Challenge-driven designs for historical building The case of Battersea Power Station

Challenge-driven designs for historical building: The case of Battersea Power Station

Devis Tako BA Architecture Year 3 Tutor : Will Jennings Word count: 5753

1

Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1: - Introduction of Battersea Power Station - Developers and Planning applications - Battersea Power Station Timeline

Chapter 2 - Grade II, II* listed building & English Heritage - Planning application & Section 106 - Affordable Housing

Chapter 3 - Open decisions making and transparency – chimneys - Preservation for future generations

Conclusion

Bibliography

2

Introduction The Battersea Power Station (BPS), London’s iconic industrial building and national treasure, has proven problematic to repurpose since being fully decommissioned in 1983. This thesis will set out to explore the conflicts and challenges in the re-design of the historic building, from successive proposals fallen through to the eventual development scheme undertaken by a Malaysian consortium in reviving a site in crucial need of repurposing as to avoid the danger of disappearance.

Strategically located in central London, the Power Station sits on the South Bank of the River Thames and unlike other historical sites, the Power Station managed to avoid significant bombing during World War II. Following its closure, the public galvanized for the historic building to be preserved due to its Art Deco architectural style. The building had inherent value in its construction through expensive steelwork and attention to detail. Residents launched the BPS community group and with increasing public pressure, the Power Station became an official heritage site and classified as a Grade II listed building.

Upon the building being privatized in 1983, there was much interest from national and international investors to capitalize on the building potential. The arrival of Tate Modern in the year 2000, one of the world’s most popular museums of modern art, was a perfect example of what BPS reuse could become. However, with each developer the Power Station proved to resist all the efforts to emulate the post-industrial successes of similar buildings. Simply, the scale and size of the building, as well as the surrounding site required extensive investment, with a small margin for profit seen.

It was not until 2012 the fate of the Power Station finally seemed to be formed – with the government initiative to continue seeking investors, a Malaysian consortium took on ownership and set out to the complete the project that several others had failed to bring to fruition. The main challenge presented would be the preservation of the power station as a result of its Grade II listing and the pressures placed upon this by the BPS community group.

Also, with the help of English Heritage significant scrutiny was placed on preserving the four chimneys. Reaching the height of fifty meters and built over a period of twenty-four years, the chimneys are one of the key elements of identifying the Battersea Power Station.

Additionally, challenges were presented throughout the planning process most evident in the fact that it lasted over six years and six months. Countless discussions were had by the developers, community groups and English Heritage expressing each group’s interests and concerns relating to the development of the building. For example, the developers prioritized a low maintenance high profit approach, whereas English Heritage interests lay in the preservation of the historic values. The community group, on the other hand, wanted the building to be accessible to all with the viewpoint of the building being an iconic site.

Through personal observations of BPS throughout the years during commutes in the mornings, and passing through on returns in later afternoons, the re-design has drastically changed the visibility of the iconic building. Initially, before the works, the Power Station was detectable from various angles. Once the building works had begun, we begin to see at one point a cluster of cranes surrounding the building, and at night it gave the appearance of city stars in the skyline. As more of the residential developments were erected, the Power Station became less and less noticeable until now we are only able to see the building from the River Thames directly opposite, all other sightings are framed by a very dense outlook of new builds with the tops of the BPS chimneys just about in view. Perhaps what could have been explored in the design would have been a different approach whereby the BPS would be less densely populated through planning fewer new builds. However, the ultimate success of the re-design is open to interpretation.

3

CHAPTER 1

03/01- D.Tako. BPS Riverfront side

4

Introduction of Battersea Power Station

Battersea Power Station (BPS) was the first large industrial building constructed for the main purpose of generating electricity. Built in 1938 and situated in the London borough of Wandsworth, the decision to build the station caused protests that endured for years. One of the main fears was that pollution would damage other famous buildings, parks and particularly endanger the health of the population. Sir Giles Gilbert Scott (famous for designing London’s red telephone box, Tate Modern and Waterloo Bridge), was commissioned as consulting architect after the construction had begun in 1929 to refashion the exterior and appease adverse public reaction: ‘Scott opted for a brick-cathedral style, remodeling the four chimneys to look like classical columns ‘(Stainer, 2021).

The Power Station was designed to be built in two principal phases. Battersea A which was a single long hall with a chimney at either end began to be constructed in 1929 and it was completed in 1935. A second station identical from the outside started to be constructed alongside the original in 1937 and was completed in 1941 which then became known as Battersea B. The last element to be added in the station was the fourth chimney which was completed in 1955, giving the station the familiar four chimney layout. Battersea A reflected lavish art deco interior finishes of the 1930 with notable features including opulent, marble-lined white from Italy and black from Belgium. The control room that overlooks a turbine hall is also decorated with glazed pale Italian ceramic covering and protecting the walls and pillars (known as faience), and the switch panel dials are set in stainless steel, reflecting the immediate post war period in which it was built (Happold, 2017). It is covered with beautiful scrollwork in bronze around the ceiling. Wrought iron was also used for the staircases throughout and polished parquet which is very unusual for a building created for the purpose of industrial usage.

Following the Second World War and the economic strain caused by the war meant that less financial investment could be afforded for the build of Battersea B and, therefore, Battersea B follows the same pattern of A but is more austere. The design of the building structure is a steel frame from which brickwork hangs externally. The Power Station is one of ‘the largest brick buildings in Europe’ with a footprint over 6 acres and ‘six million bricks’ were used to build the original power station (Happold, 2017). Although the exterior may appear consistently brown brick in colour, a multiple range of ‘21 different colours’ of bricks - from orange, pink, red and brown - reflected the almost decade long building time (Happold, 2017).

After the launch of Battersea Power Station, it operated successfully producing 105 MW, a fifth of London’s electricity. At the time, this was the largest in Europe and was described in one newspaper at the time as ‘a flaming altar of the modern power.’ After World War 2 the power generated was enlarged to approximately 500 MW and would continue to provide London’s power for four decades until it was decided that station A would close. The decision to shut down the power station was mainly driven by the fact that it required a lot of maintenance, namely regular fuel gas cleaning and the death of the traditional industries. Following the decision of the Station A to be closed, three years later the production of Station B also ended.

5

Figure 2. Battersea A

Figure 3. Battersea Power Station in use

Figure 4. Battersea Power Station control room.View of what the opulent 1930s Art Deco style

6

Developers and planning applications

The Battersea Power Station has proved problematic to repurpose since being fully decommissioned in 1983. As successive proposals have fallen through – including a planned theme park from the first commissioner Jhon Broome, under which planning permission was granted to demolish and rebuild large sections of the West wall and the roof of the main turbine hall.

Despite severe criticism from local groups and heritage agencies, further planning permissions for developing the site surrounding were granted in 1990. In 1998, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, supporting Bromes’ plans, makes the proud announcement on the site that this is going to be the flagship of new Conservative Britain due to the proposed job opportunities this development would create. However, the plans never materialized as Broome went bankrupt; subsequently, the roof and west wall were never replaced which left the building an empty shell open to the elements, accelerating its decay (Heritage, 2013, p19). However, new plans were submitted and approved by Wandsworth Council for the surrounding vacant land to be developed into office spaces, hotel, and shops, as to gain more capital to financially support and fund the main project.

In 1993 the The Hwang family bought the site through their Hong Kong based consortium Parkview International. During their 15 years period of ownership, project development was prioritized over building repairs. The value of the site was increased through acquiring several variants of new schemes on their planning permission for theme park, a mix of shops, media, and leisure facilities inside the BPS, together with two hotels located in the surrounding land.

This would help into financial viability to get the project underway, closely keeping to the last revised scheme of Sir Nicholas Grimshaw who had the vision to turn the BPS into mix usage spaces of restaurants in the Control Room, offices, apartments, cinemas, and hotels together with a new glass chimney. However, Parkview never managed to initiate their plans. During this era, despite backlash from pressure groups such as SAVE Britain’s Heritage lobbying for the preservation of the chimneys, Wandsworth council granted planning permission to have them demolished and rebuilt. Parkview and future developers insisted the chimneys were dangerous and needed to be rebuilt but at the same time they continued to organize lucrative events right under them.

In 2006, Real Estate Opportunities (REO), a majority owned Irish investment company bought the building and the surrounding site (Heritage, 2013, p21). Until now visions and architects came and went, and the site become London’s most intractable as nothing constructive or positive seemed to happen to the building. This was also the first case which explored the vision of Rafael Viñoly to implement a plastic ‘eco-dome’ crowded by giant, tall ventilation chimneys reaching a height of 305 meters. Though it was rejected by planning due to height restrictions: no building in the surrounding site was permitted to exceed the height of the Power Station. Vinoly’s revised masterplan placed the restored BPS at the center of the developments to function as a cultural and creative center, neighbored with apartments, hotels, restaurants, and offices – it ‘was the largest outline planning application ever submitted in London under review by Wandsworth Council’ (BPSDC The Placebook p.22). 7.9 million square feet was the planning consent granted making it the largest development in central London. However, following the collapse of the Irish property market in 2009, REO scheme went into administration with its debt called in by creditors and lenders (Heritage, 2013, p21).

7

By now the BPS suffered from three decades long of neglect, and demolition seemed destined to defy modernization. Nevertheless, in February 2012 it was purchased by a Malaysian Investment Consortium. The new developers retained the same development management team of the REO as well as the masterplan vision of Rafael Viñoly, which took seven and half years to be granted. Encompassing seven phases, the redevelopment would transform the Power Station into a complex of luxury apartments, high-end retail and commercial office space and events space (Vijay, 2018). Importantly in phase three of the plans (positioned to the south of the existing structure) the vision is boosted by the collaboration of the two-star architects Frank Gehry and Norman Foster on their luxury residential developments that would link the repurposed Power Station with a new, Northern Line developer-funded extension (Frearson, 2014).

8

Figure 5. Interior proposal of the Park Theme

Figure 6. Parkview International Theme Park concepts

Figure 7. Rafael Vinoly masterplan

9

Battersea Power Station Timeline - D.Tako

Battersea Power Station Timeline Battersea Power Station A

1928 - 1935

Battersea Power Station B

1937 - 1955

‘Cathedral of Power’

BPS was producing a fifth of London’s power

1964

Closure of Station A

17 March 1975

Grade II listed building

1980

Closure of Station B

31 October 1983

Decommission of BPS

1983

Theme park proposal

May 1986

First Developer

1987

John Broome, value - £1.5 million(M)

Change of planning proposal Offices, shops and hotel

Second Developer - Hong Kong

Parkview Internatonal, value - £1.5M

Freehold title

New plans for submittet for the site

Third Developer - Irish

March 1990 1993 1996

Real Estate Opportunities, value - £400M

30 November 2006

Rafael Vinoly plans in 32-acre site to build a huge ‘‘Eco-Dome’’, 300m high

2008

Knight Frank list BPS for sale

February 2012

Sir Terry Farrell’s plans to create an urban park

2012

Chelsea FC lost their bid to build new stadium at BPS

2012

1-st time in history in the open market

Forth Developer

Malaysian developers, SP Setia and Sime Darby, value - £400 M net £323M to cover debts + £100M contribution to Northen Line extention

10

September 2012

Figure 8. Degrade of Battersea Power Station, 25 March 2007

Figure 9. Eyebird view of the current developments

11

CHAPTER 2

03/01- D.Tako. BPS Mullion window, old/new bricks

12

Grade II, Grade II* listed building, English Heritage

Following up the decision to close the power station in 1983, a lot of media and public attention was driven to save the building and to preserve it as a historical monument due to its Art Deco architectural style. Residents launched the BPS community group to protest, and, because of this public pressure, the power station was declared a heritage site in 1980. The structure had been classified as a Grade II listed building of unique architectural and historic interest and therefore ensured that it cannot be demolished or altered without the government’s consent. The control room is in fact separately listed to the main Power Station as an example of Britain’s Industrial Heritage and architectural interest. As a direct result of the groups campaigning, in 2007 the listing was elevated to Grade II* placing the BPS among the country’s top 6% of listed structures (Media, 2015, 4m05s).

Listing a building is a recognition of its architectural and historical importance - in this way the government must take every step to preserve the building, but it does not necessarily mean that this has been the case for the Battersea Power Station. In the UK, a listed site is not automatically afforded financial support (as in some countries), instead the government determines that a building would need to provide a vital economic use in order to receive funding. BPS was nominated twice in 2004 and 2014 to the World Monuments Watch, a platform for people who are concerned about the fate of buildings that are at risk and put their case forward to raise awareness of such building sites.

English Heritage is a public body of the British government tasked with protecting the historical environment in England (Heritage, 2008). The key aspects of their aims are to preserve the historical environment, listed buildings, parks and gardens. English Heritage follows three conservation principles for the BPS development project, these concern: public access, appropriate preservation, and transparency.

These spaces belong to the public and, as such, all members of the public have a right to contribute to how these buildings are managed through the ability to vote into the decision-making process (Heritage, 2008). The public is also able to voice special attributes and elements they wish to be protected and remain into future plans. Any decision taken should be transparent and can be fairly challenged within appropriate reason. In addition to giving advice, English Heritage has the power to enforce repairs if necessary and acquire heritage sites using compulsory purchase. Where proposals have an impact on historic buildings, the views of Historic England were also expressed and given weight (Rowan Moore, 2017, p.293).

13

Townscape Consultants Commercial Valuers

BPS community group World Monuments Watch

Architects PR / Lobbyists

Advisors

Private Developer

Citizens & Communities

Planning Consultants

BPS planning application

SAVE Britain’s Heritage

Rights of Light

Civil Servants CIL

Public Bodies

Inspectors / Judges

Wandsworth Council/ Gouverment

Advisory Bodies CABE Inspectors / Judges

Planning Consultants

Historic England

PR / Lobbyists

The Mayor Minister

Councillors

Inspectors / Judges

Advisors

Figure 18 D.Tako. Interpretation of complexity for planning application

14

Planning applications & Section 106

‘Roads are made ... electric light turns night into day ... and all the while the landlord sits still... To not one of these improvements does the land monopolist... contribute, and yet by every one of them the value of his land is enhanced’ (Minton, A. 2017, p.33) An important element to receive planning permission for new developments over 10 houses is Section 106. It encompasses a development charge and land tax on landowners, where developers are required to contribute to public benefits such as affordable housing, transport improvements or upgrades to the public realm. The first attempt to introduce such a tax was from British Prime Minister Lloyd George in 1909 along with the support of Winston Churchill - shown in the above snippet of his famous speech. Sometimes called ‘‘legalized bribes’’, these agreements under Section 106 play a vital role in the development of London. (Rowan Moore, 2017, p295) Indeed, for the development of the BPS there were many-layered discussions involving multiple parties such as businesspeople, architects, agents, planning consultants, councilors, the mayor, advisers, PR consultants, lobbyists, civil servants, and advisory bodies such as English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Build Environment (CABE). It was a six and a half year-long process until planning was approved. Ordinarily in London, planning applications for new buildings are submitted for approval to the planning committees of the boroughs in which the project is to be built and each of the boroughs are expected to meet their social housing needs by requiring developers to accommodate a percentage to affordable housing. The CABE also offers its opinions on significant projects, which carry some weight into the decisions of boroughs. British planning policy also allows payments to be raised through a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - the mayor uses CIL to help fund the Cross-rail underground rail project.

Ultimately, the BPS developers decided to make a £100,000,000 contribution toward the extension of the Northerline underground station to Battersea, such transport improvement would not only serve as a public benefit but would also invigorate the development itself as an attractive location for home buyers. Though from an initial agreement to accommodate for 25% of affordable housing, the developers only accounted for 9% in the final scheme – a viability assessment was argued in favour of this reduction as the developers could show that the development would not be gaining financial value and would thus make the development an unviable project.

Essentially, the BPS development has been used as an example of how under the Section 106, such projects ‘Constitute…nothing more than state-led, private-developer-built, gentrification’ (Vijay, 2018). Certainly, the fate of BPS has been closely linked with political movements undertaken by the government over the years. It starts with the era of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher with the decision to privatize electricity which led to closure and the privatization of the BPS. From the political perspective, the interest of the private investors in such a site was seen as a triumph for the Conservative party and the new liberal economy different from the Tate Modern approach which was considered as a ‘victory of New Labour orthodoxy’ (Vijay, 2018).

15

In 2010 BPS become again filed for political advancement, this time the Conservatives launched their election manifesto. After the European crisis of 2008, David Cameron chose to use the BPS site as a form of symbolism to convey his political message: ‘A great British landmark in need of regeneration in a country in need of regeneration’ (Enge, 2010). However, nothing happened with the Power Station until 2012 when a Malaysian consortium purchased the site and managed to get the project underway. Having the financial aspect in place, the £9bn redevelopment project would help the Conservative government to fill a hole in UK finances and turn the site into a focal point of regeneration in the Thames gateway.

The fate of the BPS was sealed to be built to last on a heroic scale, whereby the ruin of industrialization was to become a site of a lucrative housing scheme, offices with unique address, riverside shopping, and a place where culture is attached and is accessible. It allowed the investors to present itself as ‘transforming what was essentially an urban blackwater into a central component of the capital’s social and cultural landscape’ (BPSDC The Placebook 171-172).

Figure 10. Photograph: Steve Back/Daily Mail .Former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher at the opening ceremony of the unlucky “South Chelsea Fun Palace” project in 1988

Figure 11. Photograph: David Levene. Malaysia Former Prime Misister Najib Razak, UK Former Prime Minister D. Cameron and London Mayor B. Johnson and at the opening ceremony of 2012

16

Affordable Housing

‘I like the Mayor (Boris Jonson), he was cute and sassy. He was so young, I thought and had a lot of Energy. He seemed very happy with the scheme-with its direction and how many affordable units we’re creating’ - Frank Gehry (BPSDC Living Architecture, 2014, p.22).

The Battersea development, in addition to a regeneration project, reflects a major problem of the capitalist time. Like most of the estate developments in London in recent years, the Battersea percentage of affordable units is a part of a continued anxiety within the housing crisis in recent years. Phase 4A is the development based under the Section 106 – 636 affordable units planned to be built for over 4,000 homes, this was the original commitment of the development targeting local residents, first-time buyers and renters. Under the latest plans published 7 years later, the number of affordable houses had been reduced to 386 making up just 9%, opposed to the 40% which is demanded by Wandsworth council. The drastic reduction did not require new planning permission or open discussion but have been justified through the viability assessment, a clause which big developers have far too much control over in the planning process and in which local authorities use to delegate powers to keep decisions out of scrutiny. Thus, investors are able to inflate their expenses in order to shrink their contribution to public services and reiterate their profits. It has been cited by the BPS developers that the increasing cost to £2.2b for the conservation and redevelopment of the BPS, as well as the contribution to deliver the Northernline extension would make the entire project financially impossible if they were to deliver the original plan for 25% affordable housing units.

Furthermore, neither of the affordable houses are included in the 800 flats project scheme of Frank Gehry, nor Foster or BPS development itself. The plan to mix the affordable unit with the luxury properties as per original plans is now altered and the affordable units are now shifted to a different location half a mile away in an industrial estate between busy railway lines, initiating a bigger segregation than the ‘’poor doors’’. Grey would cite this as a development for which was ‘’going to be a real people thing, for the city people’’, while developers argue that this alternative strategy of the plans was related to the installation of the new sewer Thames Tideway Tunnel and Northernline extensions, which would cause a delay to deliver the affordable units in time (The Guardian, 2014, 2min16s).

17

Figure 12. 7 phases of Battersea Power Station masterplan

Phase 1 Circus West Village:

Phase 2 The Power Station

365 new homes, independent shops & restaurants, Village Hall, offices, BASE new river bus services

254 new homes, Apple London compus, offices, 110 shops, cafes, bars and restaurants, cinema,visitor viewing platform and Power Station Park

18

Phase 3 Electric Boulevard, Prospect Place and Battersea Roof Gardens: Over 1300 new homes, 50 new shops, cafes and restaurants, comunity hub and children playground.

Phase 4A Circus West Village: 386 affordable new homes, new NHS medical centre, buisness incubator hubs, new garden square.

CHAPTER 3

03/01- D.Tako. BPS Riverfront side

19

Open decisions making and transparency

When it comes to the Battersea Power Station chimneys this was, and remains, a controversial topic. The BPS was nominated twice to the World Monuments Watch and one of the central concerns was to do with the chimneys being dismantled as per the Malaysian consortium’s argument that they were structurally unsound. The chimneys are reinforced concrete and steel, a detail that the engineers do not use today.

The original chimneys had intrinsic value in the way in which they were constructed through the use of expensive steelwork and detail. The four chimneys reaching the height of fifty meters were built over a period of twenty-four years, with the final chimney completed in 1955, the southeast one being the most modern. Painted in white they are one of the key elements of identifying the Battersea Power Station.

The decision to alter the chimneys was related to pragmatic reasons to do with the longterm maintenance. The detailed examination reports of the interior of the chimneys from the developer and World Monuments had shown that corrosion of the steel was happening in the entirety of the chimneys at different rates ‘as a result of flue gases, sulphur’ and different environmental conditions that they are exposed to, either chimneys are to close or further back to the river, or one side was prevailing wind and the other two were not (BPSDC Living Architecture, 2014). However, from these reports, you could draw a comparison and see that these four columns were beyond safe repair.

The community group lobbied that the chimneys needed to be retained and repaired to keep the original fabric as the cracks were construction joint and not a structural issue but agreed that the top of the chimneys needed to be replaced. They insisted that if you could apply a sand concrete patch repair technique around 60% of the original fabric could be saved. They argued that the rebuild of the chimneys would not serve much purpose, other than to keep the maintenance costs down for the owner, which is required in cycles of every 25 years in listed buildings.

Given the circumstances, English Heritage agreed that to provide a design life for a new use of the station and secure the chimneys for future generations the fourth chimneys needed to be dismantled and rebuilt. This process is was done sensitively, crushed materials were reused in the side for long-term use in the construction of Malaysian Square and in the artwork (BPSDC Living Architecture, 2014). The geometric replicas are created on the site based on the original drawings, ‘25,000 wheelbarrow loads of concrete’ and ‘1,500 liters of paint’ have been implemented to match the original design (Happold, 2017). The chimneys continue to be of special public interest and the original height and design is retained while a new function is adapted to them. The northwest chimney named Chimney Lift will become a new attraction in the station offering occupants a 360- degree panoramic view across London at a height of 109 meters, of which a digital visualization can be found on the Power Station website: https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/whats-on/detail/chimney-lift.

20

detail of steel mesh

Figure 13. First chimney under construction

Figure 14. Structure detail

Figure 15. Chimney replacment process

Figure 16. Chimney glass lift at Battersea Power Station.

21

Preservation for future generations

“Despite the different character of new-build developments, there are striking parallels between those developments and previous waves London’s riverside renaissance of gentrification, such that new-build developments can, and should, be identified as landscapes or as forms of gentrification’’ (Vijay, 2018) The BPS development can be considered as regeneration of a ‘dead and polluted structure, a restoration of its Art Deco interior, and a process of recycling the space for the next phases’ of gentrification and financial assumption (Vijay, 2018). It will become a rich mixture of destinations including retail, education, culture, a multi-purpose venue, leisure attractions, creative office space, and residential accommodation a resource for the use of residents but also for the public at large.

One of the key characteristics of the Power Station was its large silhouette outline of blank patterned brickworks with very restricted openings, which was a common feature for an industrial building. Being a listed building, any addition of openings and materials was particularly challenging to implement as such special interests needed to be unspoiled.

Giving the building a new future, a new use meant that these alterations needed to respect and respond to the original design. The integration of the new frame was carefully merged with the existing one. Due to years of neglect and deterioration, being exposed to the weather conditions and water penetrating a considerable amount - the existing steel structure and bricks needed to be cleaned, restored, or removed. Northcot Brick company located in Midlands, which supplied the bricks in the original building of the Power Station, was again commissioned almost 30 years later for its restoration. ‘‘Eight million’’ replacement bricks were produced from two different special blends to match the original brickworks and match the exact ratio of distinct colors to capture the original look of the brickwork as closely as possible (BPSDC The Placebook 2017).

The building is divided into 15 floors and there is an almost equal ratio of separation between public and private access. The top six floors where the boiler house was will be transformed into a lobby surrounded by the office buildings for Apple’s European headquarters.

Previously the home of electrical power, the lobby will function as an inspiration space for the creative class workers. The dialogue between the existing fabric (exposed brick and steel) and contemporary modern is a successful approach towards corporates with creative employees. BPS can be considered as the “kind of accommodation that might appeal to creative occupiers, or indeed any that might appreciate state of the art facilities set against the industrial, rough, exposed existing fabric of the space” (Vijay, 2018) Both Switch Houses located East and West of the building are converted in space for 254 glassy luxury apartments. These spaces, in addition to preserving the attributes and character of the building’s origins, play a vital role in adapting a building of such a large scale amenable to the inhabitants. The residential use is split over nine floors, out of which three are additional glass floors added on top of the old structure. Aesthetically, the adaptation of a steel glassed structure with the original brick pattern forms a hybrid appearance of the old with the new. Aside from this, the architects have been allowed to resize and place new windows on the facade of the Grade II listed building, which are in fact vertical extrapolations of the original, smaller mullioned windows. Although identical when viewed from a building’s exterior, from the inside they offer floor-to-ceiling glazing for each apartment and produce a unique industrial decor. Those additions allow a lot of natural lighting to seep through, minimizing 22

Office

24 %

Residential

25 %

Chimney

4%

Leisure

6%

Retail

41 %

Private accsess

49%

Public accsess

51%

4

3

3

1

1 2

2

1. Switch House 2. Turbine Hall 3. Boiler House 4. Chimney

Figure 17. Section showing re-use of the space in BPS

Morning

Afternoon

Residential / Living

Evening Residential / Living

Culture & Wellbing

Leisure / Playing & Dining Retail Events

Events

Figure 18. Diagram showing balance activity across the day at the BPS

23

the need for artificial lighting and creating an efficient building with a sustainable future, while also maintaining all the features of Art Deco, the finned brick pattern, and steelwork.

The new uses of the two newly renovated historic Turbine Halls, each of them decisive to Tate Modern Gallery, are entirely based on public access, becoming retail and leisure experiences accessible any time of the day. These services are allocated over 4 floors with more than 100 shops and restaurants, together with an event venue capacity of two thousand people. Flashy retail spaces combined from a mixture of independent, as well as favorite chain stores, will create a unique blend as a neighborhood and destination shopping. The approach of shops with various sizes from kiosks all the way up to flagship stores is response of a definition ‘clone towns’ or identikit high streets which are over-run by branded stores with little diversities to offer.

The introduction of an innovative model of variable rent packages in the early phases of the development combined with the diversity of spaces that BPS will offer smaller independent retail, artists adhere themselves against multi-national brands and create a viable and interesting place. Those spaces targeting the middle-class individuals and artists with creative spirit are considered as an important part of the gentrification process, a real contribution to the greater cultural cachet, and a key factor in altering the site more habitual by the visits.

Both Control Room A and B as part of the regeneration of BPS have been fully restored and are conceptualized as all-day hospitality services. These iconic spaces defined by authentic features of the Art Deco interiors are an important contribution to the discussion about place making as they are borrowing cultural imaginary of the past by constructing a future building. Art Deco design of glazed ceramic ware throughout combined with the industrial look and feel of the best surviving parts of BPS as original control room fittings, stainless-steel control panels, desk, and the complex switchgear are creating a unique backdrop and will be a conversation starting point or photo opportunity. Being inside it will feel like you are almost in a time cap, as experienced through a virtual tour provided by photographer Will Pearson: https://www.willpearson.co.uk/battersea-power-station-control-room/

24

Conclusion

03/01- D.Tako. BPS aside Frank Gehry and Sir Norman Foster buildings

25

Conclusion

The repurposing of the Battersea Power Station has been a battle spanning across four decades, with four attempted developments. At the verge of crumbling on its own, the BPS had found itself in the hands of a Malaysian Consortium with new plans to revive the iconic building, which held both inherent architectural value and British pop-cultural significance.

The process was met with complexity through the stages of planning application. Shifting perceptions of the Art Deco and industrial architecture as a political territory was part of the new becoming, whilst significant public interest from local communities also became an influential factor in the decision-making process of design. From the planning permit process, which lasted for seven and half years, we can conclude that many layers of discussion between developer, community and public bodies played an important impact in preservation and gentrification of the BPS. Such an interaction process makes London planning application discursive, expensive and without specific calendar in the process.

Many of the public concerns surround the BPS planning proposals and that of English Heritage centered around preservation. Historical research and detective work was to a large extent implemented as an approach by the developer, especially pertaining toward two of the strongest architectural features: the chimneys and the brickwork. The re-design presented with it a set of challenges as there was very limited ability to preserve the original materials, as was advocated by English Heritage and pressure groups; instead, the decision was taken to rebuild the chimneys based on the original drawings, colour and design. An examination was even undertaken by scraping the various layers of paint from the chimneys that been applied through the years to detect the original colour. In addition, the brick factory that had supplied the first build had been traced down to supply the same mortar and colours of brick that had been previously used. In this regard, there had been a sensitive approach for retaining the character of the existing fabric.

The industrial visage and internal features of the building created a quality of workspaces that would attract creative enterprises, such as Apple headquarters. Interestingly, in this design and the privatization of the BPS, the developers were successful in creating a space that would hold within the realm of popular culture and is also re-purposed in a way that the BPS could remain accessible to the public.

What can be critiqued as a failure to preserve is the visibility of the BPS across different angles. The sheer density of the new build developments surrounding the BPS has led to limited view of the building, with a preservation of one and only full frontage view of the BPS by the river site. Essentially this has resulted from height restrictions imposed on the surrounding developments which meant that buildings could not extend in height but had been allowed to build dense developments.

However, this design point could even be perceived as one of its successes. Until now, the failure of other development plans from investors lay in the fact that without surrounding developments the re-design of the BPS was non-profitable and therefore unsuccessful from a financial aspect. Through implementing the surrounding site, the developers have maximized the space and capacity for domestic and commercial usage. This would be the only sensible approach as a means of adding value. Effectively, in this method, the BPS had changed from being completely exposed, with empty surroundings, to now being outlined. As such, the BPS is almost protected from the elements and, moreover, with the increasing new build developments throughout Battersea, in also framing the BPS in new builds the developers have managed to adapt and blend this industrial presenting building into the imagery of a modern city-scape.

26

Ultimately, the re-design of the Battersea Power Station has successfully saved the building from ruin. With a presence along the lengthy riverfront, BPS is offering one of the biggest allures of development in central London.

03/01- D.Tako. BPS aside Frank Gehry and Sir Norman Foster buildings

27

Bibliography

agencies, M.W. and (2004). Opportunity knocks for key areas in Livingstone’s London. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/feb/10/london.london [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

Battersea Power Station (2014). THE PLACEBOOK BATTERSEA POWER STATION. [online] JTP Press. Available at: https://www.jtp.co.uk/cms/pdfs/The-Placebook_Battersea-Power-Station.pdf [Accessed 25 Nov. 2020].

Battersea Power Station Official (2017). Prospect Place by Gehry Partners. YouTube. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyECZ-QJLjg [Accessed 29 Oct. 2021].

BPSDC Living Architecture, B.L.A. (2014). BATTERSEA POWER STATION MAGAZINE ISSUE o . 3 -SUMMER 2014 “A GIGANTIC EXEMPLAR OF CREATIVE RE-USE” STEPHEN BAYLEY ON BATTERSEA • VIEW FROM THE TOP NEW LIFE FOR THE POWER STATION CHIMNEYS • IN THE ZONE A NEW EMBASSY FOR A NEW QUARTER • GEHRY PARTNERS AND FOSTER + PARTNERS MEET THE DESIGN TEAMS Living Architecture. [online] Available at: https://bpsstorage.blob.core.windows.net/public/BPS_Global_Launch_Powerhouse_Magazine.pdf [Accessed 6 Jan. 2022].

Bustler (2014). First images of BIG’s Malaysia Square in London’s Battersea Power Station. [online] Bustler. Available at: https://bustler.net/news/4094/first-images-of-big-s-malaysiasquare-in-london-s-battersea-power-station [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

Enge, M. (2010). Tories try to draw power from Battersea. Financial Times. [online] 13 Apr. Available at: https://www.ft.com/content/3bd9e5ce-4718-11df-b253-00144feab49a [Accessed 5 Jan. 2022].

Frearson, A. (2014). Gehry and Foster unveil designs for Battersea Power Station redevelopment. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2014/04/07/gehry-foster-unveil-designs-battersea-power-station-redevelopment/ [Accessed 3 Oct. 2019].

Happold, B. (2017). Battersea Power Station chimney reconstruction project wins Constructing Excellence Award. [online] Buro Happold. Available at: https://www.burohappold. com/news/battersea-power-station-chimney-award/# [Accessed 5 Dec. 2021].

Heritage, E. (2008). Conservation Principles, Policies and Guidance. [online] Available at: https://historicengland.org.uk/images-books/publications/conservation-principles-sustainable-management-historic-environment/conservationprinciplespoliciesandguidanceapril08web/.

Heritage, E. (2013). Battersea Power Station. [online] www.ucl.ac.uk. Available at: https:// www.ucl.ac.uk/bartlett/architecture/sites/bartlett/files/49.9._battersea_power_station.pdf [Accessed 2 Jan. 2022].

Jennings, W. (2018). Essay | Coin Street Community Builders: Has the co-op vision been abandoned? — Will Jennings. [online] willjennings.info. Available at: https://willjennings.info/ Essay-Coin-Street-Community-Builders-Has-the-co-op-vision-been [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

Jennings, W. (2021). Who is London building upwards for? [online] ICON Magazine. Available at: https://www.iconeye.com/opinion/who-london-upwards-tall-buildings-nla-report [Accessed 10 Nov. 2021].

28

Jones, O. (2021). How Property Developers Wage War on the Working Class. [online] www. youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNPerpEOugA [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

Media, S. (2015). Battersea Power Station: Selling an Icon #batterseapowerstation. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOYoD692faY [Accessed 19 Nov. 2021].

Minton, A. (2017). Big capital : who’s London for? London: Penguin Books.

Morley, E. (2015). Affordable Homes Moved Out of Battersea Development. [online] Landlord News. Available at: https://www.landlordnews.co.uk/affordable-homes-moved-out-of-battersea-development/ [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

Private Office, G.P. (2013). One Hyde Park Documentary, Luxury Property Knightsbridge, London. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7sjLU623WI [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

Properties, V. (2018). Battersea Power Station Location and Masterplan. [online] www.youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4UyYH-h3Y [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

Ravenscroft, T. (2018). Glass elevator for Battersea Power Station revealed in new visual. [online] Dezeen. Available at: https://www.dezeen.com/2018/11/02/battersea-power-stationglass-lift-chimney-wilkinson-eyre/ [Accessed 3 Aug. 2019].

Rowan Moore (2017). Slow burn city : London in the twenty-first century. London: Picador.

Rowland Atkinson (2020). ALPHA CITY : how london was captured by the super -rich. S.L.: Verso.

Stainer, H. (2021). Sir Giles Gilbert Scott. [online] Hazel Stainer. Available at: https://hazelstainer.wordpress.com/2021/02/19/sir-giles-gilbert-scott/ [Accessed 7 Dec. 2021].

Taylor, S. (2021). The truth about poor doors. [online] The Developer. Available at: https:// www.thedeveloper.live/opinion/the-truth-about-poor-doors [Accessed 18 Nov. 2021].

TheGuardian (2014). Frank Gehry at Battersea Power Station. [online] www.youtube.com.

Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnUA2g_qlww [Accessed 7 Jan. 2022].

Treeshaveears (2015). Battersea power station - The London Programme. [online] www. youtube.com. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNPUVYtcPRU [Accessed 19 Nov. 2021].

Vijay, A. (2018). Dissipating the Political: Battersea Power Station and the Temporal Aesthetics of Development. [online] degruyter.com. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/ document/doi/10.1515/culture-2018-0056/html [Accessed 15 Dec. 2021].

W10 (2008). Battersea Power Station - “flaming altar of the modern temple of power.” [online] Flickr. Available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/w10/2661581297/in/photostream/ [Accessed 2 Dec. 2021].

29

Wainwright, O. (2015). Revealed: how developers exploit flawed planning system to minimise affordable housing. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/ cities/2015/jun/25/london-developers-viability-planning-affordable-social-housing-regeneration-oliver-wainwright [Accessed 15 Oct. 2021].

Wainwright, O. (2021). Penthouses and poor doors: how Europe’s “biggest regeneration project” fell flat. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2021/feb/02/penthouses-poor-doors-nine-elms-battersea-london-luxury-housing-development [Accessed 18 Aug. 2021].

Waite, R. (2013). Revealed: plans for chimney-top viewing platform at Battersea power station. [online] The Architects’ Journal. Available at: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/archive/revealed-plans-for-chimney-top-viewing-platform-at-battersea-power-station [Accessed 5 Dec. 2021].

WilkinsonEyre (2020). Battersea Power Station. [online] WilkinsonEyre. Available at: https:// www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/battersea-power-station [Accessed 29 Dec. 2021].

Figures: Fig. 1: https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/pdfs/the-placebook.pdf Fig. 2: https://wordingblog.wordpress.com/2014/07/09/battersea-power-station Fig. 3: http://joeltaylorwrites.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-gehry-has-landed.html Fig. 4: https://adamxphotos.com/2016/03/20/explore-134-battersea-power-station-controlroom-a-some-time-in-2015/ Fig. 5: https://www.londonlaunch.com/be-inspired/battersea-power-station-the-lost-plans/ Fig. 6: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOYoD692faY Fig. 7: https://omahonypike.ie/projects/battersea-power-station/ Fig. 8: https://weaintgotnohistory.sbnation.com/2012/5/10/3012249/battersea-stadium-architectural-sketches-chelsea-fc Fig. 9: https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/09/22/construction-delays-leave-apples-iconic-london-battersea-offices-in-doubt Fig. 10: https://www.theguardian.com/business/gallery/2010/jun/23/battersea-power-station-gallery#img-3 Fig. 11: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23177197 Fig. 12: https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/about/building-battersea-the-masterplan-old Fig. 13-14: https://wordingblog.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/battersea-power-station-tower.gif Fig. 15: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOYoD692faY&t=1447s Fig.16: https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/first-picture-of-ps9-billion-battersea-power-station-s-great-glass-elevator-a3965976.html

30