Talk:Robin Hood Gardens

message: "has been described as one of the ugliest buildings in Britain." - by whom? I'm sure it has - but it does need a source... Secretlondon 16:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I had one... then I lost it! I'll take that out while I'm trying to find the source again. Curse Google. Keithlard 16:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As much as a ref would help, I would have to say that it would still be of questionable significance. Nearly all major, long-standing Brutalist buildings in the world (though for some reason especially in Britain) have been called "the ugliest building in XYZ" by someone. Park Hill, Tricorn Centre, Barbican, Royal National Theatre, Boston City Hall have all been granted that label at some point by someone. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 19:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Very true. Keithlard 22:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Ugly

message: I read an article today on the BBC News website which has passages identical to ones in this article, used in their entirety and unattributed.  Is this normal/appropriate/legal?
Fuchsiacoelacanth (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheeky so-and-sos :D Keithlard (talk) 22:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Passages from this article on BBC News

message: The article currently has almost nothing on why this development ultimately failed and is undergoing redevelopment (apart from a short and not very illuminating quotation from Peter Smithson). The architectural establishment tends to rewrite history when it comes to their cherished modernist and brutalist projects, but the fact is that RHG has been a very unpleasant place to live for several decades. --Ef80 (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reasons for failure and redevelopment 

message: How long were the blocks? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 12:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length 

message: Hello all, 
It feels to me that the section Reception generally lacks a broader view. I don't want to gloss over valid criticsm at all, but the seemingly unanimously negative reception is debatable and partially based on very shaky references. For instance the first paragraph explaining how streets-in-the-sky do not work in general is based on a pseudonymous blog post that talks about the author's experience in another building with similar typology. Some of this experience seems relatable and perhaps makes sense, however this is hardly academic evidence on why an architectural element per se is not working. Repeating such talking points with anecdotal evidence at best seems to be opinion rather than fact and should be highlighted as such in the article. 
RHG probably has its flaws (as has been written by various authors), many of which can hardly be argued away, but to my knowledge the debate about the building is wider than currently reflected in the article. I will do my best in adding the sources I know and hope they stand up to scrutiny. My objective is not to glorify the building but to mirror the debate. 
Best, Kurt.
--Kurt.Klienmann (talk) 13:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I went and read the Furse PHD thesis and the quotation used was not from the conclusion but one view part way through the thesis. So I amended this and added some architects' support and academic writing. Would be good to see some more mixed views from architects and residents. Rhagfyr (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception