Has a decision been made about this building yet?
Yes. The Department for Culture Media and Sport has agreed with advice from English Heritage and concluded that the building does not meet the criteria for listing.

Why do people value this building?
It is impressively monumental, even sculptural. The two blocks are angled or cranked, and the concrete fins which were constructed to help deflect noise created a rhythmic elevation, Between the two blocks is an unusual and evocative landscape, described by the architects as a ‘stress-free’ zone, providing a clever oasis from the surrounding traffic, industry and density.

We agree that the late Peter and Alison Smithson, are celebrated architectural theoreticians, and indeed English Heritage has previously listed three of their finest schemes. Robin Hood Gardens was founded on architectural ambition and it has attracted a good amount of academic interest.

The set criteria for listing post-war buildings are however, very strict; after careful assessment we found that the Robin Hood Gardens Estate failed to fully meet them.

What criteria did we look at?
We needed to examine all aspects of its architectural interest, including whether it fulfilled its brief, whether it was a particularly good example of a development in housing, how well it survives and how influential the building was.

Where did it fail to meet the criteria?
We understand the disappointment of some of this building’s admirers; and we share their appreciation of its role in an intellectual story. Yet, while we feel it did meet some of the challenges of a difficult site - in the end it failed in its original brief to create a housing development which worked on human terms.

Firstly, as housing it has serious shortcomings and did have from the start. This judgement isn’t based on its present condition, but on the original design. The Smithsons were forced to amend their designs for structural reasons late in the day, and the resulting compromise is really apparent.

You can see this in the

• Indefensibly narrow, twisting stairwells. There are far too few of them and their tightness is uncomfortable and quite threatening. They have never provided adequate access to those long decks and people’s front doors.
• The decks themselves - perhaps because they are not particularly generous and overlook constant traffic - never did fulfil their brief and work as community-fostering ‘streets in the sky’, as decks have in other estates.

The shortcomings can also be seen in the atmosphere created by the

• prison-like boundary walls, intended to baffle traffic noise
• the bleak entrance lobbies and
• the isolated parking areas, where no-one can see what’s happening and there’s no easy way out.

Secondly, by the time the estate was opened, in 1972, it was already out-of-date and at the end of the high-rise, “streets-in-the-sky” movement – so it was not significantly influential.

Robin Hood Gardens has suffered from incremental changes and additions in the last 30 years and features, like the colour schemes that helped children identify where they lived, have been lost.

Lastly, the estate attracted little admiration from architectural critics at the time or in the immediate later years and this is also an important factor.

Isn’t it just like the Grade II* listed Park Hill Estate?
The Park Hill Estate in Sheffield was completed a decade earlier and on a much more confident scale. The “streets in the sky” here were, therefore, innovative, as well as being wider and more accessible – more liveable.

We also considered is that the estate does not compare successfully with other Grade ll listed post-war housing schemes, such as the Barbican and the Brunswick Centre.

Can’t it just be listed if we want to save it?
Listings cannot be recommended just because a building is threatened – it must objectively satisfy set and published criteria. Likewise it cannot be swayed by public will, political pressure or convenience. Neither is this judgement based on the building’s present condition.

It can often be argued that good non-listed buildings should be kept. Perhaps large alterations would overcome the faults of the original design and make it both a pleasant and interesting place to live. Listing the building may not even have helped in this process.

How do these decisions get made?
English Heritage thoroughly and fairly considered evidence from every contributor and visited the site a number of times throughout the decision-making process. It was considered at all levels of our heritage protection department, by our external advisory panel and also by Commission, our decision-making body.

Is English Heritage trying to avoid recommending 20th century buildings for listing?
No. Our listing advice is the result of an objective and rigorous approach and cannot be swayed by external pressure – whether it be by politicians, by a media campaign or from passionate enthusiasts. We are not afraid to take difficult decisions, as we demonstrated recently in our recommendation to list the BBC TV Centre, Birmingham Central Library and the Plymouth Civic Centre. We are currently advising on a number of other high-profile post-war cases which will demonstrate our readiness to make impartial judgements and no doubt continue to both disappoint and delight those with opposing views.

Does English Heritage understand 20th century buildings?
English Heritage has some of the country’s leading experts in 20th century architecture and has a well-respected track record in recommending post-war buildings for listing: - we have listed 13 post-war public housing estates in London alone, and over 330 post-war buildings and complexes nationally; this is more in relative terms than any other country. The criteria for selection for post-war buildings are however stricter that for other building types. The Selection Guide is available on our website.