Fiona Hamilton, London Correspondent
Win a fitness package worth more than £3,000

One of Britain’s most prominent architects, Lord Rogers of Riverside, last night questioned the “authority and objectivity” of the body which makes listing recommendations to the Government.
His criticism of English Heritage came after a campaign by leading architects, seeking heritage status for a rundown east London council estate, was rejected by Margaret Hodge, the Culture Minister.
Ms Hodge took the advice of English Heritage before concluding that Robin Hood Gardens was “not fit for purpose”. The estate now faces demolition.
Eminent architects including Lord Rogers, Lord Foster of Thamesbank and Zaha Hadid had claimed that the dilapidated housing estate was a modern masterpiece which should be preserved.
Lord Rogers said in a statement tonight: “All the British winners of the Pritzker Prize, the highest international award for an architect, agree that Robin Hood Gardens is one of the greatest modern buildings in the UK.
“There is not one internationally recognised modern architect or academic included in making English Heritage’s recommendation on Robin Hood Gardens to the minister. We should, therefore, deeply question the authority and objectivity of English Heritage in discussing contemporary architecture of this quality.”
The architects had claimed that while the estate had been badly neglected over the years, it should be refurbished rather than demolished.
The estate’s two council blocks, which boast multi-million pound views of nearby Canary Wharf, will now be demolished to make room for a tower of up to 30 storeys which will undoubtedly attract high end buyers from the City.
During a campaign to save the building, it was lauded as a hallmark of brutalist architecture, which involves extensive use of concrete.
Lord Rogers described the estate, designed in 1972 by husband and wife Peter and Alison Smithson, "as good, if not better" than any other modern building in Britain and compared its layout to Bath's great Georgian crescents.
By designing a multi-storey building with rows of balconies, the Smithsons had envisaged modern housing being built as “streets in the sky” to encourage the residents to feel a sense of belonging.
However Ms Hodge, who toured the site last week, said that it “simply doesn’t work”.
“When functional failures are fundamental, it raises questions about the architectural performance of the building and thus its claims to special interest,” she said.
“As well as this, features such as the stairwells and the boundary wall demonstrate the 'bleakness of design' that the experts have highlighted.
“Although I accept that it was designed by distinguished architects, I do not think that their reputation outweighs the evidence that Robin Hood Gardens was not innovative in terms of the 'streets-in-the-air' concept and it is not fit for purpose."
English Heritage had recommended that the building should not be listed and a survey revealed that 80 per cent of residents wanted to be rehoused by the council while the structure was demolished and replaced with new apartments.
The estate is not likely to be demolished until late next year as the redevelopment must go through the planning permission process.
Industry sectors news at a glance. Interactive heatmap, video and podcast
The inside track on current trends in the charity, not for profit and social enterprise sectors
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
Everything the Business Traveller needs to know to make a better trip

Find tickets for:
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles
05/2005
£13,500
08/2008
£109,950
2006
£10,750
Great car insurance deals online
£Excellent+ executive benefits
Torres and Partners
London
£49,229 - £62,035 pro rata
Charity Commission
London/Liverpool/Taunton
Alstom Power
Europe
Six Figure
Rolls Royce
Midlands/Europe
From £89,950
Great Investment, River Views
Special Offers now available
At the new sophisticated
Encore Las Vegas Resort!
Cruise the Islands of Hawaii - Pride of America
List your property with two leading travel websites
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement.
Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths
News International associated websites: Globrix | Property Finder | Milkround
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
"We may think this building is horrible, but will people 200 years from now?"
Probably yes, as these buildings have already had 35 years to show their worth and most people still hate them. We can always immortalize ugly modern buildings by placing scale copies in a museum.
Tony, St Albans,
Is it really a failure on behalf of the Smithsons that the estate was never suitably refurbished or even kept in an acceptable state of repair? It is perfectly possible to envisage an architectural solution which preserves the buildings whilst maximising the real estate value of the site.
mary bayar, London,
a) "pretty-ness" does not equal goodness, and this is a good building because of the way it was planned by the architects to give residents space, light and dignity
b) it is not the fault of the building that the council surrounded it with roads and neglected it
c) it really just needs a facelift
anna, windsor,
I suppose we could retain one of the two as an object lesson in how bad modern architecture is. Perhaps we could make it the "Robin Hood School of Architecture" and insist that all architects intending to build public housing in the UK reside there for a year.
Francis, Near Cannes, France
Perhaps Lord Rogers, Lord Foster of Thamesbank and Zaha Hadid would wish to move in - I'm sure many of the residents would swop.
Richard Garland, Greater Manchester,
An eyesore, if these prize winning architects revere it so much they should stump up the cash to buy it!!
m, staines, uk
We may think this building is horrible, but will people 200 years from now? If we demolish the buildings that were cconstructed in post-war britain because they are not visually pleasing we are leaving nothing for future generations to study.
Britian should be proud of its heritiage both bad & good
Anne-Maire Denvir, Belfast, N. Ireland
It really is time we questioned the sanity of the majority of our architects, who have managed to build the most grotesque buildings in London over the past 50 years. When I look at early photographs of London I weep at what they have done and what we have lost.
Paul, Rochester, UK
"a survey revealed that 80 per cent of residents wanted to be rehoused by the council while the structure was demolished and replaced with new apartments."
The opinions of the only people that matter have been spoken. How many of these 'distinguished' architects live here, or want to? Exactly.
Anthony, Brum,
what are we coming to? Such an ugly building! Though its a pity a bit of green space wont replace this concrete monstrosity!
Carol, winnipeg, Canada