Thesis Project in Architecture LTH Sebastian Fors 2012 by sebastianfors

potentials and polarities on charged ground - Reprogramming the defunct Nuclear Power Plant of BarsebĂ¤ck

AAHM01 | Thesis Project in Architecture | Sebastian Fors | Lunds Tekniska HĂśgskola | 2012

potentials and polarities on charged ground

Thanks to,

- reprogramming the defunct nuclear power plant in barsebäck

John Ross and Pawel Szychalski, tutors and support Maria Taranger and Leif Roth at Barsebäck Kraft Employees of Scandinavian Silver Eel AB, Helsingborg My friends of Exjobbarstudion

Thesis Project in Architecture/Examensarbete i Arkitektur AAHM01

Arkitektskolan LTH, Lunds Universitet

February 2012 - September 2012

Author: Sebastian Fors

Tutor: John Ross

Secondary Advisor: Pawel Szychalski

Examiner: Professor Christer Malmström

introductory summary This project is dealing with questions of landscape impact and industrial building alterations, with the particular example of Barsebäck’s Nuclear Power Plant. The plant was closed in 2005 after 30 years of energy production and political debate. Today it stands idle, with energy entering rather than leaving the site, awaiting any action. The destiny is still unclear, apart from the fact that the removal of remaining nuclear debris will begin in 2020. Instead of total demolition, this project studies the possibility to keep parts of the facility. That is also practically plausible from the perspective of contamination. The project departure was a general interest in industrial structures of monumental scale and a fascination for the negative associations around certain buildings. The final

February 2012. The silouhette of Malmö, wrapped in evening daze, as viewed from the wharf at Barsebäck’s Nuclear Power Plant. 4

outcome could not possibly be a fully detailed conversion proposal; neither time nor topical relevance would permit that. The focus has rather been to find a strategy for dealing with the immensity of scale, through the exploration of existing and potential spatial and pragmatic values on site. The programme task resulted in a future directed brief based on science, production and public interface. With the help of an alliteration mantra, sea-site-soil: society, the project has been hold together. The immensity of the site made it logical to extend the focus from building to landscape at times, with regional considerations on public accessibility and a connecting route strategy as one outcome. Since precedents are scarce, some effort has been spent

on pure imagination, or even fiction. Science fiction has not been a goal in itself, but rather a way to dramatize the public experience and link the present with the past and to what could be the future. The project is divided into some different parts, with initial preface points, then continuing to a descriptive section dealing with the facility as found. Then follows a focus statement and site strategy, before entering the project in more detail through some zoom-ins and zoom-outs respectively. The picture is summarized in the end with a discussion on project relevance and processes involved while dealing with projects of similar kind. Do enjoy.

My project is a highway. A highway has certain rules to follow and particular processes are involved in order to construct it. It spans from Sea to Soil via Site, in the region of Society. It has lanes to drive in, but my highway is neither dual-directional nor particularly straight. It goes from places and connects issues. Most of them existed already before my time. I have casted some junctions along and introduced new lanes as time went by. Not so many exits perhaps. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;driverâ&#x20AC;? is rather free to move I think, along or across. However always in my subjective lanes. Some exits are dead-ends yet/still; sometimes they add complexity and comprehension, but at moments also contradiction. Still others have a clear connection and a goal, linked to reality and the entity of the road itself. This is how to navigate.

Project map I: Learning in Lomma Radial interventions Project focus

Organization Reactor Removal

Arrival

IV: Introducing the Eel Farm

Reactor

Course of events+Current status

Vicinity + Approach

Master plan Facility as found A terminal as linking element

Infrastructure and public interface

III: The Record Years and The Swedish Line

Regional Route

Zoom-out

Recreational Path Events along

Prefaces: p.10-21

Site+Plant: p.20-35

Thesis Conclusion

Eel Farm

Scaping land/Shaping site

II: Swedish Watchtowers

Development through time

Debris + Displacement

Site: Interventions: p.34-71

Soil+Sea: p.70-87

A: Before and After B: Eel farming precedents C: Model studies D: Precedents collage E: Organization of current reactor building

On KĂ¤vlinge Municipalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s vision

Society: p.86-98

References+Appendices: p.97-111

PrefaceS

Preface I: learning in Lomma One day in May in 2011 I was riding my bike through the agricultural fields towards Lomma, the once heavily industrialized town by the sea, some twenty kilometers north of Malmö. The town has altered since the days of production and gentrified into a permanent/definite and perhaps final resort for the retirees of Skåne County. There are no traces of the once thriving, later nationally infamous factory Lomma Eternit. During the decades following WWII they supplied Sweden’s building industry with asbestos containing façade elements. The business was thriving until a published study in the middle of the 70s showed that a disproportionate number of the workers suffered from lung cancer. There is today no evidences whatsoever of the industry. New housing developments are erected, replacing the old industrial facilities in the most prominent location in Lomma, where river Höje å merges with the sea. Industrial romantics simply had no place in this case. It also makes me think of the nearby village of Teckomatorp; today just an annoying stop for commuters along the Helsingborg-Malmö railway line, but earlier the scenery for one of Sweden’s most debated environmental scandal. This was the site where the pesticide manufacturer BT Kemi dumped toxic agents in rivers and dug town poisonous barrels in the 1970s. The factory

was blown up in 1977, but the area is still contaminated, despite decades of sanitation. The two examples show how history and heritage in many occasions are erased, consciously or subconsciously taken away from collective memory, especially when memories are tragic, negative or literally contaminated. I continue my ride, heading north along the coast line where the regional bourgeoisie have placed their eye catching residences, bigger than ever in size and prosperity. The route ends abruptly in a nature reserve; a wetland with a river like water entity cutting off my way. In the fond is Barsebäck, also a place with negative connotation and industrial background. However totally different. In the significantly picturesque landscape that I have just passed, housing millionaires, kettle and birds, golfers, rare insects and a castle owned by noble family Hamilton, an odd bird landed in the end of the 1960s. Finished in 1975, Barsebäck’s nuclear power station was intended to serve the whole Öresund region with clean, cheap and locally produced electricity. Barsebäck was never a scandal as the other two. It was closed in 2005 as a consequence of a more than twenty year long debate on nuclear energy (and waste), plant

security and fear. It is now a historic symbol of a very recent technology that is still in developing phase. It houses immense investments in terms of devices, apparatuses and infrastructures that are just there, waiting. It is a symbol of the power of politics in general, but also of the concept of future, so closely related to the era of modernism. Modernism was already out of fashion in the 1970s in terms of culture and architecture but very apparent still in the field of politics and technology as it seems. It is a “temporary installation” that produced eternally deadly waste, not built with other means than rational and optimistic. The postwar period has since been condensed and turned off, with the cables still plugged in. It is in its very structure a call for the memory of late 20th century history, a recent history so present that it seems unimportant, but containing events that more or less covers the life and death of the Swedish welfare state, based on social democratic [but protectionist] optimism. On my bike, on the way back, I start to think about what this symbol really represents and what it might be able to contain in the future. To be honest; I have already become spellbound and decided that this will be the basis for my thesis project.

Preface II: Swedish Watchtowers It is in the first episode of the legendaric Danish TV-series Kingdom [Riget] by Lars von Trier from 1994. The Swedish doctor Stig Helmer [Ernst Hugo Järegård] stands on the roof terrace of the hospital of Copenhagen, looking over the strait towards the Swedish side. Helmer, a bitter and controversial doctor who never leaves a moment to express his hatred for the inferior nation of Denmark, is forced to work abroad after a legal dispute in Sweden. The role character has a range of memorable one-liners throughout the series, but the roof top scene is perhaps the most well-known. It was also one of the first things that came to my mind as Barsebäck’s Nuclear Power Station had settled as the site for my thesis.

“Thank you Swedish watchtowers, Your Plutonium will bring the Danes to their knees. Here is Denmark, shat out of chalk and water. Over the water...Sweden, hewn from granite. Bloody Danes!”

Apart from the suggestive, sinister ambiance and the brilliant acting by Järegård, the scene is interesting from a few perspectives: 1. The obvious geographical vicinity between Barsebäck and Copenhagen. 2. It underlines the landmark and landscape traits of Barsebäck, especially in the time before Turning Torso and The Öresund Bridge were built in the early 2000s. 3. It expresses the potential threat of atomic disaster that rose a political debate, especially in Denmark, during the 1970s onwards. 4. Rather than a production site for electricity, the facility is depicted as a monument of architecture, loaded with connotations of power and fear.

Preface III: The Record Years & ‘The Swedish Line’ I have always been fascinated, not to say also proud, of the socio-economical growth and rise of Sweden in the decades following WWII, often referred to as The Record Years. As a child of the generation born in the late 1980s and grown up under headlines of “crisis” and “welfare cuts”, this state of society with its associated optimism towards the future, seems almost surreal. Apart from excellent civic structure of an origin dating back to the 1700s, low corruption, political stability, natural resources etc, there was the fortunate fact that Sweden avoided the WWII, officially due to neutral policies, but as later has been revealed, also because of extensive cooperation with the regime in Nazi-Germany. From a simple study of the map, it is evident to see the highly turbulent location of Sweden, though on the northern edge of Europe, right on the borderline between “The West” and “The East”, i.e. USA and Soviet. The political tensions following the WWII, that is The Cold War, would further emphasize that in-between condition. Mutual fear and overestimation of the enemy’s technical and military capabilities led to history’s grandest example of arms race between the super powers in particular, but also for the nations in-between. A consequence of neutrality came to be the concept of independence and political sovereignty, which in industry and from a military point of view would be interpreted as self-sufficiency.

Sweden’s first Nuclear Power Plant in Ågesta, Stockholm.

From a perspective of 2012, with transnational unions and military coalitions, this idea seems somewhat odd, however it is linked to the confidence driven by economical prosperity at the time.

The idea of developing a national nuclear weapon driven by domestic fuel, that started in the late 1940s, therefore seemed to be an almost natural consequence. Wilhelm Agrell very thoroughly describes this process in his book Svenska Förintelsevapen (Historiska Media 2002). Labeled “The Swedish Line”, this development continued confidentially until 1972 as Sweden ratified the NonProliferation Treaty. The programme never resulted in a realized actual bomb, but is tightly linked to the development of civic nuclear industry that started in Sweden in the late 1960s. Knowledge and components could simply not be imported in the first years, but had to be invented and developed domestically. The Swedish Defence Research Agency (FOA) had prior to the war been mostly occupied with mechanical devices, like a gigantic aircraft catcher web. The nuclear technology demanded a highly skilled working force and an extensive research in the field, where many of the key persons were immigrant researchers who had fled Germany during the war (Agrell 2002, p 22). The project consumed a vast part of The Swedish Defence budget the following years, but enormous development costs involved would partly be financed by export of domestic uranium and electricity produced in nuclear power plants. The civic aspect became something of a manipulative manoeuvre domestically, to be able to exceed the designated

defence budget. A series of reactors and facilities were built around Sweden; uranium mines in Ranstad and Zinkgruvan and reactor bunkers underground. The first reactor, named SLEEP (Swedish Low Energy Experimental Pile), was built in 1954 and located beneath the Royal Technical University in the middle of Stockholm (Niklasson, 2012). The first veritable power plant was built in Ågesta outside Stockholm in 1962, which provided the adjacent residential neighbourhood with district heating for ten years, at the same time as it was an important research laboratory for the nuclear programme. As time proceeded, the dangers and risks with civic nuclear power came to light. A partial meltdown in Ågesta in 1969, that was not fully revealed until 1993 (Niklasson 2012), led to security radii for the location of all planned facilities.

the political decision to end the Swedish Nuclear Programme, that involved production of domestic plutonium. The investments in the plant has been described as a total fiasco (Odelius 2011). It was later transformed into an oil driven support plant with a centre for nuclear security, but is today empty, awaiting a new function, just like Barsebäck (SVT Östnytt 2012). The Germans and Dutch have the concepts Investitionsruine (“Investment ruins”) and Grote Nutteloze Werken (“Large useless structures”) respectively to describe such projects. To architects of alteration however, the landmarks and buildings produced can have remarkable potentials and be intriguing pieces of architecture. Indeed I also see this in the defunct power station at Barsebäck. References:

Many of the structures of the period remain more or less intact today. Together with the ten active nuclear reactors at three locations (Ringhals, Oskarshamn and Forsmark) they form an important legacy of Swedish policy and international history as well as industrial-scientific heritage. There is currently no museum, institution or exhibition that acknowledges this history. They are also symbols for huge investments, which in some cases never paid back. One example is the heavy water moderated Marviken Plant outside Norrköping. It was built and equipped but never opened due to

-Agrell Wilhelm, Svenska Förintelsevapen, Historiska Media 2002 -Niklasson Sten, Sverige jäktade in i atomåldern, SvD Kultur Understrecket 2012-07-12 -Odelius Marianne, NT kartlägger Marvikens historia, Norrköpings Tidningar 2011-10-04 -SVT Östnytt 2012-07-20: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/regionalt/ostnytt/karnreaktorn-kan-bli-hotell -Picture [photo of printed photo from Tekniska Museet, Stockholm]: http://www.flickr.com/photos/49503121126@N01/2509855136/

Preface IV: introducing the idea of eel farming

‘Death and Life of the European Eel’. Double diagram depicting (1) the transcontinental complexity around the issues of endangerment* and (2) the possibilities of an eel farm in Barsebäck. *Source: Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

PRODUCER

GOLF STREAM ALTERED

EXPLOITATION OF RESOURCES

EEL DECREASED POPULATION

INFERTILITY

DISEASE RATIONALIZATION OF AQUACULTURE

EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION

OVERFISHING

MEXICAN GULF

EUROPE

SCHOLAR

WEALTH AND DEMAND GLASS EEL EXPORT TO CHINA

CLIMATE CHANGE

ON SITE ENERGY PRODUCTION FROM WASTE PRODUCTS TO HEAT WATER Secure a sustainable production chain with maximal use of eel parts, wastes and water plus a renewable eneregy source to heat the water.

DEPICTING THE FASCINATING LIFE STORY OF THE EEL.

BARSE BÄCK

CONSUMER ASIA

A TRANSCONTINENTAL LIFE EVOLUTION SIMULATED IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT Sell potential surplus to an international market with commercial potential, competing with sustainability and quality rather than price.

RESTOCKING PROGRAM FOR GLASS EELS [LOCAL/DOMESTIC] AND FRY EXPORT.

GLOBAL MARKET

POLLUTION

EXPLOITATION OF LAND AND WATER

THE opportunity for the large energy companies to compensate for eel death in hydroelectric plants.

DIRECT DEATH

INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY

Stabilizing the population and meet the domestic and international demand for fish products without further exploitation of natural resources.

HYDROELECTRIC POWER

The European Eel, Anguilla Anguilla, is indeed a fascinating animal, with a transcontinental, verbatim life CYCLE. It is one of the world’s oldest creatures, though we only fragmentarily know how it operates. Through its life it is transforming, almost like an insect, from different states and stages, adapting to new local conditions through diet and physiognomy. However, despites these seemingly flexible nature, it is currently a severely threatened species. The number of individuals has decreased with 98 % from the 1970s until today. Unlike other fish, e.g., the cod, overfishing cannot fully say to be responsible for this endangerment. Through its Atlantic journey, it touches environmental problems, pollutions and climate conditions, certainly not without being affected. In this sense, the Anguilla Anguilla is a true bioindicator, reminding us all about the fundamental fact that we share a common planet with linked causes and effects. Trying to farm the eel has been proved difficult and cannot (yet) be carried out the same industrial/efficient way as with the salmon or lobster. The eel can easily adapt to captivity, this is proved by a long usage historically as “sewage cleaner” and in eel farms. However, the reproduction and full maturation of the eel has been impossible to carry out in captivity; it has occupied scientists for centuries. So since spawning cannot be controlled, no eels have been born in captivity

until very recently. A project in Volendam, the Netherlands, is currently working on this issue, and has come up with positive and interesting results (see later). Eel farms ARE however currently operating. One of only a few in Sweden was visited in Helsingborg in the beginning of this thesis project. The activity and production here could not be carried out without the import of larvae from England plus extensive financing from the European Union. The two examples in Helsingborg and Volendam show the interest and relevance of eel farming. The relevance for actually placing an eel farm in Barsebäck can be said to have two reasons. Firstly, the waterfront location of the power plant, in a region traditionally associated with eel fishing and with precedents and adjacent research institutions in the vicinity, makes it suitable. The link between energy production and eel death can also be seen in the following diagram. Energy companies, especially those operating large hydroelectric power plants, are severely altering and harmfully changing the aquatic life in rivers and estuaries. Eels are hindered in their crucial migration and eventually killed in the turbines and grids of the plants. There is thus an ecological dept to be paid.

The 2012 Swedish campaign “Rädda ålen“ [Save the eel].

References: -Prosek James, Eels An Exploration, from New Zealand to the Sargasso Harper 2010 -Schweid Richard, Eels, Reaktion Books, 2009 -Integrated Taxonomic Information System Report: Anguilla Anguilla http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=161128. -Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management

SITE+plant

January 2012. Eastern appearance from the former visitor parking. Smoke is indicating current activity. Rather than producing electricity, the plant is currently using an equivalent energy amount of 3000 private housing units. Just for maintenance. 20

COURSE OF EVENTS

CURRENT Status/PRESERVATIONAL REASONS 1965-1969 Domestic uranium is extracted at Ranstad 1965 Sydkraft acquires land in Barsebäck 1969 Two reactors are ordered to Barsebäck from ASEA-Atom

1980 National referendum on Nuclear power:YES/NO 1985 Additional security system installed in R1 1985 CLAB centre for spent fuel opens in Oskarshamn 1986 PM Carlsson negotiates the closing of Barsebäck’s with the Danish PM Schlüter 1992 Incident in R1. Level 2 on INES scale (1-7) 1997 Political decision to close Barsebäck R1 1999 Greenpeace activists occupy the rooftop of R1, demanding immediate closing 1999 Barsebäck R1 closed 2005 Barsebäck R2 stopped 2006 Fuel rods removed from Barsebäck R1and R2 2006 Close-to-meltdown-Incident at Forsmark1 2010 Sw. parliament accepts new reactors to replace old 2010 Greenpeace demonstrates security problems at Forsmark 2012 Minor leakage reported at Barsebäck 2020 SFR waste storage opened 2025 Life length of existing reactors 2027 Dismantling finished

2506 Radioactivity levels of the fuel will be harmless

1972 Opening of Sweden’s first commercial reactor in Oskaarshamn 1975 Barsebäck grand opening 1977 Barsebäck R2 started 1978 Anti-atomic demonstration with 20000 people outside Barsebäck

Relevant course of events.

1977 THE DANISH GIRLS MARCHING BAND AT THE OPENING CEREMONY OF BARSEBÄCK R2.

1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 1950 1970 1990 2010 2030

1942WORLD’S FIRST NUCLEAR REACTION PRESENTED BY ENRICO FERMI MANHATTAN PROJECT 1945HIROSHIMA/NAGASAKI

COLD WAR 1954WORLD’S FIRST ATOMIC POWER PLANT IN OBINSK USSR 1957MAJAK

UK+FRANCE+CHINA START PROGRAMMES FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS

INTEGRAL FAST REACTOR (IFR) WITH LOW WASTE RATES IS INTRODUCED IN USA 1986CHERNOBYL

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY ENERGY CRISIS

PAKISTAN+INDIA BUILD NUCLEAR WEAPONS 1979HARRISBURG

INQUIRY ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN IRAQ+IRAN

RUSSIA-BELARUS ENERGY DISPUTE

STRONG

WEAK

PROJECT STATEMENT ON HERITAGE VALUES

GERMANY PLANS TO END NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION

EURO CRISIS

IFR PROGRAMME RETIRED DUE TO NON-PROLIFERATION POLICY

2011FUKUSHIMA

FINLAND OPENS EUROPE’S MOST MODERN NUCLEAR PLANT IN OLKILUOTO

TECHNO-CULTURAL SYMBOL

SPATIAL ASSET

INFRASTRUCTURAL ASSET

ARCHITECTURAL QUALITIES

BUILDING TECHNOLOGY/CRAFTSMANSHIP

Energy production at Barsebäck ended in 2005, solely due to political decisions and stressed by claims from the Danish authorities. The facility was planned to run for another ten years, a time which is soon reached now. It was built in a way that makes it comparably easy to dismantle with both radioactivity and construction in mind. Hence, it is possible to remove the reactors and other contaminated parts without actually tearing down the whole building (see p.29 about reactor removal). Its inherent robustness and security strategy also makes it structurally suitable for a second life as something else. Vast investments have also been made up until the late 1990s in terms of technical equipments and infrastructure. Theoretically it would be possible to start it up again, but not politically/ financially. These practical aspects call for a least partial preservation of the power plant. The total cost for an absolute demolition is estimated to exceed 5,7 billion SEK, which is partly financed by a special fund, established collectively by the electricity producers and paid by the energy consumers over

the years. The lack of references and domestic experience however make the final cost impossible to predict and some sources claim the real figure to exceed 9 billion SEK (Strömkvist 2011). Since 2005 there has however been a continuous activity at Barsebäck, where 200 people today work with maintenance, radiation and dismantling research and power plant security simulations. The site is still under high security regulations, due to smaller amounts of radioactive material, but primarily due to the fact that the design of Barsebäck is very similar to the other Swedish nuclear power plants. It is possible for visitors to do guided tours around the site. The inherent heritage values and objectives for a partial preservation do not necessarily include regular antiquarian concepts. The diagram to the left summarizes these considerations. References: -Haugaard Nielsen Rolf, Nu raderas Barsebäck från kartan, Illustrerad Vetenskap, no. 8 2005 -Strömkivst Stig, Dyrare att lägga ner Barsebäck, Sydsvenskan 2011-09-23

gas turbine station

expo building (Per Friberg)

conference building â&#x20AC;&#x153;Grevinnanâ&#x20AC;? entrance/security building

facility as found

rinse house security filter cistern service/garage

radioactive waste treatment

entrance driveway

administration parking +35M

+11M

isometric/ground floor 1:4000 reactor pool infrastructure

waste storage

main entrance

+11M

administration wing

dressing room transport corridor

reactor

control room

turbine hall condensor

service

turbine hall

The industrial rational logic and the vast scale are the major impressions from a site visit. Structures have been added through the years. Those are easily read through design changes from the original architecture. Two examples are the administration wing and the security building. The dominant facade materials are corrugated metal and dark bricks. Each function in the process has its own volume which makes the facility layout pedagogic and easy to read. The plant includes vast ancillary spaces for service and storage apart from the main energy production areas.

control room+storage

project focus

NATURE

ELECTRICITY FACTORY

BU RO

S CE UR BT SO DE RE AL L C GI CA LO OLO EC

ST EA SP A R EX CES PO

PROFANE

POLARITIES + PROGRAMMATIC RESPONSES

TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIMISM

SP AT IA

U LT

ITA CH ER AR L H RA

RE CU

L SP AND EC M TA AR CL K ES

ETHICS

NUCLEAR CATHEDRAL

SACRED

MAN

The deeper I came into the project, the more I saw polarities and contradictions, summarized in the diagram to the left. Rather than getting stuck in the confusion that rose as polarities grew in number, I decided to base my programmatic response on the potentials within the polarities, of course as an allusion to electricity as well, need I say? I realized that the focus could not be on details of everything, but rather on a strategy of bringing things (additions and existing components) together. The scale is immense and the diagrammatic layout of the site makes it even harder to grasp. The matching approach would therefore be a similarily diagrammatic abstraction initially, speaking more of fundamental flows, than filigreed details. However there was an interest of the particular and concrete as well, all the way from the start, with a continuous struggle to find a program that could fit. PRODUCTION

But rather than filling space with functions, I preferred to use an idea of “community of program”; a cluster of activities that would grow through phases and time. This community however would be based on a theme, which became research on agriculture and aquaculture, as the site is in-between the areas of these business branches. The facility further houses a range of robust spaces and potential infrastructure to become a suitable laboratory environment. The idea of an ecological debt for the nuclear industry and energy companies to pay the environment, ties past and future functions closer together. The public component has also been crucial throughout the process. The secrecy of nuclear production is over. Contemporary citizens are used to access in all parts of the society, particularly in our digital, open-source oriented world.

SEA

SITE

SOIL

Method The project process has involved site strategies, volumetric studies and beautiful bike rides in the region, parallel to a detailed mapping of particular uses, depicted in some zoom-ins. The process of phasing and reactor removal has been examined together with the studies of similar examples throughout the world. A discussion on cultural connotation, industrial heritage and future business branches of western Europe have been a continuous thread throughout. Programmatic layout 1. Recreational Route along the water 2. Aquacultural research centre with a proposed eel farm. 3. Agricultural research centre with indoor farm and biorefinery. 4. Exterior cultivation: Agriculture on former industrial ground. 5. Interactive visitor centre. RECREATION

AQUA SLU ALNARP

PRIVATE INTERESTS

This project is also a call for casting some light on a unique location and facility in Sweden. In fifty years’ time, nuclear production in Sweden will presumably belong to history. If the general strategy is to demolish and reshape the former sites, there should at least be one location that could add to the understanding of history. The comparably urban regional setting of Barsebäck, in the heart of Öresund, the striking interaction with the landscape and the volumetric assets of the facility calls for a preservation-with-alteration of this particular facility. INFORMATION

RESEARCH EXISTING STRUCTURES

Publicness and the experience of the visitor is therefore something that penetrates most aspects of this project, ranging from landscape and car parking to pedagogically laid out production processes, prominent vista points and extensive exhibition spaces.

FARMING

DESIGN PHASE EMPHASIS

reactor removal as a public spectacle One of the first issues to consider before even discuss the future destiny of the power plant is the inevitable process of removing the nuclear reactor boiling units. Currently this operation is thoroughly planned by structural and nuclear engineers and will begin the earliest in 2020. Building up the enormous crane, cutting a scar in the massive concrete walls and lifting out the 400 tones+ boiling units is indeed a once in a lifetime happening for the visitor. The dismantlement is another step in the history of the plant and a definite political consequence, both concrete and symbolic, exactly calibrated and planned as well as abruptly sublime. The cutting-in and lifting-out will indeed be a spectacular event, open for the public; a closing and inauguration run parallel and sometimes intertwined, placed along a recreational coastline track. Temporary structures and vista points are built up and road ways for the enormous Schuerle transport trailer that dramatically will cut

through the site, reshaping the ground, leaving something that was not there before, making an intervention justifiable. Buildings housing secondary functions such as offices, storage etc are demolished to a large extent to give way to the reactor removal, but also as a way to clean up the building ensemble and emphasize the landscape qualities. There will be waste and tones of debris, but not necessarily is it radioactive. A station of recycling and waste management is placed in the former depository for nuclear waste. Large quantities of building materials and interior details can readily be reused at other places or in the projects and interventions on site, an available supply for entrepreneurs and artist alike, making Barse-

MATERIALS OF BARSEBÄCK [ENTIRE FACILITY] TYPE Low and middle active [reactor components] Low active [debris, sand, concrete] Non-active [construction steel] Non-active [metal] Non-active [concrete, industrial waste, bricks]

MASS[T] 400 20 000 3500 55 000 265 000

ACTIVE WASTE 20400 TONNES

only 6 % is radioactive

NON-ACTIVE WASTE 323500 TONNES

bäck the region’s largest DIY-store. *source: Barsebäckskraft 2012

Early imagination on the reactor removal as a public spectacle.

Removal: three alternatives.

Scaping land/shaping site The power plant has a strong dialogue with its direct surroundings, partially as a consequence of volume and size. Its ‘gestalt’ should obviously not be seen as a direct response to its site. The choice of land is rather based on location; i.e. vicinity to water and infrastructure, security distance to people, but still with a regional consumer base (the CoMa-metropolitan area). The physical appearance and scale is of course also based on the function and by the elements involved in the production of energy. Each function is placed as an individual part. Thus the facility can be seen as a built diagram of energy flows, rationally and rigidly laid out in an orthogonal grid. One could question the actual rationality of this approach for the two freestanding reactor objects on the peninsula, but it is fully in line with the, at the time, state of the art Modernism-at-large approach to planning and building design. One should also take into consideration the initial plans to place four to six reactors in a row along the waterfront, which demanded a robust and expandable structure, i.e. the grid including buildings, streets and a canal. The only geometry breaking element is the wharf in the south, which in turn has a logic based on the protection of the ships from currents.

Flows+Fields: The Strait and the peninsula.

Apart from the architects Urban Gille and Carl Gustaf Svensson at Väg-och-vattenbyggnadsbyrån VBB, the famous landscape architect Per Friberg played a crucial part in the planning of the site and its surroundings. His sketches suggest a more refined attitude to the engineered monumentality with studies of how the building complex would meet the hills from distance and land in its surroundings.The grand scale is at places broken down by a planted oak forest, but still emphasized as a contrast, like a vertical landmark in the region’s dominance of horizontal

components. My reading of the site does not seem to differ too much from Friberg’s, but my programmatic alterations call for a shift in the way the landscape is treated. The buildings constitute a grid, detached from both sea, soil and society. Sea is nothing I would alter other than in the way that the waterfront is reached. It is in itself a dynamic landscape of waves and currents, flows and movement. The “soils around”, i.e. the hilly agricultural fields of the east, play a beautiful background setting, but are not fully entering the site. How do I link these soils and the sea with the site, the structure and the society? The society, as seen as the social agglomeration of people living and acting around the strait, probably find the site itself a remote, but still a particular locale, visible from afar. The potential with the interventions includes the creation of a “destination”. Fully blending the site with its surroundings thus seems like an inappropriate way, since physical boundaries cannot be neglected (water and distances) and that distance is part of the identity and quality of the place; the plant as an island. However, the remoteness should have a public component to it. There will be a possibility to visit the area for the public audience and so links of infrastructure are crucial, also for the efficiency of production and research on site. These passages and paths, regional and local, become the roots of my landscape strategy on site, defined by existing structures, interrelations and new nodes across the land.

Per Friberg’s sketches © Barsebäckskraft

ZOOMED IN FIELDS OF FLOW AND INFRASTRUCTURAL EXPANSION THROUGH TIME A study of the growth pattern in a wooden plank: The longitudinal graining is interrupted by perpendicular branch structures of much higher density. The pattern depicts a flow within the growth behaviour, where infrastructure of nutrient transport in the fibres is frozen in the finished material (the plank).

READY-MADE OBJECT An artifact of inspiration: a structural manipulation of matter, following the logics of material structure. A piece of wood, crafted by my grandfather into a pen rack decades ago. The original graining is kept in the bottom; in the other direction the core has been carved out. It could be seen as a basis for a longitudinal structure (corridor) or a vertical load bearing element (column) depending on size and location.

Site mapping: Flows+Fields

SITE: INterventions

OUTDOOR VENUES, E.G. FARMER’S MARKET

RECYCLING STATION: MATERIAL OUTLET TRANSFORMED POST DEMOLITION PROCESS

level +4

EXISTING PUMP STATION R2

EXISTING PUMP STATION R1

WATER INLET EEL FARM ARRIVAL CONDITION 1: PAVED PLAZA

Neutral

WATER INLET FARM

-ARRIVALS -TERMINAL AS A LINK -INFRASTRUCTURE AND PATHS -EEL FARM AND PUBLIC INTERFACE

WHARF: COPENHAGEN: 20KM MALMÖ: 15KM

EXHIBITION HALL

level -4

INDOOR RESEARCH FARM

ARRIVAL CONDITION 1: PILED UP HARDSCAPE 100% BUILT MATTER

ARRIVAL CONDITION 2: CARVED OUT SOFTSCAPE 10 % BUILT EDGE 90% ORGANIC WETLAND

PARKING GARAGE ARRIVAL CONDITION 2: WETLAND

WATER PURIFICATION TERRACES R2: AQUACULTURAL RESEARCH: EEL FARM

R1: AGRICULTRURAL RESEARCH BIOREFINERY

site plan 1:2000

BIRD WATCHERS’ PILE

CYCLIST’S APPROACH: BARSEBÄCKSHAMN/LANDSKRONA

EEL RESTOCKING CANAL [PARTLY PREEXISTING]

means of arrival

DRIVEWAY UNIDIRECTIONAL TRANSPORT CIRCUIT

TRAFFIC SEPARATION DELIVERY ZONE

LOGISTICS DELIVERY, EXPORT, CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL, DISPOSAL

1 2

3 CONSTRUCTION DEMOLITION

CAR DRIVERS

STAFF GUIDE, BUILDER, MAINTENANCE, SCIENTIST, FARMER, ARCHITECT DWELLER, CHEF, BUTCHER, RECEPTIONIST, MECHANIC, GARDENER

SITE IMPRESSION -HARDSCAPE PIAZZA -SOFTSCAPE PARK

INFORMATION LANDSCAPE ROUTES

VISITOR

1 CYCLIST

BY-PASSER

2 4

RECREATION

GENERIC TOURIST, CORPORATE GROUPS, NUCLEAR ACTIVIST, CYCLIST, EXPO GUEST STUDENT, PUPIL, “RECREATIONIST”, FRIEND OF NATURE, GOURMET

RAMP

OUTDOOR-OUTDOOR

OUTDOOR-INDOOR

INDOOR-OUTDOOR

INDOOR-INDOOR

INDOOR-OUTDOOR

OUTDOOR-OUTDOOR

-softscape/infrastructure separated

-interaction with existing structures

-semi-protected areas

-climate protected areas

-wetland/path separated

-movement in the landscape

-primary site entries/exits

-primarily a hardscape

-direct contact to indoor spaces

-heated directly/indirectly

-dictated movement

-recreational route

-links to external networks

-added communication systems

-parking, maintenance, delivery

-site of production, information, habitat and pleasure.

-links to external networks

-landscape routes within site.

-stripped building elements

-transportation transition zones

-some climate protection

-not heated

PARK CAR, SHIFT TO PERSONAL BIKE

-landscape routes within site.

“SEPARATION”

RAMP/TERMINAL

DRIVEWAY

“OUTSIDE”, “FIELD”

“EFFICIENCY”, “ORIENTATION”

DELIVERY ZONE/SEMI PROTECTED ENTERING BUILDING

PAVED PLAZA [NORTH]: DOMINATING HARDSCAPE

INDOOR ATTRACTIONS/PROCESSES

RECREATIONAL ROUTES

STRUCTURE ABUNDANCY

-clear borders [existing fencing a.s.f]

DESIGNATED ASPHALT TRACK RESTRAINED GREENERY OLD FENCING WITH GREEN “CLADDING”

WHARF

-outdoor farming and labs.

PROCESS RESTAURANT NUCLEAR EXPO THEATRICAL WALKS FARMER FAIR ...

ENTERING PARKING HUB

CHANGING TRANSPORT MODE

ACCESSIBLE ROOFSCAPE

-site for demolition and recycling of materials. “OUTSIDE”, “SEA”

INDOOR ATTRACTIONS/PROCESSES

WETLAND [SOUTH]: DOMINATING SOFTSCAPE

CHANGE OF TRANSPORT MODE DRIVERS, COACH PASSENGERS

MOTORIST’S ARRIVAL

1. Arriving by car is based on previous conditions, through the driveway in the north. Debris is relocated and turned into an artificial, terracing hardscape, creating a drivable topography for various events, including farmer’s markets.

CYCLISTS SAYLORS

TRANSPORT CIRCUIT

EVENTS AND INFO

“SECURITY”, “ENTIY”,

CYCLIST’S/SAYLOR’S ARRIVAL

2. Coming with bike or boat, the approach is from the south, via an elevated fottpath system, through a soft topography of wetland character. Land is here used for both agriculture and a natural resource. This is a smooth threshold for people coming from the water or the recreational path.

organizational diagrams

The existing structures are kept volumetrically intact, with vast interventions in the interior. The new programme and the removal of the reactors call for a new structural and organizational order. The rectangular block in the north (1) is a robust hall in a prominent location. Devices for parking are combined with punctuations in the roof, creating structures of light. The two reactors with associated turbine halls are treated diametrically different. R2 gets a replacement of structure in order to support a central void. A horizontal layering of slabs is based on existing floors. Its turbine hall (3) is converted to a vast exhibition hall. Their character is public and open.

The idea is to signify the new structural elements and create a family of similars, all of them doing more than just carring a load. The design proposal treats R2 and the new linking element.

R1 on the other hand is a building for utility and production, summarized as “bio refinery“ here. Vertical structuring enables tall equipment and devices including mills, tanks and boilers. Its turbine hall turns into a layered indoor experimental farm, run by artificial lighting.

restructuring the reactor

CURRENT LAYOUT/STRUCTURE TYPICAL PLAN AND SECTION CURRENT LAYOUT/STRUCTURE TYPICAL PLAN AND SECTION

2. REACTOR REMOVAL = NEW STRUCTURAL REACTOR REMOVAL = NEW STRUCTURAL A NEW SUPPORTIVE FREEDOM FREEDOM A NEW CORE=SPATIAL SUPPORTIVE CORE=SPATIAL ORDERS NEEDED ORDERS NEEDED EXISTING WALLS= ORGANIZATIONAL ASSETS EXISTING WALLS= ORGANIZATIONAL ASSETS

the terminal as a linking element: conceptual contributions

CURRENT STATUS

MONUMENTALIZING WALL Using existing structures as new entry conditions, following original logic of organization.

ENTRIES IN NORTH AND SOUTH INTRODUCED Infrastructural link stressed.

SUBTRACTION FOR REACTOR REMOVAL

DOUBLE CROSSED CORRIDORS Multiple entries introduced.

WATERFRONT THOROUGHFARE Site as part of a regional link, parallel to Öresund.

A sort of tabula rasa condition occurs as ancillary functions are removed. As a collection of solitudes, the facility is however not efficient enough. A reunification process starts.

FACILITY CLEANED FROM ANCILLARY VOLUMES Main functions enhanced through volumetric purity.

MAT BUILDING WITH CENTRAL ENTRY ACCESS. New volume subordinated

LINKED TERMINALS Plugged-in spaces along infrastructure

The addition of structures could be carried out in several different ways, due to the simple robustness of the reactors. A horizontal structure with “ground control”, built along the waterfront, however turned out to be a solution that was elaborated further. A contrasting grand structure turned out to be a relevant approach to meet the monumentality of the original buildings. The link was studied as both a tectonic entity made up of a repetitive system and a stereotomic lump that successively was carved out. An in-between solution was further developed, as a link in a landscape strategy for the entire site. Indoor and outdoor, up and down, merges in order to support the juxtaposed character of program and movement on site. Supportive devices were introduced as sculptural elements that could define spaces.

retrospective study: formal and structural evolution

INDUSTRIAL REPETITION: Mimicing original organization

CARVED OUT CONTRAST Block geometry with variation

INFRASTRUCTURAL NETWORK Communications introduced and juxtaposed.

UNDULATING BLOCKS

LAYERED CAKE Emphasizing horizontality, departuring from building form.

SUPPORTIVE DEVICES Organizing, multifunctional elements of grand scale.

RINGS AND ARCS Introducing a new repetitive locic with multifunctional members: communication, wind turbines, solar energy harnessing etc.

WOODEN LOG WITH EXPANDING BRANCHES Biological connotations and allution to growth through time.

INTERTWINED LANDSCAPE Building as land, land as building.

WATER INLET EEL FARM ARRIVAL CONDITION 1: PAVED PLAZA

WATER INLET FARM

WHARF: COPENHAGEN: 20KM MALMÖ: 15KM

EXHIBITION HALL

INDOOR RESEARCH FARM

PARKING GARAGE ARRIVAL CONDITION 2: WETLAND

WATER PURIFICATION TERRACES R2: AQUACULTURAL RESEARCH: EEL FARM

R1: AGRICULTRURAL RESEARCH BIOREFINERY

BIRD WATCHERS’ PILE

42 EEL RESTOCKING CANAL [PARTLY PREEXISTING]

pARKING GARAGE DIAGRAM 1:800/Long section 1:400

2. 6.

Parking as a spectacle: dramatizing the motoristâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s arrival

W w

A ramp takes you further up in the complex, built arround an existing water cistern. 5.

Parking garage diagram 1:600 1. Arrival from the plaza 2. Car check-in 3. Bike depot 4. Ramp to terminal 5. Car delivery machine 6. Existing water tank 7. Exit to recreational route

Structural tree with cultivation pond for eel fodder algae. Leave your car, get a bike! 44

Aquacultural expo/info

Ă&#x2013;resund panorama

long section 1:400

Green wall close-up

Window slots are inserted according to original wall graphics as a reinterpretation of the facade scheme.

n the complex, built ern.

Eel restocking as public event.

Structural tree with cultivation pond for eel fodder algae.

e! 46

Aquacultural expo/info

Bird habitat where droppings are collected and used as fertilizer in the fields

Aquacultural expo

Atomicultural expo

Structural tree with vertical communication and ventilation funnel.

Agricultural expo/info

EXTERIOR IMPPRESSION FROM THE WEST: LANDSCAPE AND BUILDING INTERTWINE, LIKE ENERGY PRODUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

ACROSS THE TERMINAL

Conceptual image: Movement is intertwined with energy producing systems as a visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reminder of the power of nature and the immense infrastructures associated with the harnessing of energy.

1:400

INTERIOR IMPRESSION FROM THE INFORMATION HUB AT R2 (AQUACULTURE). A STRUCTURAL TREE ACTS AS SPATIAL ORGANIZER AS WELL AS VERTICAL COMMUNICTION. SPIRAL PIPES LEAD DOWN TO DELIVERY/GOODS ZONE BELOW. REACTOR STRUCTURE TO THE LEFT. 56

1:400

Rooftop landscape level +114,5m

impression from the public roof terrace on R1 with a new access structure.

AERIAL VIEW FROM NORTH, LOOKING TOWARDS MALMÖ: THE WATERFRONT IS EXPERIENCED SLIGHTLY FROM ABOVE THE ROOFSCAPE PATH.

eels are sorted and distributed to either spawning, restocking or butchery

eels are also fast-bred in lab environment for research

eels are smoked in the former chimney for domestic and external consumption

FACTORS TO CONTROL AND OPTIMIZE LIFE CYCLE AND MATURITY

THE EEL AND EEL FARMING*

MEMBERS OF OPPOSITE SEX

MAGNETIC FIELD

FOOD SUPPLY

SWIM DISTANCE

EUROPEAN EEL, IN ITS NATURAL HABITAT:

SALT CONTENT

SECTION OF R2 SCALE: 1:150

2. 90+YRS

1.VISITOR BALCONY

the scientist is working in a fully day-lit space, continously supervising the eels. All is under the surveillance of the visitor

2.LABORATORIES 3.RESEARCH PONDS

+/-

YELLOW EEL

ELVER

SILVER EEL

SPAWNING

GLASS EEL

BIRTH

LARVAE

NO DIET: METABOLI

SM ALTERED TO SW

IM STATE. ENERGY CON

MATURATION

SUMPTION OPTIMIZED

23YRS

0KM

DISTANCE

ENVIRONMENT

DIET/STATE

SWIM

The long swim distanc e is a crucial phase in the maturity process of the eel. Obtaining sexu ally mature eel in captivit y has been proved diffi cult. Hence, the current eel farming is not increas ing the number of eel individu als. Thus it is not sust ainable. BIRTH

TEMP: +22° SALINITY: 3.6%

SWIM

H SARGASSO SEA

SPAWNING

INSECTS, SMALL FIS

DEATH

After 6 weeks, the larvae are transferred to vessels via a vacuum pump system.

COLONIZATION

BODY BUILDING

FRY

SPAWNING

WORMS, PLANKTON,

11. STAFF COMMUNICATION 12. ATLANTIC OCEAN

14. DELIVERY 15. EEL EXCERCISE PIPE 16. AUDITORIUM

17. SARGASSO SPAWNING

18. LABS 19. EEL VACUUM PUMP

20. EEL HOSPICE

11.

movement of people and eels follow the same spiral route. At places they interact, at others their lives go separate, still parallell

10.

12.

direct restocking to Öresund for silver eels through terminal and canal.

15.

SALT WATER

MIXED CARNIVORE:

MIGRATION

laborartory ponds and spawning ground are made from existing carved out concrete slabs in order to simulate the eel's natural habitat and creating shelter.

13. GARDEN EXIT

14. Eels are born at the spawning ground below the auditorium.

SWIM

LIFE CYCLE

*See Preface IV for more information and precedents. 62

AE DEBRIS

10. FLY-OVER TO EXHIBITION HALL

external restocking of eels export of eels and eel products.

Larvae are manually collected by scientists and placed in quarantine.

‘MARINE SNOW’: ALG

12.

TEMP: +15° SALINITY: 3.0%

6500KM

ATLANTIC OCEAN

0KM

MIGRATION

"MARINE SNOW": ALGAE DEBRIS

DISTANCE:

GLASS EEL

eels are regularly transferred from vessel to vessel for simulation exercises and in order to prevent cannibalism.

ÖRESUND/BALTIC SEA SWEDISH LAKES/RIVERS/ESTUARIES

STATE/DIET:

6500KM

MIGRATION

BALTIC SEA

TEMPERED BRACKISH WATER

ATLANTIC OCEAN

eels are exercised by swimming in counter-current pipes throughout the facility

3YRS

NO DIET: METABOLISM ALTERED TO SWIM STATE. ENERGY CONSUMPTION OPTIMIZED

ELVER

9. EELS AWAITING BUTCHERY (BUTCHERY BEHIND)

MATURATION

20YRS

BRACKISH WATER TEMP: +11° SALINITY: 0.2-0.8%

Some individuals stay in rivers or are held in captivity whe re their growth continu e. The world’s oldest eel is 153 years old and founf in Brantevik [S].

>90YRS

7. NORDIC WATERS 8. TERMINAL ROOF GARDEN/EEL SHOP

SILVER EEL 20YRS

FRESH WATER

SARGASSO SEA

RIVERS AND ESTUARIES

YELLOW EEL

FRESH WATER TEMP: +8° SALINITY: 0.2%

DEATH

6. RESTAURANT

COLONIZATION

TEMPERED SALT WATER

TEMPERATURE

3YRS

~23YRS

ENVIRONMENT:

PRESSURE

MIXED CARNIVORE: PLANKTON, WORMS, SMALL FISH

EUROPEAN EEL, AN GUILL A ANGUILA LIFE CYCLE IN NATU RAL HABITAT:

4.VISITOR ELEVATOR 5. KITCHEN

DIRECTION + FLOW

13.

Effectively filling the void and permitting the dark conditions suitable for spawning

16.

18.

19.

17.

20.

Eel fodder from crushed mussels. The mussels are in turn used to purify waste water from nutrients.

A full life cycle takes 3-20 years depending on treatment. Estimation based on precedent examples.

LEVEL 103M [0]: DELIVERY

LEVEL 91M [-2]: SPAWNING GROUND

12.

10.

11.

1. Spawning ground: pool carved out from existing concrete 2. Arrival pipe: Mature eels 3. Shallow bay: Dead eels are collected post spawning 4. Surviving eels are manually transported to "Eel hospice" vessel 5. Water treatment: Temp: +22°C, Salinity: 3,6% 6. Elver Quarantine/laboratory 250 m² 7. Surveillance balcony 8. Elevators 9. Staff 10. Export vessel 11. Naturally deceased eels are butchered and cremated in a special chimney 12. Furnace One 13. Vaccum pump system (pumped to Atlantic Ocean)

LEVEL 111,5M [+2]: “ATLANTIC OCEAN”

3. 1. Delivery route (existing corridor) 2. Delivery zone 3. Exit to park 4. Auditorium skylight 5. Eel ramp pipe 6. Information 7. Auditorium ramp shaft 8. Ramp to terminal/upper levels 9. Mussel mill+shaft 10. Aquatic ponds

10.

20M

Reactor R2 1:500

5. Food supply

1. Silver eels (mature) 2. Restocking pipe 3.Water Treatment Temp: +15°C Salinity: 3,0% 4. Mussel flour (food supply) 5. Fry vessels 6. Fry short distance exercise 7. Vacuum system from quarantine/ to upper floors 8. Fry adaptation sluice with marine debris supply (initial diet) 9. Size sorting/regular redistribution 10. Wood supply 11. Furnace Two

Movement induced by scent

13.

LEVEL ~116,5M [+3]: “TERRACE”

LEVEL 96M [-1]: AUDITORIUM

LEVEL 107M [+1]: TERMINAL 1.

1. Staff corridor 2. Technical/utility space 3. Ramp from auditorium (see terminal plan) 4. Void 5. Eel pipe

114m

1. Auditorium theatre 2. Foyer and ramp 3. Balcony down to spawning ground 4. Storage 5. Visitor elevator 6. Staff elevator

1. 2.

1. Exit to exhibition hall 2. Eel product shop 3. Exit to roof landscape 4. Eels awaiting butchery (no food) 5. Staff 6. Butchery 7. Smokehouse 8. Roof top landscape 9. Water retention pond 10. Bike transportation of eels

116,5m 2. 4.

5. 4. 3.

10.

LEVEL 121,5M [+4]: “NORDIC WATERS”

0M 5.

20M

1. Elver vessels 2. Vacuum pump from below 3. Size sorting 4. Exercise pipes 5. Yellow eel vessels reminiscent of Swedish rivers 6. Food supply 7. Existing shaft 8. Water treatment: Temp: +10°C Salinity: 0,2-0,8% 9. Viewing platform, slightly raised

Reactor R2 1:500

3. 3.

LEVEL ~136,5M [+6]: LABORATORIES

4. 3.

1. Lab cubicles 2. Research pond carved out from existing concrete 3. Staff 4. Offices 5. Void 6. Visitor balcony [+146m]

INTERIOR IMPRESSION FROM THE AUDITORIUM, LOOKING UP THROUGH THE ATRIUM.

LEVEL 126,5M [+5]: RESTAURANT

1. Restaurant 2. Mezzanin 3. Kitchen

3. 2.

INTERIOR IMPRESSION ALONG THE REACTOR RAMP.

INTERIOR IMPRESSION FROM THE VISITOR BALCONY TOWARDS THE LABS. 68

SOIL+SEA

GBG/OSLO

SAXTORP

vicinity

15000M: LANDSKRONA

J:24 DÖSJEBRO

ÅLSTORP JÄRAVALLEN

KÄVLINGE

HOFTERUP

BARSEBÄCK GOLF COURSE

BARSEBÄCK CASTLE

CENTER SYD

BARSEBÄCK CAMPING+BEACH

3200M

J:23

LÖDDEKÖPINGE

A study of the local community map reveals a rather typical European rural-suburban environment, shaped and nurtured by its proximity to Copenhagen/Malmö with sufficient road and rail infrastructures, today basically flowing north-south. The municipality of Kävlinge, bordering Landskrona, Lund and Lomma, has for long been a railway hub. Historically six lines crossed the area and met in the town of Kävlinge, which is still symbolized in the municipality’s coat of arms. There was even one line serving the harbour in Barsebäckshamn, mainly used as transport for agricultural products, but it was closed and removed in 1954. More important today is the E6/E20 highway artery, connecting the area to the three capitals of Scandinavia as well as Malmö. Historically, the waterfront location has been an important locus for shipping, with physical traces of harbour activity from the 950 AD at Löddeån’s

estuary. Traces of Neolithic settlements could also be found at Gillhög. Today commercial shipping and trade has been replaced by marinas for leisure and pleasure. Apart from the nine residential islands that have expanded rapidly since the mid 70s, most of the area is represented by farmlands and open fields. The total population of the area is around 30000. The nuclear power plant used to be an important employer, but now small scale industries, businesses and farms are making up the local economy. However many people seem to commute to other locations within the CoMa metropolitan area. The supersized shopping mall of Center Syd swallows many of the commercial activities.

GILLHÖG

1600M

600M

BORGEBY CASTLE

BARSEBÄCKSHAMN

J:22 SALVIKEN

6600M

LÖDDEÅN

2600M

5300M

72 0m

1. WWII bunker at Barsebäckshamn. 2. Bird watching tower in Bjärred. 3. Foot path at Löddeån estuary. 4. The Church in Barsebäck.

VIKHÖG

20000M: CPH C

BJÄRRED

LÖDDE KAR 800m

1600m

15000M: MALMÖ C

14000M: SLU ALNARP

6300M

J:21

2600m: barsebäckhamn north

4600m: approaching from north , järavallen

MOTORIST’s approach 1600m: saltvik

600m: rörbäck

2600m: stubbvik 2800m: gillhög

3200m: barsebäck village junction

6600m: e6/e20 junction 22 Borgeby

The automobile driver approaches the power plant from the east, inevitably. The main road from Löddeköpinge is connected to the highway E6/E20. Arriving from the southern direction (Malmö), the facility is hardly visible. After leaving the highway, the road leads you in a direct planar cut from the rural, open landscape, pointing at Barsebäckshamn. The experience is however more that you go around the plant, due to the topographical conditions. A seemingly over dimensioned side road in Barsebäckshamn leads you to the plant. Surprisingly, the buildings shrink in monumental grandeur as you come closer. The arrival is apparently designed with utility in mind and not landmark or awe, which is something of a relief after the landscape drama just experienced. There is also the possibility to reach the site from the historical

settlements of Gillhög in the south east. Via a winding gravelled country road one is making the most beautiful of entries, descending from slightly above. The winds are strong most of the time, making the journey “strong”. Before arriving at the plant, one passes through a planted forest, a rudimentary structure based on the original landscape concept by Per Friberg. The idea was to integrate the whole facility with its surroundings by trees. The road here confronts the fascinating transformer station, where the final consumer product was created, and the still active gas turbine

1600m: barsebäckhamn junction

4200m: bro, löddeköpinge

10600m: e6/e20 approaching from landskrona

station is located.

cyclist’s approach

5300m: nature reserve at the estuary of löddeån

2600m: salviken nature reserve, vikhög

6300m: nya bjärred

3600m: Löddesborg, vikhög

7300m: bjärreds kallbadhus

4600m: väståker farm

Approaching by foot or bike is a less straight journey than for the motorist, in terms of directions and turns. However you are constantly guided by the topographical relations in the landscape, the gestalt of the reactors and the presence of the sea. Peculiar is the way the buildings emerge and disappear during the way. Sometimes a present landmark seen from afar, but at moments all you see of the buildings are the 100 m+ chimney tops sticking up behind the hills of fields. Along the way from the south are two nature reserves, accessible and designed with public awareness.

The north-south bound, intuitively laid out, seaside promenade of Bjärred abruptly ends in the wetlands around the estuary of Lödde å. In order to continue, one has to make a detour, passing the township of Löddeköpinge and crossing the E20/E6 highway twice before finally heading the straight direction at Vikhög. The highly picturesque village of Vikhög is located on the foot of a slightly raised peninsula (+12m AMSL), making the area a prominent spectator of what is happening at Barsebäck. A piece of water, Salviken, separates the two.

Remarks It should be mentioned that no matter of how you reach the site, the facility is constantly turning its back, represented by the turbine halls, by its slight tilt towards north-west and Öresund. Or does a windowless complex in fact have a real back and front? In any case its main facade and characteristic face is the western facade, for sure, with the exposed reactors with striped metal coating. The tilting relative north-south and the general coast instead makes it almost aiming towards Denmark (in that sense Stig Helmer was right), or at least looking that way, in all its abstract rational cubiality. For most of the day, as clearly can be seen in the pictures, is that the solar condition makes the buildings draped in their own shadow, perhaps enhancing a

monumental, or even ominous, ambiance. A possible conclusion is also that any additions or subtractions from the main volumes (the reactors) will, unless humungous, be fairly invisible from the landside, no matter of size or shape. The rather natural idea of announcing a change in use thus has to be considered from another perspective than the new buildings on site. More effective ways could instead involve the facades themselves and the infrastructural design and accessibility to the site.

LANDSCAPE READING FIELDS

LÖDDEKÖPINGE

GILLHÖG

1600M

600M

BORGEBY CASTLE

BARSEBÄCKSHAMN

6600M

J:22 SALVIKEN

LÖDDEÅN

2600M VIKHÖG

20000M: CPH C

5300M

BJÄRRED

The quality of a link close to the sea is not only a consequence of the scenic view. Along the coast is an array of small towns, villages and settlements, growing due to their proximity to the sea and major communications (car and public). Apart from attractions connected to water, as beaches and wharfs, the landstrip between Bjärred and the power plant at Barsebäck also houses two important wetland nature reserves, serving a population of birds and insects. It seems to be a recreational quality for the people of Bjärred to have this resource just adjacent to their dwellings. A similar condition would do also for the expanding areas of Löddeköpinge. Larger residential areas mean an increased burden for

This route also connects potential attractions such as the castles in Barsebäck and Borgeby, the retirees of Lomma with the golf course in Barsebäck and ancient reminiscent as the Neolithic passage tomb at Gillhög with the Viking traces of a harbour at Löddeån, Lödde kar. Apart from routes and passages at the power plant site, the strategy includes a new bridge crossing Lödde å and a slightly shifted track at Vikhög, with sideways to Löddeköpinge/Kävlinge. Crucial is also a landscape treatment that permits the natural development of wetlands and fields grazing land for cattle. Most of these are

THROUGH

the wildlife, which in turn should be responded by a corresponding belt of nature, continuing along the coast. This will also serve as a refuge and counteract to the rapid privatization of land that is going on further south towards Malmö, e.g. in Lomma.

LANDSCAPE RIDGE PLANTED TREES ADMINISTRATIVE BORDERS

MISCELLENEOUS DISTANT LANDMARKS MALMÖ SKYLINE WIND TURBINES SOLITARY TREES

STRANDS

1600m

15000M: MALMÖ C

14000M: SLU ALNARP

ÖRESUND BRIDGE

RIDGES

J:21

6300M LOMMA

MALMÖ/CPH MALMÖ/CPH

ASCEND/DESCEND

800m

SEPARATED ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE RIVERS&DITCHES JUNCTIONS

pre-existing.

LÖDDE KAR 0m

WATERFRONT

FENCING

ALONG

J:23

The more the surroundings were studied, the clearer evolved an urge for an infrastructural link near the water. Cars and road traffic already have their designated route in the interregional E6/E20. For other means of transport, e.g. bikes and pedestrians, alternative routes are scarce and only secondary. A new link would attach to existing roads to a large extent in order to save as much land as possible, and will in the long term connect Landskrona and Malmö, creating a unique track for commuting, tourism and recreation is one of the region’s most beautiful landscapes.

ACROSS

casting a Regional route

CENTER SYD

BARSEBÄCK

3200M

MEADOWS

TOWARDS

BARSEBÄCK CASTLE

WETLANDS

BEACHES

HILLS VISTAS

RIVER DELTA

79 COAST LINE

LUND/TRELLEBORG

Information post with tactile lettering Light gravel

Spot light

Corten edge Bitumen gravel

Corten border

the route: events+elongations

Rice/Bamboo [RESEARCH CROPS] ASEA Turbine Cap [INDUSTRIAL HERITAGE] Components of the power plant are disposed and exposed along the track, sometimes explained through signs, but at others left as ambigious alien artefacts.

New fields of cultivation with novel crops are placed around the former power plant as part of the new argricultural research programme. The visitor is introduced to new plants, harvesting methods and research results of the facility.

Phragmites [LOCAL FLORA] The track is leading the visitor through fields and wetlands, trying to alter as little as possible of the existing condition by marking a sharp edge to the vulnerable softscapes.

1500MM 2500MM

Along the elongated route are objects and events, used for information and orientation. The idea is the displacement of debris traces from the nuclear power plant, sometimes used as sculptures in their original shape, at others reconfigured by artists or totally transformed into functional furniture. The interventions follow 1000m radii from the plant, spreading out onto the landscape, contrasting and interacting with the fields and the sea, somehow alluding the security distances associated with the former use.

Brown Harrier, Circus aeruginosus [LOCAL FAUNA] The area is a popular habitat for various bird species. It offers a variety of nature types, from wetland to agriculture. The area is also an important transport node for migrating flocks during spring and autumn, such as common crane.

LANDSKRONA JÄRAVALLEN

ack g a tr

on rmati

and

ation

recre

for in

VIKHÖG

BARSEBÄCK

ducin

Intro

LOMMA

BJÄRRED

MALMÖ

Neolithic tomb [LOCAL HERITAGE]

Traces from ancient settlements in the area are revieled and connected, making a historical lattice of juxtaposed objects, from tombs and Viking harbours, to 17th century castles and concrete bunkers of the WWII period.

Landscape as well as pedestrians and cyclists are separated with a simple corten strip. The bike path has a slightly solid bitumen treated gravel coverage, while the pedestrian track has a softer gravel surface. Radial distance to the epicentre at Barsebäck in written text.

The orientational matter-of-fact of the open landscape makes it possible to work less with signs and more with sightlines, natural edges and the silhouettes of the horizon. 81

2000m-3000m [NE/E]: SALVIKEN/VIKHÖG RECYCLING: PIPES AS SEATS, EIGHT STAIRS AS SWIMMING PIER/VISTA POINT

DEBRIS+DISPLACEMENT

1000m

2000m

3000m-5000m [NNE]: BARSEBÄCKSTRAND ARTWORKS BY INVITED ARTISTS BASED ON RECYCLED MATERIALS

5000m-6000m [NE/SE]: HIGHWAY ACCENTS RECYCLING: TURBINE ELEMENTS

4000m-5000m [SE]: LÖDDEEÅN ESTUARY/RIVER DELTA: BRIDGE+EXPANSION OF WETLAND RECYCLING: GANTRIES

Löddeköpinge

C 3.

Barsebäck

CROSS SECTIONS 1:400| ELEVATION/PLAN 1:1000 1. Embankment, crushed concrete 3. 2x Recycled Steel Gantry [32x3x0.5m] 2. Fundament, recycled bricks 4. Gravel 100mm 5. Railing cc 2500mm

Bjärred

the recycled gantry bridge at löddeån, connecting bjärred with barsebäck.

THE ÖRESUND STRAIT ELLIPSE

A/ BJ

ÄR

1. Kärnan Tower 55 m AMSL 2. Landskrona Old Water Tower 66 m AMSL 3. Landskrona New Water Tower 69 m AMSL 4. Barsebäck Reactor 1 & 2 59/108 m AMSL 5. Turning Torso 190 m AMSL 6. Kronprinsen 82 m AMSL 7. Hilton Malmö City 69 m AMSL 8. Öresund Bridge [Pylons] 204 m AMSL 9. Ferring International 80 m AMSL 10. Bella Sky Hotel 65 m AMSL 11. Radisson Hotel 86 m AMSL 12. Herlev Hospital 120 m AMSL Cultural institution/tourist spot General higher academy Centre for Agricultrual research and training Infrastrucutral node

LO MM

inh

ab .

BARS

EBÄC K

.0 800 in

hab.

ab.

inh

(SCALES AT A3 PRINT)

0.0

0 in

.00

100.000 inha

b. HELSINGBO

000

60.0

ab.

inh

KAS T ØRE RUP STA D

SOCIETY: ZOOM OUT+project CONLUSION

0.0 0

inh

. ab 0 .00

inh

1:100000

1:400000

1:80000/1:20000 [Buildings]

NIV Å

ÆK EB ML ANA I UIS LO

HEL

LER

inh

10.0

00 in

hab.

TE OF T NT OR GE EP RR NØ

inh

HA G

INGØ

HELS

0 inha

30.00

BARSEBÄCK VS. MALMÖ CITY

BARSEBÄCK VS. LUND CITY

STORTORGET

LUNDAGÅRD

MÅRTENSTORGET

GUSTAV ADOLFS TORG

Early conceptual timeline storystrip, imagining developments through time. Handwritten notes on photoshop collage.

A comment on Kävlinge Municipality’s vision of the area

Vision of Barsebäck Sjöstad, Kävlinge Kommun 2008.

“Imagine a trip in the future... The view from Gillhög is magnificent. There is something tranquil, yet grand with the wide fields and the beautiful Öresund. Your eyes are caught by an area boiling of activity down at the waterfront. [...]Our idea is a seaside area expanding from a public quay, lined with restaurants and shops. Fully developed this ‘Pearl of Öresund’ will have about 3000 inhabitants. Our vision is a dense residential environment with attractive dwellings, mixed with high-class office premises and conference facilities. In the vicinity we see the four reactors of the world’s most high-tech nuclear power plant, distributing a large part of the Öresund area with environmentally friendly energy and district heat. In order to reach the site efficiently we are planning a public rail connection that will connect Barsebäck Sjöstad (~Barsebäck Seaside) with Kävlinge town. North-southbound railway tracks are also planned. “ From Kävlinge Kommun: Med segel mot framtiden (Municial vision of 2008) Tr. into English

Actual view from the site looking towards Malmö, February 2012.

Apart from being a vision of the future and not a legal document (however signed by the directors of the Municipality Board), this quote has to be commented upon. The realism of the project vision can be questioned. Building a high-dense residential development in the same style as the BO01 area in Malmö seems to me more utopian than using the actual buildings for industrial/ scientific purposes. The buildings depicted in the illustration does not take into consideration the remote and rural setting of the site. Instead they have literally magnified the size of the Malmö skyline and the Öresund bridge. I also wonder where the futuristic energy production is taking place. There is also a contradiction in the way that the new development is mixed with nuclear energy production. It does not seem to be a good analysis of the potential waterfront loving dwellers and is also not practically or politically possible. However it is interesting how the municipality promotes a mixed use programme and see the potential of the prominent location at Barsebäck, as well as stresses the importance of good infrastructures. In this sense we share a common conclusion. The current possible use of the site, legally, is still “Industry“ according to the zoning (Detaljplan).The land use strategy (ÖP 2010) of Kävlinge from 2010 describes the planned and ex-

pected developments from 2010 to 2025. It states that one of the main goals is the creation of “attractive dwellings”. One of the projects includes the removal of the nuclear power plant. However, most developments should be planned along railway or bus routes. The authoritative response (Utställningsutlåtande 2010) from the same year criticizes the lack of strategy to increase the attraction towards the municipality through cultural and recreational investments. There is for example no strategy for handling the coastline areas. When it comes to the particular project of Barsebäck Sjöstad, the response is asking for a strategy to handle possible values of industrial-cultural heritage or natural resources around. Due to the long dismantling process of the reactors and the remote location lacking public transport routes, they do not see the project in total as realistic (p.3). Despites these aspects and disputes among the political parties (Ziegerer 2010) and the energy companies (Thomasson 2009) the municipality ratified the plan in February 2010, which will be the administrative guiding tool the next fifteen years. To me it seems that Kävlinge wants to get rid of the power plant silhouette as quickly as possible, simple by ignoring its mere existence. Possibly this is a shared opinion by many of the residents of the area.

However the potential consequence is that no further inquiries of the value of the facility will be carried out, and so a total demolition will be the (devastating) end result. And so the municipality has lost one of its unique locales, apart from the comparably generic golf courses, highways and picturesque windmills.

References: Kävlinge Översiktsplan, ÖP 2010, 2010 Översiktsplan för Kävlinge, Utställningsutlåtande 2010 Thomasson Therese, Myndigheter nobbar sjöstad, Sydsvenskan 2009-04-27 Ziegerer Jessica, Ja till framtidsplan trots kritik, Sydsvenskan 2010-02-12

emelie One evening in the middle of the project, I met a girl at a party. She was studying landscape architecture and originated from Vikhög, just south of the plant. I told her about my thesis project and I became very enthusiastic as I saw it as an opportunity to ventilate my ideas to a local, yet professional. Alas it did not turn out very well. Emelie, I think that was her name, immediately started to talk with passionate fury about that complete scar in her vicinity, constantly guarding her activities (almost like a person it seemed). She could possibly see a preservation as justified from a purely academic point of view, but not at all in realistic terms. “It is just too loaded, charged with memories, and pure ugliness… I don’t want to discuss it further”. It almost felt as if I had suggested a Disneyland in Chernobyl for a former citizen of Pripyat. I tried calm her down, described the new programme and public interface, but she remained impossible to convince. Was this a general opinion among Vikhögers and other citizens in the surrounding area? It was a bit hard to imagine as today almost everything was visually affected by the chimneys in the horizon. Wasn’t 35 years of existence enough? I could take the argument of ugliness, but if this was a public opinion that consequently would lead to consequences, hardly any structure of the late Modernistic period would remain in a few years. However I felt a bit sorry, sad that connotations and opinions could be so strong around a mere factory of electricity that has operated almost flawlessly for thirty years. Of course a part of me and my project was affected and I decided to keep it in mind during the rest of my project. 94

the end And then: thesis conclusion and project continuation On my design I wanted to make a particular move, directing a particular scenario that could match the extreme site and at the same time contrast to it. The outcome should be seen as a speculative site and progamme study. How do you do it when you can do whatever you want? Urban scale questions turning to mere planning was not my interest or even competence. I suppose a whole city could be squeezed in on the site, but according to my architectural analysis, this is not something desireable for the site. The introduction of the fairly speculative eel farm should be seen as ONE alternative as to house a new research institution attuned to the idea of sea-site-soil, rather than the absolutely perfect answer to the programmatic issues of the former power plant. Industrial production and scientific activity however, still seems like a plausible and realistic way of treating the facility. For an intervention of this magnitude to be built, extensive calculations and external funding must be executed, which both are beyond the task of this thesis. The landscape aspect of the project came to have a much more important role in the result than initially expected, both due to increased knowledge and interest during the process, but also as a way to handle scale and go beyond master planning towards something more specific and less diagrammatic. The final design proposal certainly raises some questions,

some of which I would like to clarify: -What was worth saving in the former plant and why? I found landscape qualities of the existing plant, mainly its silhouette, which was also a symbol that evoked fear. Demolition is necessary on some parts, others are not really worth saving and were designed as temporary pavilions. Their life length is over. -How was the landscape handled, why? The site and the scale touch landscape and infrastructure more than building. Walking up a mountain or driving along a highway is something totally different than walking in a building corridor. I tried to work with the former and thus topography and movement became important. -Why did you leave one whole reactor from intervention while adding a brand new structure? I thought that utility should still have space, with the reactor’s vertical qualities as functional assets. I am inviting the public to one reactor and leave one for process and production. Excess heat from R1 is also transferred to the eel farm in R2. Visitors can also enjoy a magnificent view of the rooftop terrace of R1, via a rather exciting lift journey through the bioreactor. -Why adding the terminal? A horizontal infrastructure bridging the different activi-

ties was necessary. Incorporating it with the regional path proved to be favorable. Letting access from inside and out to be extended excited me. Also as an answer to the already immense scale of the facility, the bike felt more like a means of transport than foot. -What drove the design of the terminal? The design is the result of a series of alternations, based upon an oblong, stretchy shape that wants to be less corridor building and more a landscape ridge. It includes the harnessing of energy as a practical asset of the windy conditions of site, but also as an important reminder of the structures and efforts it takes to produce our daily electrical needs. The idea of contrast was not a tool to depart from the silhouette or pure volumetric of the plant, but rather a way to stress it and mark a programmatic evolution inside. Technology and construction was further underlined on the inside, as if the visitor is moving through a machine. From the outside an agricultural cultivation terrace, from the inside a fierce machine. It is up to the visitor to choose the journey through. -Why is the terminal so large? It incorporates infrastructure and exhibitions. Volumetrically, it plays a similar game as the reactors in size and appearance. Size also makes it flexible for future needs and expansion possibilities.

Topical relevance Barsebäck should be seen as just the first of a number of immense nuclear power plants that will have to be considered the coming decade. The life span of many reactors is coming to an end and political decisions in e.g. Germany stresses the abandonment of facilities even quicker. These sites inevitably need special considerations and treatment, due to their radioactive use, as well as fierce skepticism from the public calling for absolute clearance. This theis however is trying to encourage that an extra thought should also be spent on how these facilities could actually be opened up as spatial resources with unique architectural qualities for a robust range of activities and again be connected to the networks of society. I wanted to work and handle the negative associations around the nuclear facility, not by turning “flower power” and reject the

past but to prove that technology and science are still crucial tools in the way we help and fruitfully gain from nature.

The practical issues around nuclear power plant revitalization are indeed considerable. However there are also emotional expectations and strong cultural connotations involved, making it in many ways impossible to even discuss a second life for these places. This project has tried to consider and respect, but not fully accept such prejudices. An initial question was whether fear could be dealt with and incorporated in contemporary architectural discourse and not neglected in favour of commercialism and a “happy-land” mentality. From one of my precedents that I came to visit during a study trip to Ruhr, Germany, the Wunderland Kalkar, I saw the latter, but I do think there are alternative ways to deal with our nuclear present and past.

REFERENCES+APPENDICES

Appendix a: Before and after Picture series

2012 98

2020 2030 99

appendix b: eel farm visit: scandinavian silver eel, hbg

WATER PROCESS 1985-1992

WATER PROCESS SINCE THE MID-90s

TOTAL PRODUCTION: 150.000 kg/year ANNUAL FEED: 210.000 kg [pellets, fish oil, fish flour] [1,4 kg feed/kg meat] COMMERCIAL PRODUCTION: 45.000 kg/year [30%] WHOLESALE PRICE: 120 SEK/kg ANNUAL COMMERCIAL INCOME: 5,4 million [estimated] [partly financed by EU] SUPERMARKET PRICE SMOKED EEL: 700 SEK/kg PRODUCTION COST: 70-80 SEK/kg [estimated]

IMPORTED GLASS EEL COME IN PACKS OF CA 1,5 KG [0,3 g/eel]

TURNOVER: 16 million SEK QUARANTINE 10 MONTHS [2x2 m plastic container]

+24ยบC

VACUUM PUMP

SORTING TABLE

GLASS EEL IMPORT FROM WESTERN UK WHERE EELS GET STUCK IN NARROW RIVERS [DEATH RATE 90 % OTHERWISE]

REPLACEMENT IN CONCRETE POOLS [3x11 M] EELS ARE AUTOMATICALLY FED EVERY 5 MIN AND REDISTRIBUTION EVERY 6 WEEKS TO PREVENT CANNIBALISM AND BACTERIA.

DEEP SEA ROUTE BACK TO SARGASSO SEA SILVER EEL EXPORT TO NL. RESTOCKING IN FRESH- AND SALTWATER EEL DEATH TRAPS, E.G. HYDROELECTRIC PLANTS

100

RESTOCKING: LAKES, RIVERS, THE SEA

COLD ISOLATION BASIN FOR LARGE EELS BEFORE BUTCHERY NO FEED THE LAST WEEK. EXPORT TO HOLLAND 80-85 % 18 MONTHS = 0,3 kg/eel

BUTCHERY

SMOKERY

RESTAURANT SHOP

REMINDER DOMESTIC CONSUMPTION 3-5 YEARS = 1,3 kg/eel

101

appendix b: eel farm visit: scandinavian silver eel, hbg

1. CONCRETE VESSELS WITH FEEDING CISTERNS SUSPENDED FROM THE CEILING. 2. COMPRESSOR USED TO CATCH AND MOVE EELS. 3. GLASS EELS DURING FEEDING SESSION (EVERY FIVE MINUTES) 4. HOME MADE EEL SIZE SORTING TABLE 5. MATURE SILVER EELS WAITING FOR EXPORT TO HOLLAND. 6. REGULAR HEALTH INSPECTION IN LAB.

Frame cut from the Dutch documentary “Toekomst voor de paling“ ©InnovatieNetwerk/InnoFisk/Universiteit Leiden Dutch scholars are currently researching the possibility to obtain sexually mature eels and elvers, which has been proved difficult. The method is carried out rather manually in a laboratory environment and is not yet commersially sucessful but rather dependant on funds from the European Union. Alternative ways seem welcome but the precedent however shows the urgency of the eel issue and the possibilities to farm eels in captivity.

102

103

Appendix c: process models 1.

7. 8.

2. 5.

3. 4.

104

1. RELIEF/VOLUME MODEL, dense STYROfoam 1:200 2-4. Volume model, coarse styrofoam/cardboard, 1:500 5. Relief closeup, coarse styrofoam, 1:200 6. landscape model, wellpapp/cork/cardboard 7. Structure sculptures, styrofoam 1:200 8. sectional study, cardboard/plastic pipes, 1:200

105

Appendix d: precedents+inspirations collage Zeche Zollverein, Gelsenkirchen, Ruhr [D]

Elbphilharmonie, hamburg [D]

Tate Modern, London [GB]

Architect: Giles Gilbert Scott /Herzog & de Meuron 2000 Museum of art in former power plant Exhibition spaces in a vast volume with many original structures intact.

New York Highline [USA]

Architect: DSR / James Corner 2009 Recreational infrastructure on former railroad system.

Architect: Herzog & de Meuron 2012 Concert Hall in former warehouse Contrasting addition, tramsforming the preexisting into a foundation, literally.

Wunderland Kalkar [D]

Architect: Unknown Amusement park in never-finished nuclear power plant Reprogramming a nuclear power plant

Umlauftank 2, TU Berlin [D]

Architect: Ludwig Leo 1975 Test simulator for boats Inspirational way of manifesting function and technology in a research facility.

Stijp S, Philips Factory Eindhoveven [NL] Architect: Caruso St John et. al. 2000Vast factory complex transformed into cultural cluster

Cockatoo Island, Sydney [AUS] Architect: Tonkin Zulaikha Greer Architects et. al 2004 Cultural centre/Exhibition space/Recreational area in old military wharf

Volumetric addition through intervention

Architect: OMA/Rem Koolhaas, Norman Foster, SANAA 2010 Former coal mine transformed into regional museum and recreational park

106

107

Appendix e: organizational diagrams of prexisting nuclear reactors

+121,5 m

+116,5 m

+111,5 m

Lifts

Electric system

+149.9 m [visitor balcony]

+132,35 m [reactor pool]

+126,5 m

transportation area

Electric system

+149.9 m [visitor balcony]

Lift mach. room

+129m Hydraulic control system Fuel storage pool

transport duct

Hydraulic control system

transport duct

+136,5m Fresh Fuel storage

actuator

Fuel storage pool manoeuvre area

chimney

vent. manoeuvre room

space for ceiling of conical ps-coating

quadroduct

steam control duct

quadroduct

electricity central

service area

+132,5m

Heat exchanger

+114m

108

measuring central

+111,5m

Gantry crane

Storage pool for internal parts

Hydraulic control system +121,5m

+116,5m R531

transportation area

Hydraulic control system +126,5m

ventilation house

+136,5m Heat exchanger

Gantry crane

transportation area

technical ducts

109

bibliography: Barsebäck and Swedish Nuclear Power:

Articles:

-Agrell Wilhelm, Svenska Förintelsevapen, Historiska Media 2002

-Askergren Mikael, Farlig arkitektur, Kritik Magazine, no. 4/5 2009 p 98-111

-Bergquist Sven, De heta åren, Timbro 1985

-Niklasson Sten, Sverige jäktade in i atomåldern, SvD Kultur Understrecket 2012-07-12

-Borg Henrik & Sannerstedt Helen, Barsebäcks kärnkraftverk, Dokumentation 2006, Regionmuseet Kristianstad 2006

-Haugaard Nielsen, Nu raderas Barsebäck från kartan, Illustrerad Ventenskap no. 8 2005, p 38-43

-Leijonhuvud Sigfrid, Parentes - en historia om svensk kärnkraft, ABB Atom 1994

-Julia Svensson, Apokalyps nu?, Sydsvenskan 2011-03-27

-Lindström Stefan, Implementing the welfare state : the emergence of Swedish atomic energy research policy, Science History Publications 1993

The Internet:

-Jonter Tomas, Sverige, USA och kärnenerign, SKI Rapport 99:21 1999 Eel:

-Länsstyrelsen i Skåne 2012: “Vikhög, Barsebäck & Järavallen, Särskilt värdefulla miljöer i Skåne” [http://www.lansstyrelsen.se/skane/Sv/samhallsplanering-och-kulturmiljo/ landskapsvard/kulturmiljoprogram/sarskilt-vardefulla-kulturmiljoer-i-skane/kavlinge/Pages/Gillhog_Barseback_Jaravallen.aspx]

-Prosek James, Eels An Exploration, from New Zealand to the Sargasso, Harper 2010 -Schweid Richard, Eels, Reaktion Books, 2009 Landscape and agriculture: -Corner James, Taking Measures across the American Landscape, Yale University Press 2000

-Integrated Taxonomic Information System Report: Anguilla Anguilla [ http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=161128] -Swedish Agency for Marine and Water Management: “Samlad fakta om ål“ [http://www.havochvatten.se/kunskap-om-vara-vatten/liv-i-hav-sjoar-och-vattendrag/samlad-fakta-om-al/om-al.html]

-Despommier Dickson, The Vertical Farm, Picador 2010 -Dushenkov Viatcheslav, Rhizofiltration: The Use of Plants to Remove Heavy Metals from Aqueous Streams, Environ. Sci. Technol., 1995, 29 (5), pp 1239–1245 (Industrial) Heritage: -Kirkwood Niall, Manufactured Sites, Rethinking the Post-Industrial Landscape, Taylor&Francis 2001 Theory: -Allen Stan, Points+Lines, Princeton Architectural Press 1999 -Allen Stan, Landform Buildings, Princeton University Press 2011 -Tschumi Bernard, Architecture and Disjunction, Six Concepts, MIT Press 1996 -Virilio Paul, Bunker Archaeology, Princeton Architectural Press 1994

Miscellaneous: -TV-series “Riget I” (The Kingdom), ©Danmarks Radio/Lars von Trier 1994. Available via: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBcJZ3-cJKc -Dutch Documentary “Toekomst voor de paling“ (The future for the eel) ©InnovatieNetwerk/InnoFisk/Universiteit Leiden Available via: http://www.innovatienetwerk.org/en/bibliotheek/publicaties/84/Futurefortheeel.html -Regional Map from Kävlinge municipality, www.kavlinge.se -Plans and sections of the existing facility from Barsebäckskraft

POTENTIALS AND POLARITIES ON CHARGED GROUND Sebastian Fors Lunds Tekniska Hรถgskola 2012

112