide an analysis of the
different ways that these buildings and now owned and managed. It should also give an account of
the ways in which renovation and conservation programmes can be implemented, highlighting best
practice and ways in which the successful management and financing of heritage and renovation
programmes can be achieved with a view to the methodology being adopted elsewhere.

Residents’ involvement in the preservation of Modern post-War social housing

This section should illustrate the current residency of the case study housing, showing how this has
changed over time and particularly as a result of major renovation works. It should also highlight the
importance of the estate residents’ role in the conservation effort, show examples of the different
resident groups and associations and their work in their estate’s preservation. It should also show
examples from the case study housing of residents’ actions in helping save their building/ estate’s
heritage, their role in getting their estate listed and how they have prevented inappropriate works,
repairs and new additions that have threatened their estate’s historical significance. It should also
show the proactive measures residents have taken to celebrate and record the historical and
architectural importance of their estates and homes. The case Studies Park Hill, Golden Lane Estate,
The Brunswick, Alexandra Road Estate, the Brownfield and Cheltenham Estates can be used to

306
illustrate. This section should help other residents living in similar estates to understand how
important their actions can be in saving the heritage of their homes and to not underestimate how
valuable their contribution can be and the influence that they can have in their estate’s
preservation.

These section headings should form the basis of the general principles that unite/steer work and
policy and decision-making of all Modernist heritage bodies. They should also be the
headings/general areas that are used broadly in media to increase public awareness of the
importance/significance of these buildings and the basis under which information should be
gathered as basis to start building individual cases for heritage work/preservation. The section
headings could also form the basis of a new piece of research on Modernist heritage intended for
general public and policy holders as detailed below in Part 2.

Part 2: Extension of the Guidance to other Heritage Areas and Further Work

The guidance arising from this study is specifically recommended for Modern post-WWII social
housing but thematic studies using a similar methodology to that employed in this thesis could be
undertaken to provide guidance for other Modern architectural heritage types including industrial,
office, schools, libraries, university and religious buildings. Like social housing, these Modern
buildings and structures face the same challenges and threats to their architectural and historical
significance and there is a need to protect and celebrate the achievements in terms of their design,
structure, materiality and special qualities that are unique to this period in history. It is
recommended, therefore, that EH (Historic England) incorporate such work in its NHHP.

As post WWII architecture only accounts for approximately 0.2% of all buildings that have been
awarded listed status3, and in relation to this, listed post-WWII social housing examples are
comparatively few (see annex), the achievements of housing of this period are vastly under-
represented on the heritage lists. With the threats to its survival now being widely acknowledged it
is recommended that further surveys of Post WWII housing be conducted by EH (Historic England)
and the C20 Society in order to ensure that action is taken in the form or listing and Conservation
Area designation to help secure the preservation of this housing type.

3
<https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/what-is-designation/listed-buildings> [retrieved 12 June 2015]

307
The scope of this study was also limited to Modern post-War social housing, consisting of innovative
one-off designs that had large distinctive elements in the form of blocks and towers, many of which
have been recognised as architecturally significant. Indeed, listed status was only initially applied to
the principal blocks and towers, like Balfron and Trellick Tower. This study has highlighted the
problems faced in conserving the spatial design of the whole of these estates and that it is only more
recently that action is being taken to protect them as a whole. Other low, mid-rise post-War social
housing does not always have large striking elements to attract listed status and because of their
perceived ordinariness they are often not appreciated and offered heritage protection. However,
some of this housing like the Gleadless Valley in Sheffield (see introduction) has compositional
design integrity representative of the Modern post WWII period that demonstrates design
innovation on a large scale. The research surveys recommended above should therefore be
extended to incorporate such housing types.

Although much work is being done to protect our Modern post-War social housing heritage the
threats to its survival are ever present. The current demand for new homes is potentially greater
than it was sixty years ago and the pressures to build on available land are a constant danger to its
continued existence. Although in conservation there is a need to distinguish what is significant from
that which is merely old there is also a need to learn from past mistakes. As human beings there is
an inherent need for us to connect with our homes and our surroundings and the past cannot simply
be erased. History has shown the importance of places in relation of our memory and demolition
and rebuild need not be the automatic solution. The case study housing analysed in this thesis has
shown that this heritage has the potential to rise to the challenge of providing homes that can meet
today’s living needs. It can be still recognisable as part of our built heritage and also provide
modern, decent homes in places where people wish to live. Adoption of the recommendations in
this thesis could help to promote a wider understanding of this heritage type to enable more of this
legacy from the post-WWII era to be appreciated in a similar way.

308
Annex: Key Listed Post-War Social Housing1

Housing Local Authority Architects Grade Date

Listed
Alexandra Road Estate, St LB Camden Neave Brown II* 1993
John’s Wood
Alton East Estate, LB Richmond LCC Architects’ Department II 1998
Rowhampton
Alton West Estate, LB Richmond LCC Architects’ Department II* 1998
Rowhampton
Balfron Tower , Brownfield LB Tower Hamlets Erno Goldfinger II 1996
Estate, Poplar
Bevin Court, Islington LB Islington Skinner, Bailey and Lubetkin II* 1998
The Brunswick Centre LB Camden Patrick Hodgkinson II 2000
Byker Estate, Newcastle- Newcastle Ralph Erskine II/II* 2007
upon-Tyne Corporation
Carradale House, LB Tower Hamlets Erno Goldfinger II 2000
Brownfield Estate, Poplar
Cheltenham Estate RB Kensington and Erno Goldfinger II 2012
(remainder) Chelsea
Churchill Gardens, Pimlico City of Westminster Powell and Moya II 1998
Crescent House, Golden City of London Chamberlin Powell and Bon II* 1997
Lane Estate
Dunboyne Road Estate LB Camden Neave Brown II 2000
Golden Lane Estate City of London Chamberlin Powell and Bon II 1997
(remainder)
Keeling House, Bethnal LB Tower Hamlets Denys Lasdun II* 1993
Green
The Lawn, Harlow Harlow Frederick Gibberd II 1998
Lillington Gardens, Phase City of Westminster Darbourne and Dark II* 1998
I/II, Pimlico,
Lillington Gardens, Phase City of Westminster Darbourne and Dark II 2000
III, Pimlico,
Park Hill, Sheffield City of Sheffield City of Sheffield, Jack Lynn and II* 1998
Ivor Smith
Passfields, Bellingham Lewisham Fry, Drew and Partners II 1998
Metropolitan
Borough
Sulkin House, Bethnal LB Tower Hamlets Denys Lasdun II 1998
Green
Spa Green Estate, Islington LB Islington Skinner and Lubetkin (Tecton) II* 1998
Trellick Tower, North RB Kensington & Erno Goldfinger II* 1998
Kensington Chelsea
Trevelyn House, Bethnal LB Tower Hamlets Denys Lasdun II 1998
Green
Wyndham Court, Southampton City Lyons Israel Ellis II 1998
Southampton Corporation

1
References: EH (1996) Something Worth Keeping? Post-war Architecture in England, Housing and Houses, Harwood E. (2003) England: A Guide to the
Post-War Listed Buildings

312
Annex: Summary of Key Themes
Golden Lane Estate
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Tenants/ Residents Listed Status based on Conservation Regeneration Economic Viability/ Specific Repair Retention of Original
Responsibilities Guidelines Association Style and Innovation Area Finance Social Policy Challenges Character/Fabric
Designation

Built (1953-61) by Yes - adopted by the Yes - Originally two: Listed in 1997at Grade II No Repair and The estate was Major repair works are The estate has remained
the City of London City in June 2007 as Golden Lane Tenants (age 36 years) with maintenance is built to supply now needed to many of largely intact despite some
who commissioned a Supplementary Association and Crescent House Grade II* funded by the affordable housing the blocks, e.gs: erosion of design detail and
and paid for the Planning Document Owners Association in view of its particular City, the estate for people working replacement of the modifications such as glazing-
estate, they still own setting out (founded in 1982) importance as an does not appear in the City who had curtain wall of great in of staircases, renovation of
the freehold and act agreements between example of post-War to have suffered to live near their Arthur House (estimated the swimming pool, the pub
as estate managers residents, EH, C20 These two groups residential architecture as much from the place of work like cost of £4.7m), to include interior is now a Victorian
for the 557 dwellings Society and the City merged in 2007 to problems of caretakers, replacing individual pastiche, many of the
and the related form the Golden Lane The estate heralded a neglect, policemen, nurses windows and upgrading community centre’s original
facilities Based on a traffic Residents Association new construction vandalism etc. like etc. the timber balcony doors; features have been lost, the
light format Green (GLERA) method in the form of other estates the original single glazed outside area most altered is
works (not requiring glass panels set on a About half the metal windows in Stanley the main piazza that is now
LBC), Amber works These have been and concrete frame which The City, more dwellings were sold Cohen House, are used by service vehicles/
(may trigger LBC), continue to be very was an early form of than most local on long leases considered ‘obsolete in residents’ car park
Red Works proactive groups, they ‘curtain walling’ and in authorities has under the terms of modern day
(definitely trigger lobbied for boundary Great Arthur House, it been able to provisions of Right standards’ and the City The LBMG encourage
LBC), Black works ( changes for the marked the advent of afford repair and to Buy, the rental feels it may be more cost wherever possible practical
would not get LBC estate to be included the tall blocks of flats. It maintenance, so flats continue as effective to replace them the retention of original
approval) in City, objected to also created a there in the main the council housing let with double glazed features and like-for-like
new building dimensional vision of estate has been at affordable rents windows rather than replacement, this includes
Revised in Sept. proposals on site, integrating housing and cared for with preference continue with expensive many of the dwellings internal
2013, they can get they are also landscape to create an throughout the given to applicants repairs and re-painting fixtures and fittings such as
out of date very consulted in major entirely urban, high- years who live or work in internal screens and room
quickly, also their renovation works density entity, the City or have a Other specific challenges dividers, their replacement
status is treated anticipating the Barbican direct connection are upgrade/ installation/ and renovation has been the
strictly as guidelines development with the City's and removal of obsolete subject of contention
only by the City other housing services, caballing and between the City, residents
Planning Dept. in estates wiring along conduits and the C20 Society, recent
assessing planning works to provide a new ball
applications other court near the Bastion have
factors may take also caused disputes as have
priority proposed changes to Great
Arthur House
Park Hill
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Tenants/ Listed Status based on Style Conservation Regeneration Finance Economic Viability/ Specific Repair Retention of Original
Responsibilities Guidelines Residents and Innovation Area Social Policy Challenges Character/Fabric
Association Designation

Built (1956-61) and No Former TMO Listed in 1998 at Grade II* No The majority of the The regeneration agreed EH provided The building was taken back to its
owned by Sheffield was long (age 37 years) for its finance is from private with the HCA and £0.5m for H frame structure, EH applied
City Council, all the standing and architectural importance, its No investment, Transform Sheffield Council is specialist stipulations to maintain original
995 dwellings were very active, but ground-breaking use of Conservation South Yorkshire provided estimated at £146m, concrete character, e.g. continuous a roof-
let as social housing with little streets in the sky and its Management £13m for home-loss scheme partners are repairs - the line, precast balustrades were
management impressive scale Plan has been payments, security and registered social landlord concrete frame replaced in modified form with
In 2003 a powers completed demolition of non-listed Great Places Housing was cleaned wooden handrails, the coloured
regeneration EH advised on the scope for buildings, the HCA Group and developer and over 5,500 brick infill was removed, glazing
commenced, the A new TMO change and identified Park provided £14m for gap Urban Splash, approx. individual increased from one to two thirds
Council retain land currently being Hill’s heritage values lay in funding and £10m for 200 1/3 of the 995 flats will repairs of the façade with side opening
freehold and building set up by Great the site’s history and the dwellings for rent and 40 be social housing and 2/3 effected double glazed units, the solid
ownership, Urban Places Housing scale and vision of the for shared ownership - market sale with parts are now brightly coloured
Splash obtain 250 Group original housing scheme, in Great Places Group also approx.. 140,000 sq. ft. anodised aluminium panels in
year lease as each the expressed reinforced contributed £10m towards retail and commercial similar tones to the original brick
phase is developed concrete frame and the this space to still reflect living patterns
relationship of the building to
As landlord for Park the landscape in which it sits, Phase one flats sold on the Flank I of Phase I with 78 There was professional
Hill’s social housing therefore much of the open market/ commercial homes is now fully disagreement over the amount of
Great Places Housing detailed structure could be space let will fund the next occupied, 26 of these change , e.g. James Dunnett
Group is responsible removed, to assess phase. In 2013 Urban have been let at social (DoCoMoMo) felt there was far
for managing the authenticity EH applied the Splash also entered into a rent to former Park Hill too much reducing the structure
whole development squint test, ‘if you half shut joint venture with Places residents to a ‘concrete skeleton’
once it is completed your eyes, does it still look for People to generate
like Park Hill?’ further finance and allow
Phase I flanks 2 and 3 to
commence
The Brunswick
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Tenants/ Residents Listed Status based Conservation Regeneration Finance Economic Viability/ Specific Repair Retention of Original
Responsibilities Guidelines Association on Style and Area Designation Social Policy Challenges Character/Fabric
Innovation

Initiated by Marchmont Only those Yes - very active and In 1992 the Centre Yes, included in There were a series of Hodgkinson’s original The initial ‘cost- The decision to list caused
Properties as a private included in the vocal, they were was refused listing at the Bloomsbury unsuccessful attempts at aim was to create a cutting’ measures disagreement, DoCoMoMo
development, completed Conservation angry over a lack of Grade II* as it was Conservation site redevelopment in piece of city with the significantly endorsed the assessment as
1963-73. In 1965, the flats Area communication over not completed as Area Appraisals the 1990’s, Allied financial buoyancy to impacted on the a megastructure but
were leased to Camden Document, not the Allied London planned. A and Guidelines, London’s proposals were carry it into the building’s opposed listing, considering
Council for letting as social building renovation and that Certificate of adopted by eventually approved and future but this was operational that as such it should accept
housing specific their views were not Immunity from Camden Council the £22m refurbishment never achieved due performance, in and assume change over
taken account of, Listing was issued at in April 2011 started in 2005, parts of to cost cutting, no particular the time, Hodgkinson wished to
In the 1990’s the freehold they are currently this time the building were maintenance, the substitution of the regenerate the place as it
changed hands several campaigning against The strategy painted, Waitrose dwellings being let as glazed winter now needs to be, he also
times, Allied London planning of the Concerned that document replaced Safeway in a social housing and garden with an accused the C20 Society of
bought it for £13m in ‘eyecatcher’ planning proposals contains a new store and their the commercial open balcony wanting to ‘keep the
1998, Camden Council are restaurant would ‘dilute the Management taking on the elements just ‘ticked building in aspic’ stating he
still the dwelling Centre’s essential Strategy on how supermarket lease over’ The maintenance didn’t want it listed because
leaseholders holding the character’ in 2000 EH to maintain allowed financing of the of the step-back it would get treated like a
head lease, about 80 of again recommended character , repair work to the The refurbishment elevations has ’monument’
the 560 flats are now listing and Grade II manage change shopping street has created a more always proved
privately owned, these status was awarded and control new traditional shopping problematic and Local heritage groups (e.g.
owners are sub- (age 30 years) development In 2007-8 the Council street that has low emissivity The Bloomsbury Area
leaseholders which adds within the undertook works costing allowed some of the safety glass with a Advisory Committee) felt the
another layer of Described as the Conservation £5.5m, including renewal original design intent solar filter and a new work should be
complications in dealing pioneering example Area of winter gardens’ roofs, to be realised and it self-cleaning outer governed by its original as
with building works and of a megastructure balcony recovering, appears to be a layer was installed built concept. The C20
sub-leaseholders can and an example of damp-proofing, asphalt, commercial success to help overcome Society opposed elements of
receive large bills for low-rise, high-density paving slabs and creating a place this in 2005 the new supermarket and
maintenance and repairs housing which rainwater goods where people come landscaping but were
developed the replacement, concrete to shop, eat and relax Work on the large broadly happy' with the
Current freeholders are concept of the repairs, refurbishment of roof terraces at proposals, EH welcomed the
Santander CF Trustees Ltd stepped section on a the listed elements (e.g. Approximately 480 of first floor level has scheme saying it struck a
(LaSalle Investment large scale and for a crittall windows), some the dwellings yet to be balance between the need
Management) range of facilities, flat redecorations and continue as social completed to preserve and to improve
interiors were not repairs to communal housing it. There were objections to
deemed important in doorways and doors proposals for the
the list description ‘eyecatcher’ restaurant
Alexandra Road Estate
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Guidelines Tenants/ Listed Status based on Conservation Area Regeneration Economic Specific Repair Retention of Original
Responsibilities Residents Style and Innovation Designation Finance Viability/ Challenges Character/Fabric
Association Social Policy

Built (1972-78) Yes – first introduced in 1991- 2005 South In the early 1990’s Yes – Conservation Although the Of the 520 Past concrete repair The intention is to retain
and owned by 2000 between Camden Hampstead residents campaigned to Area status was original architect dwellings, programmes have been as much as possible of
Camden Council, Council, EH and the South Housing Co- save the estate from adopted in March anticipated the approximately far from satisfactory, the the original fabric and
520 flats let as Hampstead Housing Co- operative was ‘inadequate and 1996 estate would need 400 remain as original specification, character of the estate
social housing operative, revised in 2006 involved in the inappropriate repairs and looking after and social housing which detailed the
after the Co-operative was day to day return it to its original Alexandra Road regular with 120 sold original cement and This includes internal
dissolved running of the glory’ Conservation Area maintenance it under the Right aggregates was not usedfixtures within the
estate, but their Statement became neglected to Buy to inform the work dwellings, such as
Comprehensive in the form decisions for use Listed In 1993 at Grade II* published in 2000, and its appearance concrete kitchen
of a Conservation Manual, Estate Action (age 15 years), the includes description and fabric Repairs and Listing and preservation worktops and sliding
detail for each element its Funds were youngest and largest and assessment of deteriorated in the maintenance presented new and partitions which are
description, conservation overruled by the building to be recognised, the area's special 1990’s funded by unprecedented technical now protected. Other
objectives, acceptable Council also the first modern character, study of Camden Council problems for EH, fittings like timber
change, precedent LBC housing estate street furniture, £8m Estate Action regarding the concrete stairs, windows and
cases, approved materials paving materials and Fund obtained in repair, which it had doors should only be
and suppliers, relevant The current As the estate was less than fixtures and list of the 1990’s for almost no experience of replaced when it is
maintenance requirements, Residents thirty years old it had to be buildings that make repairs dealing with, there were necessary to do so, on a
their authoritative status is Association is considered under the ‘Ten a positive/ negative numerous concrete trails like for like basis
however is questionable very proactive Year Rule’ and satisfy two contribution and In 2011 The and repair work
and because they are so and engaged in criteria: to be considered of listed buildings Heritage Lottery undertaken under the The current condition of
detailed they can get out of activities ‘outstanding national Fund and Camden direction of EH which interiors and extent of
date quickly but they are associated with interest’ and be shown ‘at Council agreed to have been used to form retention of original
being used to help inform the running of the risk of demolition or provide funding to a precedent case study fixtures and fittings,
repair and maintenance estate, like the damaging alteration’ The develop proposals for other similar estates however, is unknown
regeneration of estate is described as: ‘the for restoration of
the park most formal and dramatic the parkland and Some residents open up
of high-density, low-rise open spaces and their homes for viewing
designs; modern variant on restore them at the Open London
a long curving terrace and Event as good heritage
influence of European examples
urbanism: creating large-
scale developments’
Balfron Tower, Carradale House and the Brownfield Estate
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Guidelines Tenants/ Residents Listed Status based on Conservation Area Regeneration Finance Economic Specific Repair Retention of Original
Responsibilities Association Style and Innovation Designation Viability/ Challenges Character/Fabric
Social Policy

Built (1965-7) as An estate Conservation Yes - Since transfer Balfron Tower was The Balfron Tower Poplar HARCA is legally In Oct. 2010 The refurbishment Balfron’s listing prevented
social housing for Management Plan was to Poplar HARCA listed Grade II in 1996 to Conservation Area committed to full residents were is technically a potentially damaging
the LCC, transferred introduced in Dec. 2007 the Brownfield prevent damaging was designated in refurbishment of the sent notice challenging, due to window replacement,
to LBTH, included detailing the estate’s Estate Board is window replacements, 1998, (including buildings (a condition that they the need to install Carradale’s
Balfron tower (28 significance in terms of its:
locally based and described as having ‘a Carradale and of the stock transfer). would have to new services refurbishment, completed
storeys, 146 architectural language, provides the distinctive profile that Glenkerry Houses) In 2008 plans were move out of without disturbing Aug. 2014, included
dwellings) and structure and form; materials
opportunity for sets it apart from other announced for a £50m Carradale and the listed exterior, window replacement,
Carradale House (11 and components; flat design,residents to tall blocks’ and a Conservation Area refurbishment and Balfron, due the solid concrete upgrade of thermal
storeys, 88 and landscape. This express their views building that ‘proved Appraisals and £34m investment in to safety risks, design also suffers performance, new
dwellings) document contains a in relation to local that such blocks could Management new housing, including social tenants from cold bridging, services, concrete
Conservation Strategy and issues like anti- be well planned and Guidelines were renovation of Caradale have been which has to be cleaning, the communal
In Dec. 2007, makes recommendations social behaviour, beautifully finished, Issued Feb. 2007 to and Balfron at an rehomed in remedied by spaces and flats have
following a ballot of estate cleaning, revealing Goldfinger as help manage the estimated cost of newly internal wall been sensitively
to conserve individual
residents, LBTH housing, a master in the Conservation Area, £137,000 per flat. renovated insulation refurbished without
elements of the estate’s
transferred community production of finely this states the open With little public Carradale and altering Goldfinger's
ownership of setting, residential blocks, activities and to textured and long- spaces, designed at funding, projected elsewhere in layouts, the restored
Balfron Tower, other estate buildings and help shape the lasting concrete the same time as the sales revenue from the borough dwellings’ balcony
Carradale House and the landscape giving regeneration and masses’, the listing was buildings, are new housing/ flat sales facades have new timber
the Brownfield comprehensive guidance development of the upgraded to Grade II* in integral to the is a critical part of the linings, white painted
Estate (excluding on alterations which are area Oct. 2015; quality of the area business plan woodwork to balcony
Glenkerry House) likely to be compatible/ and the windows and doors and
to Poplar HARCA incompatible with listed In 2000 Carradale House arrangement of the In Balfron’s balcony black metal
(a housing and was listed, it is buildings means refurbishment in 2015, railings, resonant with
building criteria and also
regeneration described as a there is ‘little scope the exact tenure has to Goldfinger’s original
community
giving examples of best distinctive, unique for new be finalised, some flats design , despite
association) practice reworking of the ideas development within will be offered for sale Conservation Area
first embraced in the Conservation under a part designation and
Balfron and that Balfron Area’ ownership/ subsidised Management Guidelines
and Carradale House housing scheme, the new developments like
form a strong group, remainder not already the Panoramic Tower on
with the relatively long privately owned will be land surrounding the
and low form of the sold on the open Goldfinger buildings could
latter complementing market to help finance threaten their
the tall block of Balfron the scheme architectural integrity
Trellick Tower and the Cheltenham Estate
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Tenants/ Residents Listed Status based on Conservation Regeneration Finance Economic Viability/ Specific Repair Degree of Retention of
Responsibilities Guidelines Association Style and Innovation Area Social Policy Challenges Original Character/Fabric
Designation
Built (1968-73) by No Yes – resident’s A bid to list in 1991 to No Renovation was a In the 1980’s the Council There were Goldfingers design features
the GLC, shortly association formed prevent removal of condition of the stock introduced a new lettings problems with the have been restored like the
after completion it in 1984 and it has architectural features transfer to KTMO, in 2002 policy, under which only original facade coloured-glass screen in the
was transferred to been very active was unsuccessful, a a £16.9m phased those who wished to live in which did not entrance hall, the cornice of
RBKC, contains 317 from inception, as a further bid in 1998 renovation was Trellick were actually manage heat as it block A has been replaced
dwellings (217 in result of pressure secured listing of announced to repair and housed in there consisted of a
Trellick) from residents Trellick Tower (blocks A restore the tower, concrete structure The façade window renovation
several security/ and B and the service prevent further Of the 217 dwellings in and wood and has divided heritage
In 1996 maintenance tower) at Grade II* as deterioration of its Trellick, about 180 remain glass façade professionals, EH had accepted
responsibility for improvements were the ultimate expression exterior and refurbish the as social housing, 34 flats system the case for complete
the Cheltenham undertaken from the of Goldfinger's internal areas and restore are privately owned, 24 of replacement, DOCOMOMO,
Estate management mid-1980s philosophy of high-rise the architectural and the leaseholders contested Restoration was the C20 Society and a number
transferred to planning, also thought historic interest of the the refurbishment costs needed to comply of Trellick’s residents opposed
Kensington and to embody the best building that were added to the with Decent this claiming only about 10% of
Chelsea Tenant ideas of the time on service management Homes Standard, the windows needed replacing,
Management high rise housing KTMO wanted the charge (including those for the façade walls that the windows are a vital
Organisation ‘reassurance of window replacement), at a were element of the building and
(KTMO) In 2005 the elderly warranties that new tribunal in March 2010 the strengthened, contribute to its architectural
people’s home was rather than refurbished costs were found to have interiors and integrity and wholescale
demolished and there windows would bring’, been properly charged but communal areas replacement would destroy
were concerns about the replacements costing the service management have been this, they also considered this
the fate of the other approx. £1m, were slightly fee was reduced from refurbished treatment was contrary to
unlisted parts of the different to the originals 12.5% to 10% Government heritage advice
estate when plans were to accommodate heavier and window treatment in
announced by the glass to comply with The site around the tower Grade II* buildings from earlier
Council to redevelop current regulations and is currently being periods
the site around the improve draught/ redeveloped to provide
tower, a listing bid was waterproofing, the repair new homes including 50% At the time of writing, the C20
eventually successful cost was estimated at half affordable. Finance from Society is in pre-planning
and in Nov. 2012 the that of replacement market sale of some homes application meetings with the
remainder of the estate will fund regeneration of designers of the
was awarded Grade II site redevelopment area around
status the tower
Robin Hood Gardens
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Tenants/ Listed Status based on Style Conservation Regeneration Finance Economic Viability/ Specific Degree of Retention of Original
Responsibilities Guidelines Residents and Innovation Area Designation Social Policy Repair Character/Fabric
Association Challenges

Built (1968-72) and No Yes but little In 1995 Peter Smithson RHG site is not in LBTH estimated £20m was RHG’s retention was not N/A No original fabric, buildings and
owned by LBTH, contains powers, there called for the estate to be a conservation required to bring RHG up considered viable elements of the original site
214 dwellings has been much listed, but this was not acted area but the to Decent Homes because it would reduce including the external
consultation upon Blackwell Reach Standards, which it could the number of new landscaping will remain as the
The RHG buildings are with RHG Project impacts not afford homes that could be built site will be cleared for the
scheduled for demolition residents on In 2007 there was a bid to the nearby All and affordable homes as Blackwell Reach Regeneration
in 2015, the Council and the new list the estate at Grade II, Saints and Naval In 2008 EP and LBTH a proportion, with fewer Project
the HCA retain freehold Blackwall Reach and despite a lengthy Row agreed complete sales receipts to fund the
ownership of the land proposals campaign by architectural Conservation regeneration of the area. regeneration proposals, In March 2012 a Design Council
but as the development and heritage professionals, Areas The Blackwall Reach its retention would also CABE review said the Blackwall
is built, as leaseholders, the listing proposal was Project will supply 1575 mean losing a quarter of Reach plans lacked ‘clear logic’
Swan Housing will rejected, EH considered RHG new homes, shops and the potential green space and were ‘likely to have a
become responsible for was neither innovative or commercial premises, which would impact on ‘detrimental impact’ on the
managing the Blackwall influential, that it failed as a redevelopment of RHG’s new community, health area, the height of the buildings
Reach estate and its contribution to area’s legacy site will provide about 800 and school facilities and masterplan layout gave
public open spaces of housing, RHG architect new affordable homes them particular concern and
Ken Baker conversely All RHG tenants are to be they considered the open
indicated RHG was designed To finance the re-provided new homes spaces appeared ‘ fractured and
as a new ‘perimeter redevelopment in 2011 to meet their needs, are likely to be overshadowed
development’ reflecting the Swan Housing, Black Reach Phase 1a will by the tall residential blocks…a
Smithsons’ thinking on the Countryside Properties, rehouse residents in convincing case needs to be
car and urban development with Aedas were selected RHG’s Cotton Street made for the amount of
and their belief that as developer partners, block and Phases 2 and 3 development and the height of
buildings designed around LBTH invested £13m to will rehouse those in the the buildings’
parks could provide traffic fund acquisition of Blackwall block
free areas called ‘land- properties sold under EH also had reservations
castles with a ‘private realm’ Right to Buy and to pay centred on the project’s impact
and a ‘public’ side facing the home loss and on the historic character of the
roads compensation payments, Church of All Saints and the
and £1.5m for the Naval Row Conservation Area
A Certificate of Immunity planning costs, HCA
from Listing was issued in funding will ‘match’ that of
2009 the Council
Wynford House and The Priory Green Estate
Estate Management Conservation Practices Commercial Judgements Materiality

Ownership/ Management Tenants/ Listed Status based Conservation Area Regeneration Finance Economic Viability/ Specific Repair Degree of Retention of
Responsibilities Guidelines Residents on Style and Designation Social Policy Challenges Original Character/Fabric
Association Innovation

Priory Green (built Only those Yes Not listed (three other Following In 1996 Wynford House was Wynford House was Much of the original As an unlisted building there
1948- 51), with 288 included in the Tecton Finsbury refurbishment the in a very poor state and the transformed from being façade work had were no heritage constraints
flats, was part of Conservation Buildings are: Finsbury Priory Green flats were vacated on the one of purely social been lost and major but the refurbishment
Finsbury Council’s Area Health Centre, Spa Estate was grounds of health and safety housing into a mixed- renovation work was intended to respect the
social development Document, not Lane Estate and Bevin designated a with tenants found tenure, the blocks have needed to the roofs, architecture, structure and
programme for the building Court) Conservation Area. alternative accommodation, been reconfigured in to brick and concrete colours of the original blocks
borough, phase two specific In 2003 Conservation LBI could not afford the 62 private rented, and facades, tiled with attention to the
included Wynford Islington Council had Area Design £4.1m repair two new elements and renewal of concrete
House (built 1954-7) thought it a liability Guidelines were Penthouses (the east building walls to surfaces, for the exposed
containing 88, 4 room and considered drawn up to help An open competition, the and central) and 26 allow thermal aggregate panel repairs the
dwellings demolishing it but preserve the special Wynford Challenge, was social-housing dwellings upgrade cost of replacing them was
since refurbishment it character of the held to help decide the (the western one), in a prohibitive so artists were
In 1997 LBI disposed of has added the Priory estate, including the building’s fate, a cross-subsidy format, Techniques for employed to repaint the
the property freehold Green Estate to their setting of the refurbishment costing £7.5m enabling finance of the detecting and aggregate in trompe l’oeil,
to Community housing local list of buildings individual blocks was undertaken (1998-2000) refurbishment and to treating concrete the bridge-links between the
Association (now One of architectural or within the landscape to regenerate the building, provide the council with faults were three blocks were removed
Housing Group), in historic importance and views in and its fabric and services, the a capital receipt for employed to enable and substituted with half-
return for a capital and considers their around the site. refurbishment emerged as reinvestment, a grant cost effective repair flight stairs, the gallery walls
receipt of £1m and loss would greatly It also recommended the marker for an on-going from the King's Cross and improve energy and the courtyard elevations
nomination rights to reduce the historic retention of all locally improvement program for Partnership secured efficiency, of the wing blocks were
make 30% of the and architectural listed buildings and the entire Priory Green with Islington Play demonstrating that rebuilt to improve thermal
ungraded properties at interest of the area 20th century Estate. The Peabody Trust Association meant a failing concrete performance, the roof-top
affordable rates, it sculpture and undertook a £15.2m special children's facility structures don't plant and water-tank rooms
reopened as Priory encouraged refurbishment (2000–4) and could also be included have to simply opt were replaced with two
Heights in 2000 reinstating lost Conservation Area Status within the development for blanket over- penthouse flats
features like doors, attracted a £2m Townscape cladding
In Sept. 2000 the windows, light Heritage initiative in Nov. The extent of the changes to
Council ceded the rest fittings, balcony rails, 2000 the landscaping raised
of Priory Green to the rainwater goods, opposition from some
Peabody Trust with the artwork, sculpture heritage professionals (e.g.
aim of restoring it and tiling DoCoMoMo)
Annex: Comparison Statistics

Please refer to CD in pocket at rear of thesis

345
Bibliography

Books/Journals/Articles General:

Arendt H. (1961) Between Past and Future The Viking Press: New York

Allan J. (2001) ‘Preserving Heritage or Revaluing Resources’ in Macdonald S. (2001) Preserving post
war heritage: the care and conservation of mid-twentieth century architecture Donhead Publishing:
Dorset

Allan J. (1998) ‘MOMO’s Second Chance: the Revaluation of Inner Urban Housing in Britain’ in
Cunningham A. (ed.) (1998) Modern Movement Heritage, E & FN SPON, Routledge: London

Allan J. (2002) ‘A Challenge of Values’ in Henket H.J. & Heyman H. (eds.) (2002) Back from Utopia:
The Challenge of the Modern Movement 010 Publishers: Rotterdam

Allan J. (2007) ‘Points of Balance – Patterns of practice in the Conservation of Modern Architecture’
in Macdonald S., Normandin K. & Kindred B. (eds.) Conservation of Modern Buildings Donhead:
Dorset

Allan J. (2010) ‘Ugly Brutes or Cherished Heritage?’ in DoCoMoMo UK Newsletter Winter 2010

Banham R. (1955) ‘The New Brutalism’ in The Architectural Review, Dec. 1955, p.354-61

Banham R. (1976) Megastructure: Urban Futures of the Recent Past Thames and Hudson: London

Baxter A. (2001) ‘Twentieth-Century Buildings’ in Journal of architectural conservation No 2, July

2001, p.332

Beard A. (2001) in ‘A Future for Park Hill’ in Preserving Post-War Heritage - The Care and
Conservation of Mid-Twentieth Century Architecture Donhead Publishing: Dorset

Berman M. (1985) All That is Solid Melts into Air, The Experience of Modernity Verso: London

Brereton C. (1991) The Repair of Historic Buildings: Advice on Principles and Methods English
Heritage: London

British Standard Institute (2013) BS 7913: 2013 Guide to the conservation of historic buildings

Buckingham S. (2000) Points and slabs of Interest

<http://ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/65/slabs/buckingham.html> [retrieved 12 March 2013]

Bullock N. (2002) Building the Post-War World Routledge: Oxon

Carrier D. (ed.) England and its aesthetics OPA: Amsterdam

Cherry M. (1996) ‘Listing twentieth-century buildings: the present situation’ in Macdonald S. (ed.)
Modern Matters, Principles and Practice in Conserving Recent Architecture, English Heritage &
Donhead Publications

Colquhoun A. (1989) Modernity and the Classical Tradition MiT Press: London

346
Colquhoun A. (2009) ‘Newness and Age Value in Alois Riegl’ in Collected Essays in Architectural
Criticism Black Dog Publishing: London

Commission for architecture and the built Environment (CABE)/ English Heritage (2007) Guidance on
Tall Buildings

Cunningham A. (ed.) (1998) Modern Movement Heritage E & FN SPON, Routledge: London

Curtis, W.J. R. (1996) Modern Architecture since 1900, third edition, Phaidon: London

Delafons J. (1997) Politics and Preservation: A Policy History of the Built Heritage, 1882–1996 E & FN
SPON: London

Department of Communities and Local Government (March 2012) National Planning Policy
Framework

Department of Culture Media and Sport (2010) Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings

Department of National Heritage (Sept. 1994) Planning Policy Guidance 15: Planning and the Historic
Environment

Dunnett J. (2007) ‘DoCoMoMo: Questions of Assessment’ in Macdonald S., Normandin K. & Kindred
B. (eds.) (2007) Conservation of Modern Buildings Donhead

Dunnett J. (2010) ‘Ugly Brutes or Cherished Heritage?’ in DoCoMoMo UK Newsletter Summer 2010

Elwall R. (2000) Building a Better Tomorrow Wiley & Sons: London

English Heritage and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (June 2003) Streamlining listed building
consent, Lessons of management agreements, a research report

English Heritage (June 1995) Developing guidelines for the management of listed buildings

English Heritage (1996) Something Worth Keeping? Post-war Architecture in England, Housing and
Houses

English Heritage (Dec. 2006) Mending Modernism, conference at the Royal College of Physicians'
headquarters, Regent’s Park in Dec. 2006 <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 4 Aug.
2012]

English Heritage (2006) Shared Interest Celebrating Investment in the Historic Environment

English Heritage (2008) Conservation Principles, Polices and Guidance for the Sustainable
Management of the Historic Environment

English Heritage (2008) Constructive Conservation in Practice

English Heritage and Department of Communities & Local Government (March 2010 and Revision
Note 2012) Planning Policy Statement 5: Planning for the Historic Environment and Practice Guide

347
English Heritage (2011) Domestic 4: The Modern House & Housing

English Heritage (2011) Place: Conservation Area Designation, Appraisal and Management

English Heritage (2011) The Setting of Heritage Assets

English Heritage (2012) Practical Building Conservation: Concrete Ashgate: Surrey

English Heritage (April 2013) National Heritage Protection Plan Framework

English Heritage (2013) Heritage Works The use of historic buildings in regeneration: A toolkit of
good practice

English Heritage (2011-15) The National Heritage Protection Plan Action Plan Revision 2: April 2013 –
March 2015

Fielden B.M. (1994) Conservation of Historic Buildings Elsevier: London

Franklin B. (2006) Housing Transformations: Shaping the Space of 21st Century Living Routledge:
Oxon

French H. (2008) Key urban housing of the twentieth century: plans, sections and elevations King:
London

Glendinning M. & Muthesius S. (1994) Tower Block Yale University Press: New Haven and London

Guillet A.L. (2007) ‘DoCoMoMo International: Modernity as Heritage’ in Macdonald S. & Kindred B.
(eds.) (2007) Conservation of Modern Architecture Donhead: Dorset

Harrison R. (2010) Understanding the Politics of Heritage Manchester University Press: Manchester

Harward E. (2001) ‘this is tomorrow’ in Preserving Post-War Heritage - The Care and Conservation of
Mid-Twentieth Century Architecture Donhead Publishing: Dorset

Harwood E. (2003) England: A Guide to the Post-War Listed Buildings Batsford: London

Henket H.J. (1998) ‘The Icon and the Ordinary’ in Cunningham A. (ed.) (1998) Modern Movement
Heritage E & FN SPON, Routledge: London

Henket H.J. & Heynen H. (eds.) (2002) Back from Utopia: The Challenge of the Modern Movement
010 Publishers: Rotterdam

Hewson R. (1987) The Heritage Industry: Britain in a Climate of Decline Methuen Publishing Ltd:
London

Heynen H. (1998) ‘Transitoriness of Modern Architecture’ in Modern Movement Heritage ed.

Cunningham A. (1998) E & FN SPON, Routledge: London

Higgott A. (2007) Mediating Modernism Architectural Cultures in Britain Routledge: Oxon

Jacobs J. (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities Random House: New York

348
Jencks C. (2002) The New Paradigm in Architecture: the language of post-modernism Yale University
Press: London

Jokilehto J. (1999) A History of Architectural Conservation Butterworth Heinmann: Oxford

Kerr J. S. (1990) The Conservation Plan National Trust of Australia Heritage Office and Dept. of Urban
Affairs and Planning (1996) Conservation Management Documents, DUAP: Sydney

Latour B. (1991) We have Never Been Modern Harvard University Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts,
translated by Catherine Porter, 1993

Lewi H. (2002) ‘Paradoxes in the Conservation of the Modern Movement’ in Henket H.J. & Heyman
H. (eds.) (2002) Back from Utopia: The Challenge of the Modern Movement 010 Publishers:
Rotterdam

Macdonald S. (ed.) (2001) Preserving Post-war Heritage: The care and conservation of mid-twentieth
century architecture English Heritage Donhead Publishing: Dorset

Macdonald S. & Normandin K. Kindred B. (eds.) (2007) Conservation of Modern Architecture

Donhead: Dorset

Mckean C. & Jestico T. (1976) Guide to Modern Buildings in London 1965-75 Warehouse Publishing
Ltd: London

Nairn I. (1964) Modern Buildings in London London Transport: London

The Paul Drury Partnership, Historic environment policy and practice with The Environmental Project
Consulting Group (June 2003) Streamlining listed building consent Lessons from the use of
management agreements A research report

Pawley M. (1998) Terminal Architecture Reaktion Books: London

Pevsner N., Bradley S. (1997) The Buildings of England, London 1: The City of London (1999 ed.)
Penguin Books: London

Pevsner N. (1998) The Buildings of England: London Docklands Yale University Press: London

Powell K. (2002) New London Architecture Merrell: London

Powers A. (2001) ‘Style or Substance? What are we trying to conserve?’ in Macdonald S. (ed.) (2001)
Preserving Post-war Heritage: The care and conservation of mid-twentieth century architecture
English Heritage Donhead Publishing: Dorset

Powers A. (2012) ‘Brutal behaviour: what are we doing to our heritage?’ in Blueprint no.314, May
2012, p. 40-67

O’Rourke M. (2001) ‘The Lansbury Estate, Keeling House and Balfron Tower Conservation Issues and
the Architecture of Social Content’ in Macdonald S. (ed.) (2001) Preserving Post-war Heritage: The
care and conservation of mid-twentieth century architecture Donhead Publishing: Dorset

349
Riegl A. (1928) ‘The Modern Cult of Monuments: Its Character and Its Origin’ in Vanessa R. Schwartz,
V. R. Schwartz & Przyblyski J.M. (2004) 19th Century Visual Culture Reader Routledge: London

Saint A. (1996) ‘Philosophical principles of modern conservation’ in Macdonald S. (ed) Modern

Matters, Principles and Practice in Conserving Recent Architecture, English Heritage & Donhead
Publications

Social Market Foundation for National Housing Federation, Authors: Keohane N. & Broughton N.
(2013) The Politics of Housing < http://www.smf.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Publication-
The-Politics-of-Housing.pdf> [retrieved 9 Nov. 2015]

Smith L. (2006) Uses of Heritage Routledge: Abingdon and New York

Schneider T.& Till J.(2007) Flexible Housing Architectural Press: Oxford

Thurley S. (2006) ‘The Constructive Approach to Conserving Modernist Buildings’ speech given at
Mending Modernism conference at the Royal College of Physicians' headquarters, Regent’s Park 14
Dec. 2006 <http://www.english-heritage.org.uk> [retrieved 4 Aug. 2012]

Waite R. (2007) ‘Hodge wants stricter listing for 20th-century buildings’ in The Architects’ journal 20
Dec. 2007, p.5

Waite R. (2010) ‘It’s crucial that people have a say’ in The Architects’ Journal, 18 Feb. 2010, p10-11

Waterton E. (2010) Politics, Policy and the Discourses of Heritage in Britain Palgrave Macmillan:
London

Web Resources:

http://www.architecture.com
http://www.bdonline.co.uk
http://www.bing.com
http://www.britishlistedbuildings.co.uk
http://www.british-history.ac.uk
http://www.building-in-context.org
http://www.concreteconstruction.net
http://c20society.org.uk
http://digimap.edina.ac.uk
http://www.docomomo.com
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk
http://www.geograph.org.uk
http://www.museumoflondon.org.uk
http://www.rbkc.gov.uk
http://www.ribapix.com

Other Information Sources:

London Metropolitan Archives

Sheffield University Library
Sheffield City Library and Archives

350
Estate Specific Resources:

Golden Lane Estate

Chamberlin P. (June 1989) ‘Architects’ Approach to Architecture’ in RIBA Journal, 6 June 1969,
p.229–35

City of London Corporation Planning Applications and supporting documentation: 4933AC;

12/00065/LBC; 10/00317/LBC; 10/00416/LBC; 12/00491/LBC

City of London Corporation Planning and Transportation Delegated Report, 27 July 2010

City of London Corporation Design & Heritage Statement, Crescent House, 1 July 2010

City of London Corporation Golden Lane Estate Listed Building Management Guidelines June 2007

City of London Corporation Golden Lane Estate Listed Building Management Guidelines, Revised,
Sept. 2013

Emanuel M. (ed.) (1980) ‘Chamberlin, Powell and Bon’ in Contemporary Architects Macmillan:
London

Harwood E. (2011) Chamberlin, Powell and Bon: The Barbican and Beyond The C20 Society/English
Heritage/RIBA Publishing: London

Penoyre (May 2012) ‘Greg Penoyre's inspiration: The Golden Lane Estate, London’ in Building Design,
3 May 2012

Powell K. (March 1999), ‘Pioneering urbanism’ in The Architects' Journal 4 March 1999, p.24-5

Journals/Newspapers:

Architectural Design, July 1953, ‘Housing at Golden Lane’, p.190-2

Architectural Design, Sept. 1956, ‘Housing at Golden Lane, City of London’, p.294-8
The Architects’ journal, 6 March 1952, ‘Golden Lane Housing Competition, First prize Winning Design
by Geoffrey Powell’, p. 298
The Architects' journal, 15 Jan. 1953, ‘Men of the Year 1952: Chamberlin, Powell and Bonn’, p.72
The Architects’ journal, 20 June 1957, ‘Criticism by JM Richards: Housing at Golden Lane, city of
London designed by Chamberlin, Powell & Bonn’, p.911
The Architects’ journal, 16 Jan. 1958, ‘The tenants pay by cheque at Golden Lane’, p.101
The Architects’ journal, 29 Dec. 1960, ‘Bowater house, Golden Lane Estate, London, EC1, Architects:
Chamberlin, Powell & Bonn’, p.931-42
Architectural Review, Jan. 1954, ‘Flats: City of London’, p.5-6
Architectural Review, June 1957, ‘Housing in Golden Lane, London’, p.414-26
Architectural Review, Dec. 1962, ‘Golden Lane: Stage 2 Housing, Goswell Road, London’, p.392
Architectural Review, Oct. 1973, ‘The Barbican Development, City of London, Criticism by Sherban
Cantacuzino’, p.71-5
Architecture and Building, Aug. 1957, ‘Multi-storey flats: 120 two-room flats in Great Arthur House
on the Golden Lane Estate, London; Architects: Chamberlin, Powell & Bon’, p.301-9
Building, 11 July 2008, Spring M. ‘Winning combinations’, p.50-4

351
The Guardian, 20 Mar 1998, Jennings C. ‘Modern Manor: A series of City pieds a terre complete with
tennis courts and of great architectural interest sits in the shadow of the Barbican. But this is no
swanky new development; it's a great example of good social housing’

Web Resources:

http://www.archiplanet.org
http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk
http://www.barbicanliving.co.uk
http://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk
http://collage.cityoflondon.gov.uk
http://goldenlane.ning.com
http://www.goldenlaneestate.org
http://www.guardian.co.uk
http://www.hdawards.org
http://nationalgallery.org.uk
http://www.themodernhouse.net

Interviews/Discussions:

Visit/ tour of the estate with Clive Cornwell, Senior Planning Officer, City of London Corporation, 3
June 2014
Discussions with various residents via Golden Lane Estate Residents Association (GLERA) Website
Visits to flats/ discussions with Crescent House Residents: Levent Kerimol and Daniel Burn, 1 Sept.
2014

Park Hill

P. Abercrombie (1924) Sheffield Civic Survey and Development Plan, p.26-8

Allan J., Cruickshank D. and Saint A. (1996) Park Hill What Next? Architectural Association
Documents: London

Banham R. (Oct. 1973) ‘The Park Hill Victory’ in New Society, p.154-6

Banham R. (May/June 1974) ‘Park Hill Revisited: English Public Housing that broke the rules (but
works anyway)’ in Architectural Review, p.108-15

Beard A. (2001) ‘A Future for Park Hill’ in Preserving Post-war Heritage: The care and conservation of
mid-twentieth century architecture English Heritage Donhead Publishing: Dorset

Bell H. (2011) Values in the conservation and regeneration of post-war listed public housing: a study
of Spa Green and Park Hill PhD Thesis, University of Sheffield

City of Sheffield Housing Development Committee Report (1961): Park Hill: An Urban Community
Part 1 (Sheffield Local Studies Library (SLSL): 331.833 SF)

City of Sheffield, Planning Officer’s Overspill Report Dec. 1950, p.4 (Sheffield Archives: CA674/15)

City of Sheffield, Report of the City of Sheffield Housing Deputation Multi-Storey Housing in Some
European Countries March 1955 (Local Pamphlets Vol. 205, no 10, p.36/37)

352
City of Sheffield, Housing Management Committee Joint report by City Architect and Housing
Manager on amenities and management at Park Hill Part 1, 1959 (Sheffield Archives CA-HMC/2/1)

City of Sheffield, City Housing Management Committee (1959/1960) Park Hill Part 1: Sociological
Report, p.94-100 (Sheffield Archives: CA-HMC/2/1)

City of Sheffield, City Housing Department Park Hill Survey (1962) (Sheffield Library, SLSL: 331.833
SQ)

City of Sheffield, Libraries, Archives and Information (2010) Park Hill and Hyde Park Flats Study Guide

Cruickshank D. 1995 ‘Park Hill, Sheffield 1960-1965’ in RIBA Journal, Oct. 1995, p.52-61 (Sheffield
Local Studies Library MP 4960 M)

Dark R. and J. (1962) ‘Sheffield Revisited: Urban Evaluations’ in Built Environment, p. 557-61
(Sheffield Library SLSL MP2168 M)

Dunnett J. DoCoMoMo UK Newsletter Summer 2010

Flat: The Park Hill Bulletin: ‘Are We A Community?’ No. 17, Oct. 1962 (Sheffield Library SLSL MP 3222
S)

Harwood E. ‘Park Hill architect Jack Lynn dies’ in The Architects’ journal, 24 Oct. 2013

Smith I ‘Park Hill, Sheffield 1960-1965’in RIBA Journal, Oct. 1995, p.59

Smith I. ‘Park Hill's Original Architect Responds to AR Revisit’ in Architectural Review, 13 Oct. 2011

Smith I (2014) Architecture an Inspiration Matador: Leicestershire

Winkler A. (2007) Case Report 45: Sheffield City Report, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, p.13

J. L. Wormersley (1955) City Architect’s Special Housing Report (Sheffield Archives: CA655/15)

J. L. Wormersley ‘Appraisal of Park Hill Redevelopment, Sheffield’ in RIBA Journal July 1963

Journals/Newspapers:

The Architects' Journal, 15 Jan. 1953, ‘Men of the Year 1952: Chamberlin, Powell and Bonn’, p.72
The Architects’ journal, 23 Aug. 1961, ‘Park Hill Redevelopment’, p.271-86
The Architects’ journal, 21 July 1965, ‘‘Building Revisited: Park Hill’, p.137-70
The Architects’ journal 27 Feb. 2009, ‘Agency to rescue as Park Hill hits trouble’
The Architects’ journal, 1 Oct. 2013, Mark L. ‘Sheffield council urged to cut financial ties with Park
Hill’
The Architects’ journal, 3 April 2014, ‘urban splash ploughs 17m into park-hill phase two’
Architectural Design, Sept. 1961, Lewis D. ‘Park Hill: Criticism’, p. 397-8
Architectural Review, 27 Sept. 2011, Taher S. ‘Interviews with Jan Fitzgerald: Sheffield City Council/
Mark Latham: Urban Splash’ and Blundell Jones P. ‘a second chance for Sheffield’s streets in the sky’
Building Design, 7 Oct. 2005, Booth R. & Rose J. ‘Campaign to save Sheffield Estate’, p.5
Detail, April 2013, Special issue Schittich C. and others ‘Sanierung (Refurbishment)’, p.373

353
Inside Housing, 13 July 2013, ‘Uphill Struggle’
The Guardian, 22 Nov. 2008, Cooke R. ‘How I learnt to love the streets in the sky’
The Guardian, 29 Sept. 2011, Hatherley O. ‘Regeneration? What's happening in Sheffield's Park Hill is
class cleansing’
The Observer 21 Aug. 2011, Moore R. ‘Park Hill estate, Sheffield’
The Sheffield Star, 15 March, 1955, (Sheffield Archives CA655/15)
The Sheffield Star, 21 Dec. 2011, ‘Changes to Park Hill complex renovation backed’
The Sheffield Telegraph, 20 Jan. 1961, (Sheffield Archives CA655/15)
The Sheffield Telegraph, 20 Aug. 2011, ‘Housing plans hit by £21m Government cut’
The Times, 16 Sept. 2011, Hattersley R. ‘from a relic of good intentions to a model for the future; we
never dreamt an infamous block of flats would one day house council tenants and owners. We were
wrong’

Web Resources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/southyorkshire
http://www.c20society.org.uk
http://www.insidehousing.co.uk
http://www.picturesheffield.com
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk
http://www.urbansplash.co.uk
http://www.helm.org.uk

Film:

City of Sheffield (2009) The Question of Park Hill

Park Hill Housing Project <http://www.yfaonline.com/node/7389 film no: 3315>

Interviews/Discussions:

Tom Laurence Urban Splash Development Manager, 17 Feb. 2012

Gwyneth Mark, Sheffield resident and wife of Park Hill architect, Tony Mark, 21 Feb. 2012
Morn Capper, former Park hill Resident, 7 July 2014
Grenville Squires Poems in The Question of Park Hill, film, City of Sheffield (2009)

The Brunswick Centre

Allied London Properties PLC Planning Report: Renaissance of a London Landmark, April 1999

Camden London Borough Council Planning Applications and supporting documentation: 8701965
(1987); 9200145 (1992); 9200512 (1992); 9300999 (1993); P9602179 (1996); P9602180R1 and
P9602180R1 (1997); PS9704960, PS9705319 and PS9904424 (1998); PSX0104561 (2003);
2005/1145/P; 2005/1148/L/; 2005/5047/L; LBC 2005/1148; 2014/3640/P (2014)

Hodgkinson P. (2006) ‘Scrubs up beautifully’ in The Guardian 22 Oct. 2006

Melhuish C. (2006) Life and Times of the Brunswick London: Camden History Society

Tappin S. (June 2002) Open House Notes: The Brunswick Centre

<https://brunswickwc1.wordpress.com/history> [retrieved 17 Jan 2013]

354
Tappin S. (2006) ‘Living in the Brunswick Centre: A Personal Account’ in Macdonald S. Normandin K.
Kindred B. (eds.) (2007) Conservation of Modern Architecture Donhead: Dorset

Journals/Newspapers:

Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, April/May 1972, ‘Brunswick Centre, London borough of Camben;

Architects: L. Martin, and P. Hodgkinson and others’, p. 80-1
The Architects' journal, 11 Jan. 1978, ‘Brunswick Centre is leaking; consultant architects for repair:
Bickerdike Allen Bramble’, p.52-3
The Architects' journal, 15 July 1992, ‘The battle of Brunswick’, p.7
The Architects' journal, 22 July 1992, Cruickshank D. ‘Listing rules challenged’, p.11
The Architects' journal, 12 Aug. 1992, ‘Brunswick plans on hold’, p.5
The Architects' Journal 4 July 1996, Matheou D. ‘Latest plans for Bloomsbury's Brunswick Centre go
on show’, p.16
The Architects' journal, 29 Aug. 1996, ‘Latest plan for Brunswick Centre runs into trouble’, p.15
The Architects’ journal, 3 Feb. 2000, Taylor D. ‘Brunswick architect accused of damaging own
building’, p.5
The Architects’ journal, 10 Feb. 2000, letters to AJ from Powell K. ‘Brunswick respected by 20th
Century Society’,
The Architects journal, 5 Oct. 2000, ‘Clare Melhuish reviews ... Brunswick-inspired debate on listing
legislation’, p.12
The Architects' journal, 31 May 2001, ‘20th Century Society attacks new Brunswick Centre plan’, p.9
Architectural Review, Oct. 1972, Crosby T. and Brown N. ‘Brunswick Centre housing and commercial
development, Bloomsbury, London borough of Camden; Architect: P. Hodgkinson.’p.196-218
Architectural Review, Feb. 2006, Gregory R. ‘Modernism revisited; Original architect: Patrick
Hodgkinson, architects for refurbishment: Levitt Bernstein’, p.34
Architectural Review Mar. 2007, Curtis W. and others ‘Mending Modernism’, p.36-73, 84-5
A&U, May 1973, ’Brunswick Centre, Bloomsbury, London; Architect: Patrick Hodgkinson’, p.17-26
Baumeister, April 1973, ‘Foundling Estate (now called Brunswick Centre), London; Architect: P.
Hodgkinson’, p.436-41
Building, 1 Aug. 2005, ‘The Brunswick cleans up: London’s Brunswick Centre recently proved the
truly worthy if slightly unexpected winner of the Pilkington ‘Activ in Architecture’ competition’
<http://www.building.co.uk/the-brunswick-cleans-up/3054541.article> [retrieved 7 Jan. 2013]
Building Design, 22 Oct. 1993, Baillieu A. ‘Dispute over designs for Bloomsbury icon; Architects:
David Rock’, p.1, p.24
Building Design, 5 Nov. 1993, Rock D. ‘Finding new solutions to problems of the past; Original
architect: Patrick Hodgkinson, architect for alterations David Rock, and others’, p.8
Building Design, 6 Oct. 2006, Payne J.R. ‘Return of the Bloomsbury set’, p.14-17
Camden New Journal, 16 March 2006, Carrier D. ‘Neighbours hit roof over centre flats’
<http://www.thecnj.com/camden/031606/news031606_18.html> [retrieved 8 July 2015]
Camden New Journal, 19 Oct. 2006, ‘The changing face of The Brunswick Centre: Dan Carrier talks to
architect Patrick Hodgkinson about how the plans for the centre developed’
<http://www.thecnj.com/review/101906/feat_bloom101906_05.html> [retrieved 7 Jan 2013]
Camden New Journal, 27 Sept. 2007, Newman S. ‘Heating bills are a bit rich, say pensioners’
http://www.thecnj.com/camden/092707/news092707_25.html [retrieved 7 Jan 2013]
Casabella, April 1974, Almerico de Angelis ‘Is this megastructure repressive: a lesson from the
Brunswick Centre in London; Architect: Patrick Hodgkinson’, p.2-3
Domus, Feb. 1973, ‘Brunswick Centre, Bloomsbury, London; Architect: P. Hodgkinson’, p.18-24
The Guardian, art and design 23 Oct. 2006, Rose S. ‘Scrubs up beautifully The Brunswick Centre was
a rain-streaked, litter-strewn concrete monstrosity that seemed destined for the bulldozer. Then
someone gave it a lick of paint’

355
<www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2006/oct/23/architecture.communities> [retrieved 3 Dec.
2012]
Progressive Architecture, May 1973, ‘Forward through the past: Brunswick Centre, London;
Architect: Patrick Hodgkinson’, p.100-5
RIBA journal, May 2005, ‘Spit and polish’, p.72

Web Resources:

http://www.artandarchitecture.org.uk
http://bloomsburyfestival.org.uk
http://thebrunswick.org
http://www.building.co.uk
http://www.thecnj.com
http://www.camden.gov.uk
http://www.diamond-build.co.uk
http://www.guardian.co.uk

Interviews/Discussions:

Visit to flat/tour around the site/discussions 26 Nov. 2014 with Brunswick, Foundling Court Resident:
Selina Bolton

Alexandra Road Estate

Brown N. (4 May 2004) Strategic Proposal for treatment of external Finishes at Alexandra Road and
Ainsworth Estate

CLBC Conservation Area Statement Alexandra Road, March 1996

CLBC Alexandra and Ainsworth Estate Regeneration Consultation Document, Nov. 07

CLBC Alexandra Road Management Guidelines, 2000

CLBC Alexandra Road Management Guidelines, 2nd Edition Jan. 2006

Croft C. (1994) The Alexandra Road Estate and the Impact of Listing: Lessons for the Preservation of
Post-War Mass Housing B. Cons Thesis: A.A. Library

Croft C. (1996) ‘Alexandra Road, London’ in Macdonald S. (ed.) Modern Matters Principles & Practice
in Conserving Recent Architecture Donhead: Dorset

Elrington C.R. (Ed.), Baker T. F. T., Bolton D. K., Croot P. E. C. (1989) A History of the County of
Middlesex: Volume 9: Hampstead, Paddington, p.60-63 <http://www.british-history.ac.uk>
[retrieved 27 Feb. 2013]

Fordham M. ‘Radiant wall heating for flats’ in Building services engineer, April 1978, p.A23-A25

Freear A. (1995) ‘Alexandra Road: the last great social housing project’ in AA Files no. 30, p.35-46

Pearman H. ‘Estates of grace and favour’ in The Sunday Times 9 Sept. 1993, p.6-7

356
Rowan Technologies Ltd Alexandra Road Estate: Cleaning, Coating and Repairs for the Park Concrete
Final Report, Dec. 2013

Swenarton M. (1981) ‘Creating a Piece of City: Neave Brown and the Design of Alexandra Road’ in
The Architects’ journal, 25 Feb. 1981, p.339

Journals/Newspapers:

The Architects' journal, Sept. 1976, ‘Housing at Alexandra Road, London NW8’, p. 441-5
The Architects’ journal, 1 Sept. 1993, Mead A. ‘Alexandra Road: what does it mean for public
housing?, p.14-15
Architectural Design, Sept. 1967, Brown N. ‘the forms of housing’, p.432
Architectural Design, 8/9, 1978, ‘Neave Brown's Fleet Road: the evolution of a social concept of
housing’, p.523-34
Architectural Review, Aug. 1979, Maxwell R. ‘Alexandra Road’, p.76-92
Blueprint, 3 Nov. 2010, Wannathepsaku N. ‘Cooks Camden’
Building Design 19 March 2004, ‘Leak repair row at listed estate’, p.5
Camden New Journal, 30 Sept. 1993, ‘Heritage fiasco ends in darkness’
Building, 23 Sept. 1977, ‘The last grand design for council housing’, p. 49
RIBA Journal, Nov. 1979, Gains S. ‘Cook’s Camden’, p. 483-90
RIBA Journal, June 1980, ‘Camden, Last of the Big Spenders’, p.43-5
RIBA Journal, Sept. 1980, ‘Neave Brown replies to Camden criticism’, p.24

Web Resources:

http://www.alexandraandainsworth.org
http://www.aroundtheblockltd.co.uk
http://www.british-history.ac.uk
http://www.blueprintmagazine.co.uk
http://www.camden.gov.uk
http://www.imagesofengland.org.uk
http://www.levittbernstein.co.uk
http://www.londongardensonline.org.uk
http://www.rowleyway.org.uk

Film:

One below the queen Rowley Way speaks for itself, Alexandra Road Residents
<http://alexandraandainsworth.org/on-film> [retrieved 30 Jan. 2013]

Interviews/Discussions:

Elizabeth Knowles, Alexandra Road Estate resident and estate listing campaigner, 25 June 2014
Catherine Bond, Camden London Borough Council Planning Officer, 16 July 2014
Malcom Dickson, Camden London Borough Council Planning Officer, 17 July 2014

The Brownfield Estate

English Heritage Conservation Bulletin Issue 59, Autumn 2008

357
LBTH Heritage and Visual Assessment Report, Summary of the Original Scheme Assessment, 5 Dec.
2007

LBTH Balfron Tower Conservation Area Appraisals and Management Guidelines (CAAMG), Feb. 2007

LBTH Brownfield Estate Conservation Management Plan (CMP), 5 Dec. 2007

LBTH Heritage and Visual Impact Assessment Report, Oct. 2009

LBTH Brownfield Planning & Regeneration Statement, Impact Statement and Statement of
Community Involvement Oct. 2009

LBTH Planning applications and supporting documentation: LA100019288; PA/08/01132;

PA/09/02100; PA/12/01160

LBTH Strategic Planning Report, Feb. 2010

LBTH Planning Report PDU/2450/02, 26 March 2010

LBTH Carradale House Heritage Statement, June 2010

LBTH Carradale House Design and Access Statement, July 2010

PRP Project Services Ltd Report for Poplar HARCA on the Balfron Tower Delivery Strategy (AP1499)
Aug. 2010

Journals/Newspapers:

The Architect’s journal, 22, May 1968, ‘Housing scheme, Rowlett Street, Poplar, London’, p.1133-4
The Architects' journal, 21, March 1996, ‘East End Goldfinger flats spot-listed Grade II’, p.15
Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, number 120, 1966, ‘Housing scheme, Rowlett Street, Poplar, London;
Architect: E. Goldfinger & Associates’, p.41
Architecture d'Aujourd'hui, number 130, 1967, ‘Housing scheme, Rowlett Street, Poplar, London;
Architect: E. Goldfinger & Associates’, p. 50-1
Building Design, 26 May 1995, ‘Mods attack Erno reclad’, p. 1
Building Design 22 March 1996, ‘Goldfinger tower listed’, p.24
East London Advertiser, 21 Dec. 2010, Kleebauer A. ‘Redevelopment of iconic Balfron Tower leads to
housing uncertainty’

Web Resources:

http://www.bowarts.org
http://www.poplarharca.co.uk
http://www.ribapix.com
http://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk

Interviews/Discussions:

Eleanor Fawcett, Balfron Tower flat owner, Balfon and Caradale Residents Committee member and
Head of London Legacy Development Corporation, 3 July 2014
Paul Augarde, Poplar HARCA, Head of design and Innovation, 13 Oct. 2014

358
The Cheltenham Estate

Carroll R. ‘how did this become the height of fashion?’ in The Guardian 11 March 1999

Melhuish C. ‘Humanist ambition’ Report on the DoCoMoMo Conference in The Architects’ Journal 10
Oct. 2002, p. 52-3

RBKC Planning applications and supporting documentation: LB/05/00165; PP/05/00164;

LB/06/00292; LB/06/00293; LB/04/02302

RBKC Observations Conservation and Design Report in LB/06/00293

RBKC Trellick Tower and the Cheltenham (Edenham) Estate, Listed buildings, March 2013
<http://www.rbkc.gov.uk> [retrieved 21 June 2013]

RBKC Trellick-Edenham Planning Brief Supplementary Planning Document

<https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk/consult.ti/TEBrief/consultationHome> [retrieved 21 June
2013]

Sheppard F.H.W. (General Editor) (1973) Survey of London: volume 37: Northern Kensington, p.333-9
<https://www.british-history.ac.uk> [retrieved 12 Aug. 2013]

Journals/Newspapers:

The Architects' journal, 10 Jan. 1973, ‘Building study: The Cheltenham Estate’, p.79-96
The Architects’ journal, 17 July 1991, ‘Monuments to Modernism’, p. 7
The Architects’ journal, 12/19 Aug. 1999, ‘Goldfinger's Trellick Tower is star of Open House 1999’,
p.10
The Architects’ journal, 10 Oct. 2002, Melhuish C. ‘Humanist ambition’, p. 52-3
The Architects’ journal, 10 March 2005, ‘20th Century Society and residents slam Trellick
refurbishment plans’, p. 7
The Architects’ journal, 31 March 2005, Sharp R. ‘Battle commences over McAslan plans for Trellick
redevelopment’, p. 4
The Architects’ journal, 2 June 2005, Sharp R. ‘Trellick Tower clocks up third try’, p.6
Building, 6 April 1984, ‘Thames TV's best and worst’, p. 10
Building Design, 12 July 1991, ‘Goldfinger post-war estate recommended for listing’, p.5
Building Design, 22 Nov. 2002, Horton C. ‘McAslan to give Trellick four million pounds face-lift’, p.4
Building Design, 10 Oct. 2008, Buxton P. ‘Solutions: doors and windows’, p. 20-23
Building Design, 27 Feb. 2009, Winston A. ‘Campaign aims to save Goldfinger housing’, p.5
Building Design, 10 July 2009, Winston A. ‘Bid to list Goldfinger Kensington estate’ p.4
Building Design, 9 Oct. 2009, ‘Goldfinger residents draw up masterplan’, p. 4
Building Design, 4 Dec. 2009, Winston A. ‘Goldfinger estate reprieved’, p.6
Building Design, 21 Dec. 2012, ‘Levitt Bernstein unveils its plans for Goldfinger site’, p. 3
Ekistics, Nov. 1973, Richardson M. ‘Appraisal: Cheltenham Estate housing; Architect: Erno
Goldfinger’ p.333-6

Web Resources:

http://www.emmadentcoad.co.uk, A vision for Edenham, Conserving living buildings

https://planningconsult.rbkc.gov.uk,Policy CA 3
https://www.residential-property.judiciary.gov.uk, Ref LON/00AW/LSC/2009/0418

359
Other

C20 Event 27 Aug. 2014: talk by Henrietta Billings, Senior Conservation Advisor on Trellick Tower and
visit to Trellick flats, discussion with flat owner Stephen Goodchild

Goldfinger Generally

Dunnett J. ‘Roots of Goldfinger's design’ in The Architects’ journal 28 March 1996, p.24-6

Dunnett J. ‘A sense of proportion’ in The Architects’ journal, 20 Nov. 1997, p. 32-8

Dunnett J. ‘The Architect as Constructor’ in The Architectural Review, Feb. 1983, p.46

Dunnett J. & Stamp G. (1983) Erno Goldfinger Architectural Association: London

Elwall R. (1996) Erno Goldfinger RIBA Drawings Monographs no. 3 Academy Editions in collaboration
with the Royal Institute of British Architects: London

Goldfinger E. ‘The sensation of space’ (Nov. 1941), ‘Urbanism and spatial order’ (Dec. 1941),
‘Elements of enclosed space’ (Jan. 1942), reproduced in Architectural Review, April 1983

Warburton N. (2003) Erno Goldfinger: the life of an architect Routledge: London

Journals/ Newspapers:

The Architects’ journal, 26 July 1957, ‘Criticism The architect replies’, p.133-4
The Architects’ journal, 22 May 1968, ‘Housing scheme, Rowlett Street, Poplar, London; Architect: E.
Goldfinger & Associates’, p. 1133-4

Robin Hood Gardens

Allan J. (2008) EH Conservation Bulletin Issue 59: Autumn 2008, p.30

Baker K. ‘Robin Hood Gardens as a Perimeter Building’ in Powers A. (ed.) (2010) Robin Hood Gardens
re-visions. Twentieth century building studies The C20 Society/Paul Holberton Publishing: London,
p.51-2

Dunster D. (ed.) (1982) Alison + Peter Smithson The Shift Academy Editions: London

Hobhouse H. (Gen. ed.) 'Between Poplar High Street and East India Dock Road: Bazely, Wells,
Woolmore, Cotton and Ashton Streets', Survey of London: volumes 43 and 44 Poplar, Blackwall and
Isle of Dogs <http://www.british-history.ac.uk> [retrieved 8 March 2012]

Johnston P. (ed.) (2003) Architecture is not made with the brain: the labour of Alison and
Peter Smithson Architectural Association: London

Maxwell R. (1994) ‘Truth without rhetoric’, AA files no. 28, Autumn, p. 3-11

Pangaro A. (1973) ‘Beyond Golden Lane, Robin Hood Gardens’, Architecture Plus, vol.1, no.5, June
1973, p.36-45

360
Pearman H. (2003) ‘Meet the Smithsons: separating the hype from reality’
<http://www.hughpearman.com> [retrieved 14 April 2012]

Peter Stewart Consultancy RHG Report on Potential Listing July 2007

Powers A. (ed.) (2010) Robin Hood Gardens re-visions. Twentieth century building studies The C20
Society/Paul Holberton Publishing: London

Smithson A. and P. (1970) Ordinariness and Light, Urban theories 1952-1960 and their application to
a building project 1963-1970 Faber and Faber: London

Smithson A. and P. (1973) Without Rhetoric – An Architectural Aesthetic 1955-1972 Latimer New
Dimensions: London

Smithson A and P. (2001) The Charged Void: Architecture The Monacelli Press: New York

Smithson A. ‘The Violent Consumer, or Waiting for the Goodies’ in Architectural Design May 1974,
p.274-8

Smithson S. (2010) ‘We called it Robin Hood Lane’ in Powers A. (ed.) (2010) Robin Hood Gardens re-
visions. Twentieth century building studies The C20 Society/Paul Holberton Publishing: London

Webster H. (1997) Modernism Without Rhetoric: The Work of Alison and Peter Smithson John Wiley
and Son, Academy Editions: London

Vidotto M. (2009) Alison and Peter Smithson Works and Projects Editorial Gustavo Gili: Barcelona

LBTH and Blackwall Reach Project Planning Documentation:

Blackwell Reach/ RHG planning applications and supporting documentation: PA/12/00001;

PA/12/00002; PA/12/02740

LBTH Cabinet Report, 1 Aug.2007

LBTH Cabinet Report, 5 March 2008
LBTH Cabinet Report: CAB 124/090, 10 March 2010
LBTH Cabinet Report: CAB 056/101, 9 Feb. 2011

London Thames Gateway Development Corporation Report: 12/PC17, 19 March 2012

LBTH/ London Thames Gateway Development Corporation Planning Report PDU/2727/02, 22 March
2012

Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Draft Development Framework, Aug. 2007

Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Development Framework (CAB 136/078), March 2008

Blackwall Reach Revised Development Framework, Cabinet Report, 5 March 2008

Blackwell Reach Regeneration Procurement and Scheme Development Report, 9 Feb. 2011

Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Design Code, Revision A, March 2012

361
Blackwall Reach Regeneration Project Design and Access Statement, Jan. 2012

Blackwell Reach Development Specification Revision March 2012

Swan Housing Blackwall Reach Affordable Housing Strategy in P/12/02740

Swan Housing Zonal Masterplan Development Zone 1, Nov. 2013 in PA/12/02740, PA/12/2752

Journals/Newspapers:

L'Architecture D'Aujourd'hui, Jan/Feb 1975

Architecture and Urbanism, Feb 1974
Architettura Cronache e Storia, June/July 1973
Architectural Design, Feb. 1972, ‘Signs of Occupancy’, p.91-7
Architectural Design, Sept 1972, ‘Robin Hood Gardens housing development, London borough of
Tower Hamlets; Architects: A. & P. Smithson’, P. Eisenman P. p. 557-73
Architectural Design, June 1973, Smithson P. ‘Collective Design Initiators and Successors’, p.621-3
The Architects’ journal, 10 Sept. 2009, Finch P. ‘Demolished buildings may make financial sense but
adaptation is the sustainable option’, p.19
The Architects' journal, 6 June 2013, Waite R. ‘Goodbye Robin Hood Gardens’, p.9
Building, 6 April 1984, ‘Thames TV's best and worst’, p. 10
Building Design, 11 Aug. 1995, Buxton P. ‘Smithson call to list Robin Hood Gardens’, p. 1
Building Design, 29 Feb. 2008, Hurst W. & Olcayto R. ‘Profession rallies to save threatened housing
estate’, p.1-2; Olcayto R. 'It's a great place to live, absolutely', p. 8-9
Building Design, 7 March 2008, ‘1,000 back our petition’. P.1; ‘Should the government list Robin
Hood Gardens?’, p.9
Building Design, 23 May 2008, Henley W. & Olcayto, R. ‘Ex heritage minister calls for RHG listing’, p.3
Building Design, 8 Aug. 2008, ‘Robinson attacks EH claims on liveability’, p.3
Building Design, 23 Jan. 2009, Bury L. ‘Council urges Follett to allow demolition’, p.3
Building Design, 26 June 2009, Hurst W. ‘New Robin Hood survey challenges demolition: Council and
HCA committed to bulldozing estate as 20th Century Society pledges new fight’, p.1
Building Design, 25 Sept. 2009, ‘Council ‘running down’ Robin Hood Gardens’
Building Design, 19 Nov. 2010, Klettner A. & Hopkirk E. ‘Designs to replace Robin Hood Gardens
revealed: Shortlisted architects condemned as council prepares to announce winning scheme’, p.1;
Woodman E. ‘A broader failure of vision’, p.2
Building Design, 28 Jan. 2011, Klettner A. & Hopkirk E. ‘Robin Hood Gardens remodelled’
Building Design, 11 March 2011, Klettner A. ‘Robin Hood Gardens design panel axed: Design for
London alarmed as advisers’ concerns on rebuild are ignored’, p.3

Web Resources:

http://bdonline.co.uk/rescuerobinhood [retrieved 22 Feb. 2008]

http://www.british-history.ac.uk
http://www.ideastore.co.uk
http://modgov.towerhamlets.gov.uk
http://www.towerhamletshomes.org.uk
http://towerhamletswatch.wordpress.com
http://towerhamletsrespect.wordpress.com
http://thtf.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/robin-hood-gardens-residents-legal-action

362
Film:

The Smithsons on Housing BBC2 Broadcast, 10 July 1970: reproduced in Powers A. (2010), p.65

Wynford House and Priory Green

Allan J. (1992) Berthold Lubetkin Architecture and the tradition of progress RIBA Publications: London

Allan J. ‘Conservation of Modern Movement Architecture’ in ASCHB Newsletter spring 08, p.5-6

Allan J. & Von Sternberg M. (2002) Berthold Lubetkin Merrell Publishers: London

Coe P. & Reading M. (1981) Lubetkin and Tecton Architecture and Social Commitment The Arts
Council of Great Britain: London

LBI Priory Green Conservation Area Design Guidelines <http://www.islington.gov.uk/CA37>

[retrieved 5 July 2015]

Middleton C. ‘They take from the rich’ in The Telegraph, 8 June 2002

Richards J.M. ‘Buildings of the year’ in The Architects’ journal 15 Jan. 1953, p.920-1

Spring M. ‘Modern day reality - two public housing schemes by Berthold Lubetkin now need basic
repairs - Architects for repairs: Peter Bell & Partners’ in Building, 25 June 1982, p.32-4

Temple P. (ed.) Survey of London: volume 47: Northern Clerkenwell and Pentonville, CHAPTER XVI.
West of Penton Street, p.405-38 <http://www.british-history.ac.uk> [retrieved 1 Oct. 2013]

Worker J. ‘Former Councillor John Worker reminisces on Barnsbury’ posted 26 Aug. 2012 by Allan
Coulson <https://barnsburyliving.wordpress.com/2012/08/26/former-councillor-john-worker-
reminisces-on> [retrieved 5 July 2015]

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (1997) The Market for a New Private Rented Sector JFR Findings

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation (2005) A Good Place For Children? Attracting and Retaining
Families in Inner Urban Mixed Income Communities

Journals/Newspapers:

Architectural Design, Dec 1951, Posener J. ‘Knots in the Master’s Carpet’, p.354-6
The Architects’ journal, 9 Oct. 1952, ‘Flats on the Priory Green Estate’, p. 433-41
The Architects’ journal, 1/8 Aug 1996, Baillieu A. ‘Lubetkin's Islington flats threatened by demolition
... as Highpoint penthouse gets a new lease of life’, p.13
The Architects’ journal, 3 April 1997, ‘Demolition plans for Lubetkin estate face opposition’, p.13
The Architects’ journal, 3 Sept. 1998, Taylor D. ‘Avanti's Lubetkin upgrade scheme starts on site’,
p.32
The Architects’ journal, 19 Oct 1988, ‘Revitalising recent housing: Priory Green estate, Finsbury
(original architects Lubetkin & Tecton, completed by Lubetkin Bailey & Skinner, architects for
restoration Pollard Thomas Edwards & Associates)’, p.77–8
The Architects’ journal, 20 April 2000, Taylor D. ‘Avanti updates Lubetkin's Wynford House’, p. 6-7

363
Architectural Review, Oct 1952, ‘Flats on the Priory Green Estate, London for the Borough of
Finsbury; Designed by: Tecton, with Skinner Bailey & Lubetkin executive architects’, p. 241-50
Architectural Review, 18 Sept. 2013, ‘From Highpoint to low point’
Building 5 Dec. 1997, ‘Modern Medicine’ p.50-1
Building Design, 17 Nov. 2000, Weaver M. ‘Lottery cash for Lubetkin; True to form’, p. 16-19

Web Resources:
http://avantiarchitects.co.uk/our-practice/awards
http://www.british-history.ac.uk
http://www.hdawards.org/archive/archive/1998/projects/wynford/media/wynford.pdf
http://kingscrossenvironment.com/2010/11/02/how-the-priory-green-estate-has-changed
http://www.londonopenhouse.org
http://www.modernarchitecturelondon.com
http://www.utopialondon.com/page/lubetkin

364
Annex: Glossary of Terms

British Standard 7913:2013: describes best practice in the management and treatment of
historic buildings with and without statutory protection. It is intended to provide general
background information on the principles of the conservation of historic buildings and sites
when setting conservation policy, management strategy and procedures. 1

Burra Charter: adopted by the Australia ICOMOS in 1979 (revised 1999). It defines the
principles for the conservation of Australian heritage places and identifies three levels of repair
for heritage structures: Preservation - maintaining existing state and preventing further
deterioration; Restoration - returning to a known earlier state by removing accretions or
reassembling existing elements without introducing new material; Reconstruction – returning
to a known earlier state by introducing new material.

C20 Society: founded as the Thirties Society in 1979, in recognition of the need for a
specialised conservation group covering the period after 1914 (limit of the scope of the
Victorian Society). It is now one of England’s national amenity societies, with a statutory role
in the planning process, campaigning for the conservation of the best 20th Century
architecture.

Certificate of Immunity from Listing: issued by the DCMS Secretary of State it is a legal
guarantee that a building will not be listed for a five year period from the date on which the
certificate is issued. A local authority cannot serve a building preservation notice on the
building during the same period.

The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE): successor in 1999 to
the Royal Fine Art Commission as the Government’s advisor on architecture, urban design and
public space in England. A key function was to provide design review of nationally important
building schemes. It was a non-statutory consultee in the planning process with
commissioners appointed by the Secretary of State. In 2011 its Government funding was
withdrawn and a proportion its functions merged with the Design Council to form, Design
Review CABE a chartered charity.

1
BS 7913:2013, Scope, p.4

369
Conservation: ‘the process of managing change to a significant place in its setting in ways that
will best sustain its heritage values, while recognising opportunities to reveal or reinforce
those values for present and future generations’.2

Conservation Area: designated by local authorities under the provisions of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (Sections 69/70) to protect the character and
appearance of areas valued for their special architectural and historic interest.

Conservation Management Plan (CMP): can be established to help look after heritage. It
should explain why the heritage is significant and set out what can be done to look after it in
any future use, alteration, development, management or repair. It is usually a detailed
document, which includes a management agreement and maintenance plan, prepared by a
specialist after consulting the different stakeholders.3

Decent Homes Standards: underpinned the Decent Homes Programme brought in by the
Labour Blair-Brown Government which aimed to provide a minimum standard of housing
conditions for all public sector housing.

English Heritage (EH): the Historic Building and Monuments Commission for England and an
executive, non-departmental public body of the Government. Under the National Heritage Act
1983 (amended 2002), it manages and promotes the historic built environment of England,
assesses buildings put forward for listing or de-listing and advises the Secretary of State on
policy and significant listing cases. In April 2015 it was renamed Historic England. English
Heritage continues to manage the Government owned historic sites.

English Partnerships (EP): was the national regeneration agency for England, performing a
similar role on a national level to that fulfilled by regional development agencies on a regional
level. On 1 December 2008 its powers passed to its successor body, the Homes and
Communities Agency.

Group Value: taken account of in a listing decision and is a judgement on the extent to which a
building contributes to the architectural or historic interest of any group of buildings of which
it forms part. It will be particularly relevant where buildings comprise an important

2
EH (2008) Conservation Principles Polices and Guidance for the Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment , p.7
3
EH (2013) Heritage Works: The use of historic buildings in regeneration, A toolkit of good practice, p.17

370
architectural or historic unity, there is a fine example of planning or where there is an
historical functional relationship between a group of buildings. Protection designated under
group value applies to the whole of the property, not just the exterior.

The Heritage Alliance: the biggest coalition of heritage interests in England. It brings together
the independent heritage organisations from the National Trust, Canal & River Trust and
Historic Houses Association, to more specialist bodies representing visitors, owners,
volunteers, professional practitioners, funders and educationalists.

Heritage Assets: those parts of the historic environment valued for their historic,
archaeological, architectural or artistic significance some of which have a level of interest
justifying statutory protection through designation. In determining planning applications, local
planning authorities should take account of: the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the
significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their
conservation’.4

Heritage Flats: designated in Modern housing blocks. Flat occupiers generally agree to
maintain interiors in their original form with financial help, on condition that limited public
access is available three days per year.

Heritage Partnership Agreement (HPA): a non-statutory agreement which sets out an

understanding of the significance of the heritage asset/assets, in particular what is not of
special interest in listed buildings. Once the agreement is in place, it can reduce the number
of occasions when listed building consent is required, saving resources. Reaching an agreed
and fuller understanding of significance should reduce areas of doubt or confusion, aid better
management and increase the prospect of success for a consent application where it is still
required.5

Homes and Communities Agency (HCA): the national housing and regeneration agency for
England (except London where it is the Greater London Authority). It is an executive non-
departmental public body of the Department for Communities and Local Government
providing investment for new affordable housing and to improve existing social housing, as

4
NPPF, Section 12, Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment, p.30
5
PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide, Department of Communities & Local Government, 2010, p23

371
well as for regenerating land. It is also the regulator of social housing provision in England
(since April 2012).

The Independent Group: developed in the 1950’s under the Institute of Contemporary Arts,
comprised of artists and architects who proposed that all aspects of culture and every
experience was worthy of examination whether ‘high’ or ‘low’ art. For them architecture
relied on both technical and artistic means to fulfil both material and emotional aspects of
everyday life.

The International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and
Neighbourhoods from the Modern Movement (DoCoMoMo): established in 1988 to: ‘act as
watchdog’ when important Modern Movement buildings are under threat; exchange ideas
relating to conservation technology, history and education; foster interest in the ideas and
heritage of the modern movement; and prompt responsibility towards this architectural
inheritance. It is represented in the UK by its London based Chapter.6

International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS): was set up in 1965 to deal with
archaeological, architectural and town planning issues.

Listed Buildings: the Department of Culture Media and Sport (DCMS) is responsible for
designating, re-designating and de-designating heritage assets classified as listed buildings.
They also have a duty to compile or approve a list of buildings of special architectural or
historic interest to guide local authorities in carrying out their planning functions. Grade I
listed buildings are of exceptional interest; Grade II* particularly important buildings of more
than special interest and Grade II of special interest. Approving alterations to listed buildings
and their management is the responsibility of local planning authorities and
the Department for Communities and Local Government.

Listed Building Consent (LBC): is needed for works affecting listed buildings and ‘no person
shall execute or cause to be executed any works for the demolition of a listed building or for its
alteration or extension in any manner which would affect its character as a building of special
architectural or historic interest, unless the works are authorised’. Authorisation is granted by

6
http://www.docomomo.com.

372
the local planning authority or the Secretary of State. Enforcement action can be taken when
works have been done without the appropriate consent.7

Listed Building Management Guidelines (LBMG): produced to give guidance on the special
architectural and historic interest of a building/group of buildings and the types of changes
that may or may not require LBC. They may also contain advice on good practice and repair
and maintenance. They are prepared in conjunction with residents, the local planning
authority, EH and amenity societies and are subject to formal stakeholder consultation. They
may be adopted as planning guidance by the local planning authority but are restricted by and
not a substitute for statutory regulations. No formal definition exists, but the Government
considers them an effective means to manage historic buildings and to guide future changes.

London Open House: started in 1992 as a small, not-for-profit organisation to promote public
awareness and appreciation of the capital's building design and architecture.

Megastructure: according to Banham (1976) the fundamental description of a megastructure

is present in Fumihiko Maki’s Investigations in Collective Form, as a large frame in which all the
functions of a city or part of a city are housed, made possible by present day technology and
also a mass-human scale form which includes a mega-form and discrete, rapidly changing
functional units which fit within the larger framework.8

Modernism: was the new art and literary movement for the machine age that gained
momentum in the second half of the 19th Century. It rejected past styles, emphasising instead
innovation and experimentation in forms, materials and techniques in order to create artworks
that reflected a new, modern society. It was also driven by various social and political
agendas, which were utopian in nature and associated with an ideal vision of human life.

The Modern Movement in Architecture: attempted to reconcile the principles underlying

architectural design with rapid technological advancement and modernisation of society. It
emerged in many Western countries after WWI and focussed on the rational use of new
materials, the principles of functionalist planning, and the rejection of historical precedent and
ornament. Their visual aesthetic was largely inspired by the machine and abstract painting and
sculpture.

7
The Planning Act, Section 7/9
8
Banham (1976), p.8-9; originally Maki F. (1964) St Louis, p.8

373
Narra Document on Authenticity: addressed the need for a broader understanding of cultural
diversity and cultural heritage in relation to conservation in order to evaluate the value and
authenticity of cultural property more objectively. It was drafted by 45 representatives from
28 countries after their deliberation on the definition and assessment of authenticity during
the Nara Conference held in Nov. 1994.

National Amenity Societies: local planning authorities are obliged to consult the following
amenity societies on all applications involving the partial or total demolition of a listed
building: The Ancient Monuments Society – concerned with historic buildings of all ages and
types; The Council for British Archaeology – concerned with all historic buildings and a
particular interest in the archaeology of subterranean and standing structures; The Society for
the Protection of Ancient Buildings – concerned mainly with structures dating from before
1700, but also with philosophical and technical aspects of conservation; The Georgian Group –
concerned with architecture and architecture-related arts from 1700 to 1840; The Victorian
Society – concerned with Victorian and Edwardian architecture and architecture-related arts
between 1840 and 1914; and The Twentieth Century Society – concerned with architecture
from 1914 onwards.

National Trust: is a conservation organisation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland that was
founded in 1895 and given statutory powers, starting with the National Trust Act 1907. It is a
charity that works to preserve and protect historic places and spaces. It owns many heritage
properties, including historic houses and gardens, industrial monuments, and social history
sites. It is the largest membership organisation in the United Kingdom, and one of the largest
UK charities by income and assets.

National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF): introduced by the Government in March 2012, it
aims ‘by replacing over a thousand pages of national policy with around fifty, written simply
and clearly’ to ‘allow people and communities back into planning’. It sets out the
Government’s planning policies and how these are to be applied providing ‘a framework within
which local people and their accountable councils can produce their own distinctive local and
neighbourhood plans, which reflect the needs and priorities of their communities’.9

Parker Morris Standards: the 1961 Parker Morris Report: Homes for Today and Tomorrow
aimed to provide new housing standards that particularly gave more flexibility and space for
9
NPPF, ministerial foreword, p.1

374
occupiers. In 1964 the LCC accepted most of its recommendations and its standards became
mandatory for local authorities in 1969. Increasing economic cut-backs and the use of
industrialized building techniques led to them being abandoned in 1981.

Planning Legislation: The 1947,Town and Country Planning Act created the framework for the
land use planning system in England and Wales requiring local authorities to produce plans.
Planning legislation was consolidated in the 1990, Town and Country Planning Act (the
‘Principal Act’). Three further acts are associated with this Act: the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act, 1990 (the 1990 Act), the Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act,
1990, and the Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990. Collectively they are known as
the Planning Acts. The Planning and Compensation Act, 1991, altered the Planning
Acts’ provisions and parts of Acts were replaced or amended by the Planning and Compulsory
Purchase Act, 2004. This did away with local plans in favour of Local Development Frameworks
(LDFs) which are made up of Local Development Documents (LDDs) and Supplementary
Planning Documents (SPDs). Local authorities are also now required to produce Local
Development Schemes (LDS) which outline their intended work over a three year period,
together with Statements of Community Involvement (SCI), which indicate how the council will
involve the local community.

Planning Policy Guidance Notes (PPGs) and Planning Policy Statements (PPSs): were prepared
by Government to explain statutory provisions and provide guidance on planning policy and
operation of the planning system. Local authorities are required to take their contents into
account in preparing their plan documents. In 1994 the Department of the Environment and
the Department of National Heritage published PPG 15: Planning and the historic Environment
to provide national guidance on implementing the provisions of the 1990 Principal Act and
explain the protection afforded to listed buildings and conservation areas. This was replaced
in 2010 by PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment. Although the NPPF superseded PPS 5
as Government policy, the PPS 5: Planning for the Historic Environment Practice Guide remains
a valid, Government endorsed document pending the results of a review of guidance
supporting The NPPF.

Right to Buy: the 1980 Housing Act gave all council tenants of more than three year’s
residence a statutory right to buy their dwelling and it permitted councils to give discounts of
up to 50% on the assessed value of the property.

375
The Society for the Protection of Ancient Buildings (SPAB): was founded by William Morris,
Philip Webb and others, in 1877, to oppose what they saw as destructive 'restoration' of
ancient buildings then occurring in Victorian England. It still operates according to Morris's
original manifesto and, as one of the National Amenity Societies, it is a statutory consultee on
alterations to listed buildings, and by law must be notified of any application in England and
Wales to demolish in whole or part any listed building.

Special Interest: to qualify a building must be of importance in its architectural design,

decoration or craftsmanship or a nationally important example of particular building type and
technique. To be of special historic interest a building must illustrate important aspects of the
nation’s social, economic, cultural, or military history and/or have close historical associations
with nationally important people. There should normally be some quality of interest in the
physical fabric of the building itself to justify the statutory protection and the older it is, and
the fewer the surviving examples of its kind, the more likely it is to have special interest. The
state of repair is not a relevant consideration when deciding special interest.10

Statement of Significance: is a requirement of PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment and
applications affecting Heritage Assets need to be accompanied by an assessment of
significance. These statements will form part of the justification for the proposal and should
demonstrate that consideration has been given to the protection of the heritage asset and/or
its setting. The Statement should identify the important characteristics/significance of the
heritage asset and explain how the proposals would affect these and justify why this is
necessary or desirable.

Thirty Year Rule: In 1987 statutory instrument (DoE Circular 8/87) introduced the thirty year
rule and ten year rule for listing.

Venice Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites: was
established at the second international Congress of Architects in Venice in 1964 as a code of
professional standards that gives an international framework and principles for the
preservation and restoration of ancient and historic buildings.

10
Department of Culture Media and Sport (2010) Principles of Selection for Listing Buildings, p.4-5

376