POWER AT BATTERSEA Understanding Post-Industrial Britain through an Art Deco Monolith
by Brandon Sanchez
Submitted to the Department of Architecture in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Bachelor of Science in Architecture Studies
at the
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
June 2018
C 2018 Brandon Sanchez All Rights Reserved
The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly, paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part in any medium now known or hereafter created. Signature redacted Author...... Brandon A. Sanchez Department of Architecture May 24, 2018 Signature redacted- Certified by...... a eb t / 4asser 0. Rabbat, PhD Professor of the History of Architecture Director of the MIT Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture Thesis Advisor
Accepted by...... Signature redacted MASSACHUSEMTS INSTITUTE Leslie I. Norford, PhD OF TECHNOLOGY Professor of Building Technology Undergraduate Officer JUN 2 2 2018 Department of Architecture
LIBRARIES ARCHIVES
POWER AT BATTERSEA Understanding Post-Industrial Britain through an Art Deco Monolith
by Brandon Sanchez
Submitted to the Department of Architecture on May 24, 2018, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Architecture
Abstract In the modern age, a building serves a purpose beyond that of its intended architectural function. This is especially true of famous buildings, which become important as icons independent of their physical presence. When a building reaches a certain level of fame, its symbolic significance shifts not only as a result of its programming, but as a result of its political, social, and cultural context. These buildings often long outlive their original purposes. When this occurs, architects strive to find a way to best honor that building's history in their redevelopment.
This thesis explores the symbolic history of one building in particular, Battersea Power Station in London. Constructed in a long period from 1929-1955, Battersea entered the cityscape in controversy. In less than a century Battersea has gone from environmental demon to beloved architectural icon, from the symbol of a nation's vulnerabilities to the symbol of a nation's ability to oppress. Its meteoric rise to international visibility in the 1970s led to its depiction in countless works of film, television, and other artistic media, each with their own interpretation of the building's significance. The new millenium has brought with it the opportunity to redevelop Battersea. However, its current redevelopment has brought with it a controversy comparable to that which mired its construction nearly a century ago.
In a key period since the early 20th century, Britain has seen its industrially-fuelled empire collapse and its international standing fall. The rise and fall of Battersea can help trace Britain's national anxieties over the course of this post-industrial age. In so doing, Battersea Power Station indicates the power that architecture has not only to signify its socio-political context, but to influence it as well.
Thesis Supervisor: Nasser Rabbat, PhD, Professor of the History of Architecture
3 With special acknowledgement to:
Professor Rabbat. Thank you for advising me on this thesis, and in life.
Mom and Dad, for your support, and for making this all possible.
Julian, always.
Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, for your genius.
Natasha, for discussions ranging from flue gas-desulfurization to foreign investment.
The couple of strangers with whom I waited in line at the National Theatre, and with whom I discussed London real estate.
4 Table of Contents
1. The Station, As It Stands...... 7
2. A Proposal by the Thames...... 10
3. The Media Battle...... 18
4. Sir Giles Gilbert Scott...... 29
5. Architectural Overview...... 37
6. Sabotage...... 42
7. S m og ...... 49
8. The Station, Completed...... 56
9. A n im als...... 60
10. K ing C oal...... 65
11. The Station, Decommissioned...... 74
12. Redevelopment...... 86
13. "An Industrial Yet Luxurious Feel"...... 97
14. R ule, B ritannia...... 109
B ibliograp hy ...... 117
5 6 1. The Station, As It Stands
"I sell here, Sir, what all the world desires to have-POWER." -Matthew Boulton, business partner of James Watt, manufacturer of the steam engine, 1776
It is not immediately clear at a glance that Battersea Power Station, in its current form, lacks a roof. From afar, the station looks roughly as it has looked for the past 60 years: a hulking mass of rectangular brick with four fluted chimneys, one erected at each corner. New to the site, however, are several white cranes surrounding the structure. Battersea Power Station is now a bustling construction site and will be for the next eight years at least. Only upon closer inspection is it clear that the station is going through a transformation; the machinery has been entirely removed from the interior, the windows (those that remain) are falling apart, and indeed, the roof is gone. In fact, the structure as it stands is really just the shell of what was once
Battersea Power Station, Britain's first coal-burning super-station located in the heart of London.
Despite the continued use of its name, it has not produced any power in 35 years. In that time, it has instead stood as a deteriorating symbol, gathered soot and fallen into disrepair. If the current chimneys seem to glisten in their beauty, that is because they are recreations. Little here is original.
In January 2018 it was announced that Battersea Power Station was being sold once again, this time for 1.6 billion.' This exchange marked one of the largest sales of a single property in the history of the United Kingdom. The sale was simply between one Malaysian development group and one of its larger investors, a corporate reshuffling of property that aims
Patrick Greenfield, "Battersea Power Station to be sold for 1.6bn," The Guardian, January 18, 2018, https://www.theguardian.corn/business/2018/jan/I 8/battersea-power-station-to-be-sold-for- I 6bn.
7 to have minimal impact on the ongoing redevelopment project. With a target deadline of 2020
for the reopening of Battersea Power Station, and standing on the shoulders of 30 years'
indecision, the current owners of the property cannot risk further delay. They hope this new sale
will provide the necessary funds to complete the project on time. This project, announced in
2012, ensures the redevelopment not only of the station itself, but of the surrounding 42 acres of
land as well. The whole endeavor, whose price tag is in excess of f9 billion and rising, is one of
the largest of London's many redevelopment projects. The promotional materials promise
luxury flats, fine dining establishments, and smiling faces sunning in the green space at the
Station's foot.
The value of this building, the justification of this exceedingly expensive project, is
greater than the value of the vertically-striated brick facade or the new, glistening chimneys. It is
greater than the value of the property it sits on. The station is located on the South Bank of the
Thames, half a meander upriver of Westminster Palace. While fairly central, this part of the city
was not valued particularly highly until recent years. What makes this building so valuable is
exactly what kept it from being razed 35 years ago when its service as a generator of British
electricity came to an end: a combination of its unique architectural beauty and its deep
connection with British history.
At the time of Battersea's construction, London was the greatest city in the most powerful empire that the world has ever known. This newly-electrified global capital could not have asked for a more appropriate symbol of its industrial power. In its ninety-year life,
Battersea has seen Britain through its most harrowing years, past an inflection point in the nation's history. At the new millennium, for the first time since her birth, Britain ended a
8 century with less global influence than before. Over that time, the relatively subtle changes to
Battersea's exterior have been overshadowed by massive changes to Battersea's symbolic
relationship with British history. No longer the symbol of industrial might that it once was,
Battersea instead has begun to signify the cultural, social, environmental and geopolitical
changes that Britain has undergone in the 20th century.
The little that does remain of the original building includes the intricate brickwork of the
facade, designed by one of Britain's most important 20th century architects. Today this facade is covered in soot and has parts missing in many places, but the original design of the main four towers is unmistakable. Cranes continue their business about the station as the public waits for the resurrection of one of their most beloved architectural relics.
9 2. A Proposal by the Thames
"What greatness had not floated on the ebb of that river into the mystery of an unknown earth!.. .The dreams of men, the seed of commonwealth, the germs of empires." -Joseph Conrad, Heart ofDarkness, 1899
Great Britain led the world's largest empire, and at the turn of the 20th century was undoubtedly the most powerful nation in the world. The Industrial Revolution that was born within its borders had spread out and powered the world's newest technological innovations.
The new, electrical years of the late Victorian era brought with them a vast consortium of companies that aimed to power Britain's cities. These companies arose in a patchwork fashion as befit the needs of each city. Among these companies were the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Electric
Supply Company (NESCo), the Metropolitan Electric Supply Company Ltd. (METESCo), the
City of London Electric Lighting Company Ltd. (CLELCo), and many more.2 Around the turn of the 20th century, these companies often undertook the design and construction of electricity-generating stations. These stations almost exclusively burned coal as their fuel, contributing to the environmental degradation of Britain's cities at this time. National regulations between these many power companies were minimal.3 While these power stations where being built all across the country, by far the greatest concentration of stations could be found in London, the capital of this new industrial revolution.
Cities often had many companies vying for power within their borders, dividing the local area into regions controlled by different power companies. London, especially, faced such
2 Stephen Murray, "Electrifying the City: Power and Profit at the City of London Electric Lighting Company Limited," The London Journal43, no. 1 (2018): 72-91. 3 bid. 10 a division. Researcher Stephen Murray summarizes the situation thus: "In 1903 the County of
London area was supplied by 29 electricity undertakings with individual systems of supply, a range of voltages and frequencies, produced from relatively small generating stations."4 As
industrial demand continued to grow, so did the power and importance of these separate companies. The desire to have some sort of order imposed upon these private companies led to their consolidation in the mid-i 920s under the guidance of two important pieces of legislation.
The first was the London Electricity (No. 2) Act 1925, which facilitated the merging of these companies. 5 The second was The Electricity (Supply) Act 1926, which created national standards for electricity generation and distribution through the Central Electricity Board
(CEB). 6
These were the conditions under which London's new power supply system was born. In
1925, ten of London's electrical companies merged to form the London Power Company (LPC).
One of the LPC's earliest goals was to remove some of southwest London's smaller generating stations and replace them with one large "super-station." 7 The company had land at
Wandsworth, a region of London on the Thames, southwest and slightly upriver of Westminster
Palace. This plot of land, in the shadow of Victoria bridge and beside a train junction, was presently home to a disused reservoir and sat largely empty.'
In early 1927, the LPC submitted a proposal to the Electricity Commissioners for a super-station at Battersea. This station differed from its predecessors not only in size and scale
4 Ibid, in the introduction. Ibid, in the section titled "Inter-war legislation: co-operation and control." 6 ibid.
7~ Ibid.
8 Labelled map of the proposed Battersea construction site, 1927, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London. II of production, but also in its proximity to the city center. Previous generating stations in the
Greater London area were miles away from the city center, and were much smaller.
The earliest available diagrams of the proposed station come from early 1927. Figure 2-1 shows an elevation view of the proposed station at Battersea. The building's placement and proportions mostly resemble those of the final, identifiable construction, yet the details are enormously different. The station is shown as a large rectangular brick box with eight chimneys all in a row. Noticeable in this depiction are the station's many large windows. Some vertical striations can be seen on the facade, and triangulation of the roof is present.
Figure 2-1: Elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, 1927.
The overhead view of Figure 2-2 provides more clarity of the proposed station's context.
North of the station lies the Thames, on which a wharf would allow for the efficient transportation of coal and other supplies/waste to and from the station. West of the station is the train junction. The row of eight chimneys, strikingly different from the famous four-chimney icon of Battersea decades later, is prominent here.
9Elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, February 28, 1927, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London. 12 Figure 2-2: Plan view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, 1927.0
On March 15th, 1927, the Electricity Commission sent nearby residents of the Battersea site a notice of the LPC's submitted proposal."1 Objections were lodged immediately. Most of these objections were on the grounds of a depreciation in the value of the objector's property as a result of the station's erection.1 2 The solicitors of Mrs. Emily Martha Hill describe the concerns of their client rather bluntly: "she objects to the proposed erection of the Generating Station referred to in the notice received by her dated 15th March last, on the ground that the erection of
1Plan view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, February 28, 1927, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London. " Letter from Ernest Bevir to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission, April 1, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. 12 Enumeration of objections lodged against the Battersea proposal, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. 13 such Generating Station will be detrimental to her property.""' Other objectors were concerned that the station would cause a nuisance due to the noise and vibrations it would generate. One
Mrs. H. Williams pleaded the following to the Electricity Commission in a letter marked March
25th, 1927: "The generating station will, without doubt, be a powerful one and that heavy machinery will therefore be used, in which event the undersigned feel that damage may be done to their property through vibration or other causes. The property is old and should any damage be caused the owners would look to the London Power Company to make good."14 Property owners within 300 yards of the site knew few facts about the station to come, but many could foresee impending darkness.
In addition to nearby property owners, other companies and government officials wrote to the Electricity Commission in objection to the proposal. The Southern Railway Company wrote to complain about potential damage to their nearby wharf and demanded that a clause be added to ensure the protection of their property." The objections of Westminster City Hall's
Town Clerk were at once prescient and oddly singular: "[The City Council fears] the possible nuisance arising from smoke and fine dust discharged from the eight chimneys which are to be erected." 6 He objected to the placement of this new station "unless adequate steps are taken to prevent nuisance arising from the emission of smoke, soot, ash, grit, and gritty particles, from the new generating station."17 This town clerk saw the health risks to even distant residents, and
"3 Letter from Ernest Bevir to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission, April 1, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. " Letter from Mrs. H Williams, Emma Blandford, and Edward Pope to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission, March 25, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. " Letter from the solicitor of Waterloo Station to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission, April 13, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. 16 Letter from John Hunt to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission, April 8, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. 17 Ibid.
14 hoped to ensure that measures would be taken to mitigate such risks. In total the Electricity
Commission recorded around 22 objections from the public.18 Each was catalogued and acknowledged.
As a result of the outcry from some members of the public, the Electricity Commission announced that it would hold a public enquiry into the matter on the morning of June 21st. It appears that in the meantime, the London Power Company focused its efforts on quieting its largest dissenters: local entities that had lodged objections. A letter from the Port of London
Authority informed the Electricity Commission that "the Port Authority's interests have been duly safe-guarded by means of an agreement" with the LPC. " The enclosed agreement described the LPC's assurance that it would not interfere with any of the Port Authority's property, or their ability to navigate the Thames and its banks. The Electricity Commission soon received letters from other dissenters-turned-relenters, who had all been convinced by the LPC that their interests were protected. In their letter, the Southern Railway Company informed the
Commissioners that they "desire to withdraw their Objections to the application and do not propose to be represented at the Inquiry to be held on Tuesday next." 20
With their most sizable objectors out of their way, the LPC had only individual property owners to appease. According to Bill Luckin in Questions ofPower: Electricity and
Environment in Inter-war Britain, by the day of the enquiry "the number of complainants had now fallen to three and, only one, Mrs. Handel Booth, threatened to raise the temperature: she
"8 Enumeration of objections lodged against the Battersea proposal, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. " Letter from the Port of London Authority to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission, June 14, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. 20 Letter from W. Bishop to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission, June 18, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. 15 believed that the company should be forced to pay compensation."2 1 With the number of dissenters reduced so drastically, the Electricity Commission saw little issue in proceeding with the LPC's Battersea application. On October 27th, 1927, the Commission sent its approval to the
LPC:
"The Electricity Commissioners by virtue and in exercise of the powers conferred
by the aforesaidElectricity (Supply) Acts, 1882 to 1926, DO HEREBY CONSENT
to the construction and establishment by the Company of a new generating
station... and necessary auxiliaryplant, upon the Battersea site. "2
Of vital note in this document is an important condition upon which this consent was contingent. The Commission demanded that the LPC was responsible for "[taking] the best known precautions for the due consumption of smoke and for the preventing as far as reasonably practicable the evolutions of oxides of sulphur, and generally for preventing any nuisance arising from the generating station or from any operations thereat."2 3 While the objections of locals could ultimately do nothing to prevent the station from being built upon this site, they succeeded in encouraging the inclusion of this conditional clause within the Commission's agreement to
Battersea. How helpful this condition was would remain to be seen. What would constitute "the best known precautions" or "reasonably practicable," and how could the Electricity Commission enforce these demands to protect the safety of Londoners?
Concerns of smoke and fumes were largely absent from most complaints submitted to the
Electricity Commission, a fact which makes the objection from the Westminster City Hall Town
21 Bill Luckin, Questions of Power: Electricity and Environment in Inter-war Britain (New York: St. Martin's Press Inc., 1990), 139. 22 The Electricity Commission's approval of the Battersea Proposal signed by R.T.G. French, October 27, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London. 23 Ibid. 16 Clerk all the more significant. Why was the outcry from the public not more substantial? For one, it appears that at this point the concern from the public was local to the region of the proposed site. The archives of The Times contain no announcement of the Battersea proposal from March 1927. In fact, the first mention of the Battersea proposal in that largest of British newspapers came in August, not only after the public enquiry but seemingly even after approval of the application had been ensured by the Commissioners. Until its more public appearance in the press, the Battersea problem remained a local one, with no loud voices to defend those of the common property-owners.
Given this approval, the London Power Company commenced the ground-breaking of
Battersea Power Station, the battle for public support seemingly behind them. The publicity generated by the construction process itself would disabuse the LPC of any such comfort. The coming two years would generate even more grave concerns about the environment and public safety, testing the democratic power of civic discourse. Objections would come in a flurry, and from on high. They would also come too late.
17 3. The Media Battle
"And he looked toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and, lo, the smoke of the country went up as the smoke of a furnace." -Genesis 19:28
The Ministry of Health, the Office of Works, the Department of Scientific and Industrial
Research, the Electricity Commission, and various members of Parliament spent much of the
ensuing two years in frequent correspondence with one another regarding this important matter.
These conversations occurred mostly out of the public eye. Members of these different departments were trying to get a true grasp of the implications of Battersea Power Station and its
potential negative impact on their city. Investigations were held, questions were asked, and
documents were forwarded. The full threat of Battersea was communicated to members of very
high governmental circles. The shadow of a single building, one that did not even yet exist,
loomed. At the same time, foundations were being dug at Battersea and the approved plans were
being executed.
The concern from some of these government officials might be categorized as Biblical in
scale. Sir E. Hilton Young, member of Parliament and future Minister of Health, said in a
February 1929 letter to his friend Geoffrey Fry: "With what little intelligence I have, I am
convinced that unless something is done, this will kill every green thing within two miles of
Battersea, rot all the buildings, and bleach all the babies." 4 The somewhat hyperbolic language
used by Young and others to describe their fears was indicative of the true terror that this
building was instilling among certain members of the government. London's air was already
famous for its poor quality due to the many factories and chimneys that existed within the city.
4 E. Hilton Young, Letter to Geoffrey Fry, February 6, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London. 18 The largest extant power stations were miles away from the city center. A station of this size so
close to the heart of the capital filled many with dread.
Geoffrey Fry, the recipient of Young's letter, was the private secretary to the Prime
Minister, Stanley Baldwin. Fry's response was equally terrific: "If all they say is true, you and I
and our families must immediately escape to Wiltshire leaving, like Lot and his wife, the city of
the plain to its inevitable destruction."" Fry became deeply motivated by these warnings and
appears to have focused Baldwin's attention on the issue, which Fry considered to be "a matter
of urgency."2" Fry's portentous language was, like Young's, a response of fear. He could see
the potential for London to drown in the smoke of its own industrial self-indulgence, and he was
insistent upon protecting his fellow Sodomites. Despite his devotion to the cause, by late
February he sent another letter to Young describing the Prime Minister's opinion that "there is
no step which he can take. He is informed that work has been in progress for about a year."27
Just over a month later, a media flurry would galvanize government inquiry. On April
9th, 1929, an article appeared in The Times that would once again provide an inflection point for
public discourse. The article was a letter to the editor signed by several very important members
of government offices and influential private organizations. Among these signees were C. B.
Clapcott (Mayor of Chelsea), Vivian B. Rogers (Mayor of the City of Westminster), Walter
Tapper (President of the Royal Institute of British Architects), and eight others. This published
letter summarized the concerns that the members of the government had been struggling with
and corresponding about for over a year, making it all public.
2 Geoffrey Fry, Letter to E. Hilton Young, February 8, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London. 26 Ibid. 2' Letter from Geoffrey Fry to E. Hilton Young, February 26, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London. 19 The article enumerated a list of reasons why the signees believed that the Battersea project was ill-advised. They argued that the unprecedented amount of sulfurous fumes would
"[cause] serious damage to vegetation, besides corroding stonework, ironwork, and other metals and injuriously affecting paintings, coloured fabrics, and the like."2" They also made note of the site's particularly unfortunate location relative to many precious London sites: "As the prevailing winds in London are southwest, the normal flow of fumes from a station at Battersea would take a line over the Tate Gallery, ...Westminster Abbey, the Houses of Parliament, St. Thomas's
Hospital, Whitehall, the National Gallery..." and so on.29 They noted their skepticism that the
Electricity Commission's condition of sulfurous fume reduction would be met. The signees wanted the government to realize how unprecedentedly dangerous this new station could be, and that, of all places around London to locate a new station, Battersea was possibly the very worst.
The authors were not causing a fuss without offering recommendations for how best to deal with the situation. They point to the electricity production of Germany, which they deem more advanced than that of England: "Current of high voltage is transmitted for as great a distance as 300 miles, and in some cases the difficulty of carrying overhead cables through the outskirts of big cities is obviated by laying a cable in the river Rhine- an accommodation which could as readily be provided in the Thames."30 The authors see no reason that the station could not be located at a coalfield several miles away and the electricity transported via long cables, as per the German model. They thus provide a specific recommendation of a coalfield in Kent, 60 miles from London, set at a location where the fumes would go out to sea.
28 C.B. Clapcott, E. Guy Dawber, Dawson of Penn et al. "Letter to the editor," The Times (London, UK), April 9, 1929. 29 Ibid. 30 Ibid. 20 The authors conclude their letter with a hopeful call to action from the government:
"Fortunately little has yet been done on the Battersea site and, in view of the considerations set out above, we ask the Government to institute an immediate and searching inquiry into the proposal from all points of view." 3' Having established their logical argument, the signees ask for an inquiry larger in scope than that which was held by the Commission in June 1927. They want their specific recommendations considered, and they want to be sure that London is not damning itself through its own industrial immoderation. It is clear that this letter was carefully crafted and labored over; the influence of its signees, as well, was sure to help stir public outrage.
The April 9th issue of The Times was read broadly, and it generated another flurry of newspaper editorials and private correspondences. King George V was among the readership of that day's issue of The Times. On April 12th, Neville Chamberlain, then the Minister of Health, received a letter from King George's secretary detailing the King's concerns:
"The King has been reading the recent correspondence in The Times on the
subject of the proposed erection of an enormous Generating Station in Battersea,
and is in entire sympathy with the views expressed by the signatoriesto the
letter... His Majesty feels the greatest concern at the prospect of the atmosphere
of London being stillfurther polluted by the large quantity of noxious fumes which
this station must inevitably emit - primarilyfrom the point of view of their effect
on the health of the inhabitants, but also of the damage which, in the course of
time, they must cause to the great buildings in the heart of London.""
' Ibid. 32 Letter from A.H.L. Harding to Neville Chamberlain, April 12, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London. 21 King George had been in poor health for many years by 1929; he had pulmonary disease and issues breathing, partially as a result of smoking heavily. As recently as December 1928 he had even had lung surgery. For various sections of the past several years, including for a time in
1929, his advisors had him take leave from the London air and spend months at a time in climates more conducive to his failing health. The King knew what it was like to have one's ability to breathe hampered, to have it change at the whim of the unpredictable and worsening
London fog. There is a certain beauty in the King's involvement and objections in this issue.
Chamberlain circulated copies of this letter, and the issue once again became important to the
Prime Minister and his Government.
W.F. Fladgate was the Chairman of the London Power Company, and was not about to willfully accept any hindrance to his ongoing Battersea project. On May 15th, 1929, The Times featured a response written by Fladgate on behalf of his company and their Battersea interests.
Fladgate briefly describes some of the history of the London Power Company's Battersea project, as well as the LPC's general goals and principles. He makes a certain appeal to ethics that frames the rest of the letter:
"The London Power Company is in no sense a commercial undertaking. By its
constitution it is precludedfrom making any profit... the whole of the saving
which the company may be able to make is to be applied in reducing the charges
for current to its constituent companies, thus enabling those companies to supply
the public of London at a cheaper price. ""
3 W.F. Fladgate, "Letter to the editor," The Times (London, UK), May 15, 1929. 22 With this point, Fladgate attempts to convince the reader that the interests of the LPC and the interests of the common Londoner are the same. Cheaper power is best for everyone. He wants the economic argument of the station's placement to be the focus of the letter.
The latter portion of his letter focuses on the argument proposed by the original authors of the April 9th article: that the station should be placed at a location more remote from central
London. He states that a station of Battersea's power placed 15 miles downriver would cost at least E2,100,000 (about f121,000,000 today)." He considers the laying of cables from such a distant location all the way to the West End of London to be "not commercially practicable," given the power demands of that area of London. 5 Fladgate also questions the responsibility of his company in this matter: "The London Power Company does not subscribe to the principle that a generating station should be located near to a particular colliery, ... which is not in its ownership or under its control."36 He goes on to explain that Berlin's power stations are mostly within the city limits of Berlin, and that only a small amount of power is generated by outside stations. He also claims that American coal is much more sulfurous than British coal, and New
York City, which contains many generating stations, was not a smoke-filled abyss.
The letter feels convincing, having been arranged in an attempt to dismantle the arguments presented by the signees of the April letter. His general point is that the Battersea project had been approved by Parliament long ago, that it was a very cheap option relative to any more distant proposals, and that the LPC is simply doing what it could to provide London with cheap power at a rate commensurate with its growing demand. The letter is not without a certain edge from Fladgate. Before his summary at the end, he says that "this letter has already run to
1 Ibid. " Ibid. 6 1 Ibid. 23 much greater length than the importance of this subject merits."3 7 In the letter's final sentence,
Fladgate opines that "our critics might at least be arithmetically accurate."" It is not clear how much time between April 9th and May 15th Fladgate and his team spent crafting this letter, but it is clear that they went to great lengths to ensure that any critics of Battersea would need to present a stronger case than they had.
With its focus on numbers and economics, Fladgate's letter intentionally downplays the environmental element of the recent criticism. Fladgate says that his engineers would work their hardest to abide by the Commission's conditional clause and "render innocuous the fumes which arise in the process of generation."39 From a retrospective viewpoint, his lack of concern over the station's potential environmental impact seems negligent.
It is also difficult to read Fladgate's letter without detecting its obvious bias. The LPC had not only already bought the site at Battersea, but construction of the station's foundations had already begun. The costs which his company had already sunk into the Battersea project made him eager to keep the project from being halted. While he never shares his specific calculations with his readers, given the facts he is likely correct that a more distant power station of this wattage would cost his company (and therefore its consumers) more money. However, he does not really address the economic burden of transporting coal from its distant coalbeds, upriver to the station. Without this, it is impossible to tell if his argument is valid. The implication of his economic argument is that this presumed monetary difference was of more value to the LPC than the potential health risks imposed by their station. In fairness to the LPC, these health risks were poorly-defined, and their understanding of the dangers caused by the
37 Ibid. 38 Ibid. 9 Ibid. 24 chemicals emitted from their chimneys was far less sophisticated than that of modem scientists.
Fladgate was likely ready to minimize any potential threat in his mind if it meant convincing the
government to allow his project to be completed.
In order to abide by the Electricity Commission's condition, the LPC began
experimentation on methods for removing sulfur oxides from the smoke emitted by the chimneys
of their stations. These experiments took place at the smaller Grove Road Power Station. The
hope was that if the scientists there could successfully eliminate or reduce sulfurous fumes at this
small scale, the same methods could be applied to Battersea. A report prepared by the Ministry
of Transport in July 1929 details an experimental process known as "gas-scrubbing", which uses jets of water in the chimneys of the power plant to absorb the sulfur oxides before they get
emitted into the air.40 Testing under various conditions, the scientists at Grove Road determined
that they could remove about 95 percent of both SO 3 and SO2 from the fumes of a station, and
they prepared a plan to incorporate this invention at a larger scale at Battersea Power Station.41 It
would require several tons of water for every ton of coal that was burned, which would be
extracted from and returned to the Thames. In a letter to the Minister of Transport, a government
chemist describes this returned water as being potentially alkaline and containing a small
"innocuous" calcium sulphate.4 2 His general tone, however, is one of satisfaction with the results of the Grove Road experiments.
With this, the LPC had successfully held up its side of the condition imposed on it. The government maintained that the first part of Battersea could be constructed given the use of these
4' Letter from T. Leon Bailey to Mr. Gibbon, July 8, 1929, HLG 55/36, The National Archives, Kew, London. 41 Ibid. 42 Letter from government chemist to the Secretary of Transport, October 3, 1929, POWE 12/232, The National Archives, Kew, London. 25 new innovations. Fladgate and his company had gotten their way. Not everyone was satisfied with the decision. In a letter to the editor of the Daily Mail on December 7th 1929, government engineer J. Morrison uses charged language to describe his continued dismay regarding Battersea
Power Station:
"It would appear that the Government are not unlikely to allow the immediate
construction of the first third of the new Power Station at Battersea, evidently by
some system of trialand error, ile. if the first third does not poison children and
destroy vegetation then another third will be erected, if the death rate is still too
low the last thirdcan then be put in hand, I suppose in the hope that this will do
the trick "
Morrison addresses a concern that Fladgate never mentioned in his own defense: the fact that this scheme was going to require the transportation and handling of hundreds of tons of coal every day on the river Thames, the resulting dust of which would be enough to cause major concern. Morrison believes the design of this new station would set a precedent of British engineering incompetence, "all this because London is so big that its citizens cannot get together to protect it from exploitation from interested men trading on the ignorance or indifference of its appointed Guardians." 4 With this, Morrison, whether intentionally or not, equates the current condition of London with that of Britain's own colonies. Rather than a defenselessness due to military inferiority, he argues a defenselessness due to the "ignorance or indifference" of his
Government. He foresees a defiled London just as his contemporaries in certain British colonies were currently seeing their homelands defiled.
" J. Morrison, Letter to the editor of The Daily Mail. December 7, 1929, POWE 12/232, The National Archives, Kew, London. 4 Ibid. 26 This very public and contentious years-long battle, a battle which, like the English battles of old, even saw a brief appearance of the King, cannot cleanly be described as either a victory or a defeat for the average Londoner. The construction of Battersea was not halted. Despite loud, valid criticisms of the scheme, once approval was given by the Commission, a new proposal to change the location of the station was never really considered. However, the public outcry contributed to the insistence of scientific research that was ultimately used at Battersea Power
Station. The flue-gas desulfurization system that would be installed at Battersea was the first of its kind, and would set a precedent for cleaner emissions not only in London, but around the world.
Fladgate says at the end of his May 1929 letter to The Times: "[It has not] been demonstrated that the disastrous effects upon the atmosphere which have been so freely foretold in communications founded in many instances on an entire misconception of the position are in the least likely to materialize in actual practice."" Later decades would prove this cavalier attitude to be foolish. All of the environmental concerns raised over these two years of discourse were ultimately local in nature. Complainants questioned the effects of Battersea's emissions on
London, but did not ever question London's environmental impact on the world. Concerns over carbon emissions did not exist. 1929 was still a time of limited environmental understanding; these were not discussions about climate change or carbon footprints. Those discussions would be had much later, as a result of the scientific understanding and globalization that the 20th century would bring.
* W.F. Fladgate, "Letter to the editor," The Times (London, UK), May 15, 1929. 27 The 1929 discourse around this Battersea issue was the first of several examples where
Battersea Power Station plays the role of a conduit for Britain's 20th century anxieties. Implicit in these long newspaper editorials were questions of a more existential nature. What right does an electrical company have to threaten my way of life? What is my Government willing to do to protect me? What power do I, as a British citizen, have to defend my city from the "exploitation of interested men?" In a century where power was being consolidated, both economically and technologically, among the few, the ability of a minority to impose its interests negatively upon the majority was greater now than ever. It was much easier for the average Londoner to ignore such impositions when they occurred abroad, perhaps on the shores of Britain's colonies. Doing so was much harder when the imposition had a physical presence at home: a station clogging the growing skyline, a skyline blurred by the thickening fog.
All this concern, and the station was still no more than a hole in the ground. In 1930, construction would continue in earnest, and one man would become largely responsible for morphing its design into the monolith that we see today.
28 4. Sir Giles Gilbert Scott
British coal-firing power stations up to this point were not typically known for their beauty. At their best, they consisted of fenestrated brick buildings with tall smoking fluted chimneys, with architectural considerations prioritized far below utility. At their worst, these stations were blank brick boxes. The lack of architectural care for these stations made sense for the power companies; their only focus was power output for the sake of meeting demand. The appearance of a station also mattered very little when the station was several miles away from any dense part of a British city. However, as stations became larger, and as they moved closer toward city centers, power companies began to see the importance of architectural beauty for their stations - even if that beauty was meant primarily to mask the ugly inner-workings of the station. If power stations were going to be more visible to the average Briton, it would behoove the power companies to make them less unsightly for the sake of rallying public support.
Sir Standen Leonard Pearce became the engineer-in-chief of the London Power Company in 1926, and was then responsible for the design of Battersea Power Station. The drafts shown in
Section 2 of this paper were completed by Pearce, as were those shown below. He was an electrical engineer by trade, not an architect, but still his draftings reveal an effort to make
Battersea attractive. By 1928, the design had evolved from an eight-chimney to a six-chimney building, as shown in Figures 4-1 through 4-3.
29 1VIJ >-l~ I Iu I
Figure 4-1: Elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, 1928.46
The elevation view of Figure 4-1 also provides insight into how the exterior of Battersea would have looked in Pearce's view. Large rectangular windows of various dimensions punctuate the lateral walls. The six chimneys are fluted, as are those in the final implementation.
Notably, this design lacks the four towers that make Battersea Power Station so distinct. This exterior looks similar to that of many early 20th century British power stations.
46 Elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, July 16, 1928, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London. 30 - MlOON POM COMPANY UPY
PMMMSE CERATM NC ~OW
ATERSEA.
Figure 4-2: Elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, 1928.41
The elevation view of Battersea's shorter side (Figure 4-2) looks similar to that of the final design. Still of note here is the absence of towers. This cross-sectional draft highlights the interior mechanical design as opposed to the exterior architecture, indicative of Pearce's primary role in the project. As engineer-in-chief he was meant to design effective mechanical structures, not beautiful or noteworthy buildings.
Later designs from 1929 show further iterations, including a four-chimney design more akin to the final station. Around this time, the LPC hired Sir Giles Gilbert Scott as a consultant architect for the exterior of the building.
4 Alternative elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, July 16, 1928, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London. 31 11
1~41
Figure 4-3: Plan view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, 1928.48
Sir Giles Gilbert Scott came from a family of architects. His grandfather was Sir George
Gilbert Scott, architect of the Midland Grand Hotel at St. Pancras station and many other buildings abroad, mostly in the neo-gothic style that was so popular in the mid-19th century.
Giles' father, Gilbert Scott, was also an architect.
The work of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott started out with a focus on neo-gothicism, then slowly drifted into a more modem Art Deco style. His first major work would remain one of his most influential. This work was Liverpool Cathedral, the commission of which he obtained by entering a competition as an inexperienced 22-year-old. His design shows the neo-gothic
4 Plan view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, July 16, 1928, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London. 32 Al
influence of his family, and Scott's interest in strong, bulky towers and intricate vertical striations. These interests would take a different form at Battersea, but the early signs of Scott's style were clear even in his first design. Liverpool Cathedral's final design was a slightly pared down version of his earlier design (Figure 4-4).
Figure 4-4: Liverpool Cathedral today."
Given his neo-gothic inclination, Scott's work in the ensuing years often centered on cathedrals. The motif of the bulky rectangular tower remained present in many of these designs.
Scott also grew interested in the economic use of natural light, which he implemented by using windows sparingly. The windows he did put in his designs were elongated vertically, oftentimes in odd-numbered groups. Scott also became interested in arches of different types, an architectural detail not present in Battersea's final design, but very important to his work as a whole.
4 Source: https://www.lonelyplanet.com/england/liverpool/attractions/liverpool-cathedral/a/poi-sig/413454/358937. 33 Figure 4-5: Scott's design for a church in Stoke-on-Trent."
Scott's most recognizable work by far came from his entry in another competition. In
1924, the Royal Fine Art Commission, in conjunction with the Post Office, held a competition to update Britain's telephone boxes. Scott won the competition with his proposal in 1925, and in
1926 the classic red British telephone box began its proliferation across the country. This design is referred to as a K2 kiosk, as a successor to the Ki. ' He would go on to design the sixth iteration (K6 kiosk) in 1935, which remains the most recognizable and popular incarnation of the iconic British telephone box.
50 Ibid, 61. 5' Richard Coltman, "The Story of Kiosk No 2," The Telephone Box, http://www.the-telephone-box.co.uk/kiosks/k2/. 34 Figure 4-6: Scott's famous red K6 telephone box."
The LPC's commissioning of Scott looks to be a result of the public's fear of the project.
Not only were there incredibly vocal concerns about public health and safety, but many people objected to the construction of yet another ugly, industrial power station in the heart of London.
Having proven himself an able architect at such a young age, Scott's inclusion on the project promised both effective aesthetic results and the possibility of assuaging some of this anxiety.
Before examining the results of Scott's work on this project (Section 5), it is important to examine what he did not do for the project. Scott sometimes gets credit for being the architect of
Battersea, which is not quite accurate. He was responsible for the building's exterior, and his contributions to the building are what make it an iconic landmark of London. However, as is clear from Figure 4-2, the work of Sir Pearce had already come to basically resemble the existing
52 Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/FiIe:Red-telephonebox,_StPaul%27sCathedral,_London,_England,_GB,_I MG_5182_edit.jpg 35 form of Battersea. The basic shape is there: a long rectangular brick building with four chimneys
(fluted, already, in these early designs), one on each corner of the station (not shown in Figure
4-2, but in slightly later iterations). Speaking of his father's design of Battersea, Richard Gilbert
Scott (Sir Giles' son) said this: "If there is criticism to be made of the four chimneys being placed at each corner of the building in a seemingly rather forced manner I would say that this was the result of an engineering requirement and not a request of the architect. Father was not called in until after the foundations had been laid."" Worth noting is his use of the term "the architect" in describing his father. He uses this term even though his father had not been included on the project until after the construction process was well under way.
What of the interiors? Perhaps, despite his late inclusion on the project, there was still time enough for Scott to be involved in the station's interior design. As shown in Figure 4-2, some of the interior design, in terms of the mechanics, had already been figured out by Pearce.
The details of the interior design were completed by Halliday and Agate, an architecture firm. If this is the case, then what were Sir Giles Gilbert Scott's contributions to Battersea, and why does he get so much credit for the building's design? In short, without Scott's architectural genius, made clear from the intricate, beautiful Art Deco brick detailing, the building never would have gained the cultural significance that it did. It would have likely been torn down, as was the case of so many aesthetically inferior British power stations. By adding his unique architectural touch, Scott not only solidified his position as master of the brick cathedral; he also created a massive physical unification of industry and modernity, setting a precedent that London would be unable to shake.
53 Richard Gilbert Scott, Giles Gilbert Scott: His Son's View, (Liverpool: Liverpool Cathedral Publications, 2011), 15. 36 5. Architectural Overview
Battersea Power Station was constructed in two parts. Station A was built first; its foundations and the imagined future that they evoked were the subjects of the 1929 media debate. Construction of Station B would not begin for another decade or so. Station A began to produce electricity in 1933, and was completed in 1935.
Figure 5-1: Battersea Power Station in 1934.4
The finished A Station is about 170 meters long and its chimneys rise to about 100 meters high." The entire station was of a brown brick cladding and primarily consisted of one long turbine hall, bookended by two bulky towers. These towers are the focal points of the station; each is topped with a fluted chimney. The station's most notable and perhaps impressive feature is its ornate brickwork in the Art Deco style.
14 Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/pictures/9523224/Battersea-Power-Station-a-history-of-the-London-Ia ndmark-in-pictures.htm l?frame=2329756. 5 "Putting Battersea on the Map." South Chelsea. https://web.archive.org/web/20 1203 101531 52/http://www.southchelsea.freeserve.co.uk/page I l.html. 37 Art Deco was a very popular architectural style in the 1920s and 30s, seen most prominently in the recent constructions of the Chrysler Building (1930), the Empire State
Building (1931), and 30 Rockefeller Center (1933), all of which were located in New York City.
Art Deco was, in a way, responding to the Gothic Revivalism of the 19th century. It accentuated verticality in the way that neo-Gothic architecture did, and often included ornamentation in the form of figures or gargoyles. It did this, however, with a more modern, geometric approach. Art
Deco gained enormous strength in Manhattan. Not coincidentally, Manhattan's limited real estate led to a lot of vertical construction at this time. The combination of modernity and verticality can help explain the expansion of New York's Art Deco creations, which became icons of America's new cosmopolitan importance.
This movement was certainly not only an American phenomenon, but Art Deco was seeing its largest and most renowned incarnations in America and had not been seen as prominently in London. A few smaller Art Deco buildings were constructed in the early 1930s in London, but none could compare to the towering brilliance of their rivals in New York. One could say that London was lagging behind architecturally. London's largest architectural landmarks at the time were Big Ben and St Paul's Cathedral, both of which were built in styles that were no longer in vogue. The work of Sir Giles Gilbert Scott had begun in the neo-gothic mode but over time had been drifting closer to a geometric, highly vertical and boxy style that began to resemble Art Deco.
Scott's expertise at accentuating verticality is apparent in the Art Deco brickwork of
Battersea's exterior. Through vertical brick striations along the center of each tower, Scott simultaneously mirrors the fluting of the chimneys above as well as creates an attractive, modern
38 display. The exterior walls are minimally fenestrated, allowing the brickwork to occupy the viewer's attention. Those windows that were included are very tall, slim rectangles. These can be seen at either side of the tower. With the completion of the A Station, anticipation for the construction of its twin B station was building. As shown in Figure 5-1, the construction of
Battersea was cut off cleanly down the middle, where the two stations would eventually meet.
WWII would prevent this B station from being built for some time.
Figure 5-2. Interior of the A Station, 1933."
The interior of the station, designed by Halliday and Agate, was also fashioned in the Art
Deco style. 57 Fluted pillars and coffered ceilings meet mechanical dials and gauges. The composite of these two aesthetics does as much to emphasize Battersea's take on modem industry as Scott's exterior. Station A's interior offered an attractive, if dimly lit, work environment for the many technicians who would occupy its rooms.
* Source: https://c20society.org.uk/100-buildings/1933-battersea-power-station-london/. " "Battersea Power Station," Architecturally, October 19, 2017, http://architecturally.Iondon/buildings/battersea-power-station. 39 4
5 Figure 5-3. interior of the A Station.
The risk of their Battersea investment and the media thrashing that they had faced helped lead the LPC to focus on making Battersea Power Station beautiful. Under Scott, the LPC successfully constructed not only London's first elegant and attractive power station, but a monument to British industry. Battersea's chimneys, evocative of Greco-Roman columns, stood as gleaming, off-white beacons of western civilization, of empire. Battersea transformed the traditional form of brickwork and became one of the largest brick buildings ever created. Scott used his brick-cathedral style to create a temple for British power. By adopting the Art Deco style, he asserted to the world that London was as cosmopolitan now as ever.
Scott's work created not only the tallest building in London, but the first major architectural landmark in London since the erection of Tower Bridge in 1894. This was perhaps
London's first utterly modemn landmark. Scott was unafraid of eschewing the Victorian
58Sore http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-39136Insd-pl--uue- m-htgahrtae-acntn-
40 constraints of his forebears, of his grandfather and of his own prior work. In doing so he brought to life this smoking, breathing testament to a continued British authority in the 20th century.
41 6. Sabotage
As well as serving as a symbol of Britain's industrial power, Battersea Power Station also served as a symbol for the consolidation of that power in a single, indefensible location. With power in the 20th century now giving companies and countries the ability to generate electricity for use by millions, the population as a whole was more anxious now than ever about foreign threats to that power. This was especially true given the rising political tensions of the late
1930s. The rise of fascism in Western Europe, especially Nazism in Germany, combined with the economic impact of the Depression, left the United Kingdom feeling especially worried about foreign invasion.
These anxieties were voiced explicitly in the 1936 Alfred Hitchcock film Sabotage, an adaptation of Joseph Conrad's 1907 novel The Secret Agent.59 In the film's opening, a mysterious act of sabotage upon London's power grid causes a widespread blackout throughout the city. Later in the film, it is revealed that the protagonist is involved with a group of European terrorists that intend to plant a bomb in the Piccadilly Circus Tube Station. Sabotage included material that was quite controversial for a film from 1936, including a terrorist's bomb blowing up a bus full of innocent bystanders.
Sabotage marked Battersea Power Station's first appearance on film or television; an exterior shot of Battersea was used to establish the first scene as taking place there. This appearance would be the first of dozens of times that Battersea was portrayed in a piece of filmed media. Over those decades of media portrayal, the role that Battersea plays would change greatly. In the beginning, Battersea played the victim. Battersea represented vulnerability.
" "Sabotage - Trivia." IMDb. https://www.imdb.con/title/tt0028212/trivia?ref =tttry try. 42 Figure 6-1. Battersea in Hitchcock's Sabotage (1936).6
Films like Sabotage, political thrillers and the spy films that would become so popular in later decades (especially James Bond), betray an underlying anxiety regarding foreign threats to
British power. These portrayals come with varying degrees of earnestness; James Bond films are ultimately entertaining and action-packed, and generally show 007 victorious in the end.
Sabotage and films of its ilk showed a more earnest fear. Spy fiction and other depictions of foreign subterfuge were not novel to this part of the 20th century. However, before Battersea, such an immense consolidation of power in one place had never been seen before on British soil.
For the first time, the consequences of foreign manipulation had the potential to be devastating on an unprecedented scale. Even if the brick facade and steel framing of Battersea was enough to keep bombs at bay (mind you, in 1936 the British could not yet see the imminence of war), who knew how else foreign agents could seek to interfere with London's power grid?
60 Source: https://the.hitchcock.zone/wiki/Sabotage _(1936)_-_locations. 43 Hitchcock abstained from naming a specific foreign threat, but let's do so here: Germany.
Who knew in what other ways the Germans, under Hitler's reign, might threaten not just British electrical power, but Britain's way of life and Britain's power on the world stage? Britain's pre-WWI confidence likely would have kept it from producing such a piece of film, had the medium of film been popular at that time. The First World War taught Britain not only the power of some of its fellow European nations, but also the idea that a British victory in war was far from guaranteed.6 Perhaps such a confidence was warranted back when Britain could rely on its Navy to protect it, but the technology of the 20th century would prove this means of protection useless on its own. Britain and its allies came close to annihilation in that war, and the political tensions of the 1930s brought with them an anxiety that only the nation's newfound humility could provide. In its first media portrayal, Battersea symbolized the vulnerabilities to all these very real fears. While obviously a piece of fiction, Sabotage described a rational fear of a real potential threat, the symbolic vulnerability of which sat on the south bank of the Thames, susceptible to very real threats of foreign incursion.
Of course, in 1939 Germany invaded Poland, and Britain declared war on Germany.
The Second World War brought with it the legitimization of the anxieties characterized by films like Sabotage. It also created the legitimate need to consider protecting important buildings such as Battersea Power Station. England had not been invaded by foot soldiers in well over a century.62 Even throughout the Napoleonic Wars, England went untouched.
Britain's success was due to its advantageous island positioning and its historically brilliant
61 An idea discussed in many places including: Robert Tombs, The English and Their History (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016), in the section "The War to End War". 6 The last time this technically occurred appears to have actually been during the American Revolution in 1778, when John Paul Jones led a small invasion of a town in Northern England called Whitehaven. 44 Navy. The invention of the airplane changed that; even in WWI when airplane technology was still nascent, the Germans had successfully bombed parts of England with both planes and zeppelins.63 At the outset of WWII, the British knew that such a threat was again likely, and that they would need to prepare.
A late 1939 letter from the Chief of the Port of London Authority Police, W.H.A.
Webster, was written to his friend in Scotland Yard, and details his concerns about the vulnerability of the London Power Company's properties: "This Power Company generates all the electricity for the Southern Railway as well as for a great part of the West End. A saboteur could do infinite damage there and at low tide approach would be easy to this and the adjacent wharves..."64 This letter describes exactly the sort of event that took place in Sabotage, and now that England was at war once again, the need to defend these stations was essential. A loss of power at home could halt production in Britain's large cities, damaging not only the economy and morale, but also the means of producing and transporting materials for the warfront. In a new age where wars were won by those with the greatest industrial wartime might, such a sabotage could mean defeat.
In early 1940, the LPC's Engineer-in-Chief Sir Pearce sent a letter to Scotland Yard expressing his desire to have improved protections for both Battersea and Deptford Power
Stations: "Intimation has been received by this Company from the London Port Emergency
Committee that the war office have made an Order under the above Regulations declaring the
63 The endless details of which can be found in the work of: Christopher Cole, and E. F. Cheesman, The Air Defence of Great Britain, 1914-1918, (London: Putnam, 1984). " W.H.A. Webster, Letter to Lieut. Colonel J.F.C. Carter. December 13, 1939, MEPO 2/3678, The National Archives, Kew, London. 45 under-mentioned premises of the Power Company 'Protected Places'."65 He then went on to list both Deptford and Battersea Power Stations, and asked the Chief Commissioner to post more police officers at Deptford to match Battersea's level of protection. Battersea had been assigned certain Metropolitan Police Officers in addition to the private watchmen that were already guarding the premises. As the Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Jack Carter, explains in a letter to Webster: "This of course is contrary to our general policy, but I am prepared to let the present arrangements stand so long as we have enough men to carry out the duty." 66 In the eyes of Scotland Yard, the importance of this situation warranted a breach in protocol. He did recommend, however, that the LPC hire additional private watchmen in addition to those police officers that would be posted.
The mid-1940 annihilation of British soldiers in France loosened the defenses of the
British, making way for the Blitzkriegs of late 1940 and early 1941. Over these several months,
German planes bombarded London with bombings that destroyed much of the city. In the course of at least 71 air raids, the Germans dropped over 18,000 tons of bombs on London. 67 It is out of this unimaginable stress that the "Keep Calm and Carry On" attitude was brought out in
Londoners. Most tried to carry on despite the air sirens and the explosions, maintaining the semblance of normal life so that the war effort could continue.
There were anti-aircraft guns on the ground in London, but they really only served to keep the German planes up high enough so that they could not hit specific targets. 68 This
65 Leonard Pearce, Letter to the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. January 5, 1940, MEPO 2/3678, The National Archives, Kew, London. 66 J.F.C. Carter, Letter to W.H.A. Webster. March 8, 1940, MEPO 2/3678, The National Archives, Kew, London. 67 Sam Adams, "Why Will Air Raid Sirens Ring out over London? It's 75 Years since This Happened," Mirror, December 29, 2015, https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/air-raid-sirens-sound-over-7088557. 68 Derek Milton, "Milton, Derek (Oral History)," interview by Conrad Wood, IWM 11451, Imperial War Museum Archive, London, August 2, 1990. 46 strategy, combined with the thick London air and cloud cover, would help spare Battersea Power
Station from any significant damage during the Blitz. Derek Milton was a schoolchild in London at the time of the Blitz. In an interview with an Imperial War Museum archivist, Milton shared his own memories of the bombings, saying that the Germans tried specifically to bomb Battersea
Power Station time and time again.69 According to Milton, German planes only ever managed to bomb the areas around the station with significant damage.
In 1943, well after the Blitz and any other sign of foreign belligerents had left Britain, officials were still concerned about potential sabotage. One man, Norman Kirby, described his experience in an Intelligence Corps based in Hammersmith. This Corps consisted of a group of
Britons whose jobs were to discover vulnerabilities in important British targets. Kirby would assume the role of a German saboteur and perform reconnaissance on power stations during the daytime. At night he and his partner were assigned the task of breaking into London's power stations and planting a fake bomb. In their attempt to "bomb" Battersea, they were indeed captured. While not always effective, the ease with which Kirby was often able to enter or
"bomb" these stations left him concerned for their safety.7
Kirby's was not the only such organization; other veterans of the war described similar circumstances in which they learned how best to destroy their own power stations, including where specifically to plant the charges. By the end of the war, it is likely that hundreds of Brits were equipped with the knowledge of how to sabotage Battersea and its fellow stations. Slightly later in 1943, the police reeled back their presence at Battersea and other stations, to the chagrin of the LPC. Fortunately, no German act of sabotage was ever attempted at Battersea. Battersea
69 bid.
7 Edward Norman Kirby, "Kirby, Edward Norman (Oral History)," interview by Peter M. Hart, IWM 16084, Imperial War Museum Archive, London, October 15, 1995. 47 Power Station never stopped producing electricity during the war. The war ended in 1945, and the German threat was eliminated.
The anxieties surrounding the protection of Battersea began before the war and would continue after the war. At a time when Britain had never been so industrially powerful, WWII brought Britain to its most vulnerable point in centuries. The new symbol of that industrial
strength, Battersea Power Station, also served as a symbol for Britain's vulnerabilities, its potential for foreign manipulation or defeat. The end of the war allowed for the repair of the superficial damage that Battersea had faced and also for the construction of Station B. It would enter the next half of the 20th century more powerful than ever, watt for watt. But like the First
World War, the Second would change British life irreparably. As the British began to rebuild
London and their other bombed cities, they would soberly acknowledge their near-defeat in this war.
WWII marked unequivocally the end of British world dominance. This next era of the
20th century would pit Americans and Soviets in a fierce ideological Cold War that would command the world's political consciousness. The US and the USSR would strive to have their own ideologies dominate the globe; the economic, political, and technological competition that this engendered would thrust Britain into the shadow of these two global superpowers. These decades would also see Britain struggling to maintain an empire even as it cast off its remaining colonies. This decline in Britain's global prestige, unforeseen in the 1920s when it was being designed, would place Battersea Power Station into a slightly anachronistic role. Its symbols of
strength, industry, and empire would no longer evoke Britain as it is, but as it was.
48 7. Smog
"Fog everywhere. Fog up the river, where it flows among green aits and meadows; fog down the river, where it rolls defiled among the tiers of shipping and the waterside pollutions of a great (and dirty) city." -Charles Dickens, Bleak House, 1852
World War II and its economic ramifications brought about an enormous change to UK domestic policy. After three successive Conservative governments, once the fighting on the
European front had ceased in the summer of 1945, Winston Churchill was ousted and a Labour government was installed under Clement Attlee. This new, post-war government favored nationalization of various industries as a means of reinvigorating the British economy, and under its rule the government expanded its powers by taking responsibility of several key UK services.
The National Health Service (NHS), Britain's public healthcare system, was founded in 1946.
The Bank of England, which had been a private company since 1694, was nationalized in 1946 as well. The Electricity Act 1947 nationalized hundreds of private electricity-providing companies and formed the British Electricity Authority.7' The London Power Company became a part of this massive national organization. Battersea Power Station at this time was a continually-growing symbol of British industry; it was once again surrounded by cranes as its B
Station was being erected. It was now a symbol owned and operated by the British government.
The idea to nationalize Britain's electricity grid was not new in 1947; the Central
Electricity Board and the Electricity Commission already had immense oversight with the power companies. In 1942, Sir William Jowitt (the Paymaster General) created a report on eventual
71 John Singleton and Robert Millward, eds., The PoliticalEconomy of Nationalisationin Britain, 1920-1950 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). 49 war reconstruction measures. His recommendations regarding the electricity grid were definitive:
"The Electricity Supply Act, 1926... cannot be regardedas constituting a
complete andfinal solution of the problems of generation. The separationof
responsibility between the CentralElectricity Board on the one hand and the
authoritiesoperating the generatingstations on the other hand was a compromise
solution, and the time has now come to complete central responsibility."7
The 1947 Act ensured this central responsibility. The government was saying that only it could operate the stations in the way that would best serve the people of Britain. In assuming ownership of Battersea and all of Britain's other stations, the government was not only accepting responsibility of their operation, but of the effects of their operation as well. By 1952, the
Labour government had ended and Sir Winston Churchill was once again the Prime Minister.
That year, five cold December days in London would create a health crisis that would force this new government to grapple with the consequences of their ever-growing industry.
Fog in London was not at all a rarity. For many centuries London's heavy fogs were seen as an issue, leading to bans of certain types of coal burning in the city as early as the 13th century.7 3 These "London particulars" were also called pea-soupers due to their thickness and sometimes even greenish hue. The coal burning of the Industrial Revolution exacerbated this issue and brought about a new awareness of the smog's effects on architecture. As Timothy
Hyde describes in his paper 'London particular':the city, its atmosphere and the visibility of its objects, the need to choose a type of stone for Westminster Palace in the 1830s generated a new
72 Ibid, 273.
73 Anthony Browne, "London's Air Cleanest since 1585," The Guardian, June 10, 2001, https://www.theguardian.com/uk/200 1/jun/I O/physicalsciences.research. 50 awareness of the destructive effects of coal smoke on London's buildings.74 This in turn may have helped bring about legislation such as the Public Health Act 1875.75 The super-station movement of the 20th century brought the smog issue to still greater heights, with which no amount of legislation could compete. The Great Smog of 1952 was the apotheosis of centuries' concerns regarding the London air, bringing to life the "gloomy prognostications" of those 1929 complainants.76
On December 5th, 1952, a thick fog descended upon London. Rather than dissipate, as most pea-soupers eventually did, this smog persisted. This smog was thicker and more choking than most previously, and it lingered due to an unfortunate confluence of weather patterns and the unusually high smoke generation of that winter's unanticipated cold.77 The smog finally lifted on December 9th. During the smog's duration the local death rate was twice as high as usual, and deaths caused by cases of bronchitis rose to ten times the normal rate. 78 A report from the Health Committee at the time compared that week's mortality rate to that of the 1866 cholera epidemic.79 While reports at the time attributed around 4,000 deaths to the smog, more recent research has indicated that as many as 12,000 deaths were a direct consequence of the smog.80
74 Timothy Hyde, "'London Particular': The City, Its Atmosphere and the Visibility of Its Objects," The Journalof Architecture 21, no. 8 (2016): , doi:10.1080/13602365.2016.1255988. 7 Ibid. 76 "Gloomy prognostications," a term invoked by Geoffrey Fry, Letter to H.T. Tizard, February 8, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London. 77 Christopher Klein, "The Great Smog of 1952," History.com, December 06, 2012, https://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-london-60-years-ago. 71 "Report of the Health Committee (No. 2)", January 27, 1953, MH 58/398, The National Archives, Kew, London. 79 bid.
80 Christopher Klein, "The Great Smog of 1952," History.com, December 06, 2012, https://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-london-60-years-ago. 51 [ I
Figure 7-1. Londoners during the Great Smog of 1952."
The private responses of government officials varied in the degree to which they admitted responsibility in the situation. Members of various groups called for the immediate investigation of the smog's origin. Harold Macmillan was the Minister of Housing and Local
Government and so was the official in charge of dealing with pollution in the UK. In a 1953 letter about the Great Smog, Macmillan reduces his own role in affecting change: "I believe that this is one of those things, like the floods, by which the efficiency of the Government is judged.
8 2 There is nothing very much that we can do, but we can look as if we were doing it." The lack of accountability that Macmillan displays here is inconsistent with the increasing responsibilities of a Government that has only recently taken ownership of such vital industries. He was more concerned about the appearance of government control than he was in taking the proper measures to ensure that such an event would not be repeated.
" Source: https://londontopia.net/anglotopia-magazine/london-great-smog- 1952/. 82 Harold Macmillan, Letter to H.T. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, November 17, 1953, MH 58/398, The National Archives, Kew, London. 52 Of course, Battersea Power Station was far from the only contributor to the Great Smog.
In fact, if the reports from the flue-gas desulfurization experiments of the 1930s were accurate
and as much as 95 percent of SO2 had been removed from Battersea's emissions, Battersea may have been one of the least aggressive contributors to those sulfurous fumes. Since Battersea began its operations in 1933, several more large super-stations had joined it. Foremost among these additions was Bankside Power Station, the exterior of which was also designed by Sir Giles
Gilbert Scott (and which is famous for having been converted into the Tate Modern art gallery in
2000). Bankside was completed in 1952 and was even more centrally located than Battersea, being just across the river of St. Paul's Cathedral.
At this time, Battersea, Bankside, and Fulham were the only power stations with the flue-gas scrubbing technology designed for Battersea. This meant that every other station and all domestic coal-burning was still producing high amounts of SO2, and the handling and transportation of coal at all stations, including Battersea and Bankside, was also contributing to the bothersome coal dust. Incidentally, a consequence of the flue-gas scrubbing process meant drastically lowering the temperature of the released gas, which meant that in a certain climate the gas would not in fact rise and disappear, but instead would linger and form a mist. This mist would allow those sulfurous particles which were not removed by the scrubbing process to be more easily inhaled by humans, and would also help trap the sulfurous fumes of other chimneys on the ground.83 Due to all of these factors, no power station was innocent in this circumstance.
In fact, it is possible that the gas-scrubbing measures originally meant to minimize the dangers of gas emissions may have actually exacerbated them.
83 F. E. Ireland, "Flue Gas Washing at Battersea Power Station," February 10, 1970, HLG 120/1297, The National Archives, Kew, London. 53 In 1953, a committee under the direction of Sir Hugh Beaver was assembled to research the cause of this event and to issue recommendations for preventing future disasters. The Beaver
Committee delivered its report in 1954. Aided by this report, the Great Smog of 1952 had an effect devastating enough to convince the Government to finally take action against the environmental degradation of their capital. Parliament passed The Clean Air Act of 1956, which established stricter rules for both the domestic and industrial burning of fuels. These measures included the enforcement of "smoke control areas" of the city in which no smoke could be produced, the lowering of sulfur content in fuels, the lengthening of chimneys, and the placement of new power stations further away from dense urban areas.8 4 As the graph in Figure 7-2 indicates, these measures were effective at producing environmental change and clearing the
London air. Since the mid-1950s, there has been a near-constant decrease in SO 2 and smoke in the London air.
Figure 3 450 Annual average smoke and sulphur dioxIde WefZ I od 350- -Sulphur dioxide 1950 to 2000 - .300- -Smoke Source: 250 AEA Technology Environment CL 2002 r 200 E T150 Note: o Before 1954 data was only published 50 as 5-year overoges
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Figure 7-2: London air pollution since 1950.85
London's reputation as a smog-laden city is now a relic of the past. Smog does not descend upon London anymore, and certainly not to the degree that it did in 1952. While a
84 "Changing Air Quality and Clean Air Acts." Air-quality.org. http://www.air-quality.org.uk/03.php. 85 Graph not of my own creation. Source: http://www.geocoops.com/urban-microclimates.html. 54 tragedy, the Great Smog bears the silver lining of actualized legislative change, a claim which cannot be attributed to many tragedies of this scale. At the eve of Battersea's completion, the government passed environmental controls that would better the lives of Londoners, while essentially setting an expiration date for the existing coal-firing stations. The Smog forced the government of this newly nationalized electrical industry to bear witness to coal's truly terrible power. Through the Clean Air Act, this government was actually taking responsibility for the future of London's air. As environmental awareness grew more broad in the 1960s and 1970s,
Battersea and the other coal-firing plants would be viewed in an ever more damning light.
55 8. The Station, Completed
In 1955, construction of Battersea's B Station was completed, thus realizing Sir Giles
Gilbert Scott's full four-chimney design. As per the design, the B station was the A station's mirror opposite, with few deviations. The two parallel stations were finally joined together as one. Upon completion of the B Station, Battersea took the physical form for which it would become internationally famous in just two decades. After 25 years, the station was finally complete.
Figure 8-1. Battersea Power Station.86
Post-war economic conservatism persisted in the decade after the war's end. For example, the civilian rationing that began in 1940 did not end until 1954.87 As a
86 Source: https://www.oka.com/blog/behind-the-scenes-battersea-power-station/. Robert Tombs, The English and Their History, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016), in the section "Postwar". 56 government-owned facility, the continued construction of Battersea would be impacted by these cutbacks. While the exterior of Battersea's second half was identical to the first, the interiors were pared down to a lower degree of opulence. These interiors had similar sorts of machinery to those in Station A. However, the design and furnishings consisted of cement, tiles, and practical lighting elements as opposed to the expensive Art Deco detailing of the A Station. This created a literal bridge between pre-war and post-war Britain: the luxuriousness and comfort of an antebellum society juxtaposed with the humble trepidation of a country that had come close to annihilation. Over the next two decades, Battersea Power Station would continue its operations with minimal impediment or controversy.
Figure 8-2. Interior of B Station."8
Britain itself, from the mid-i 950s to the mid-i 970s, would continue operations as well in a much-changed state, its position in global politics shrunken. WWII aided independence
88 Source: https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/home/in-pictures-battersea-power-station-as-a-20th-century-ruined-castle/52056 34.article. 57 movements within the British Commonwealth, and within other European empires, in several capacities. The British colonies provided many millions of soldiers for the warfront. India itself had an army of about 2.3 million, and many other soldiers came from Britain's colonies in
Africa, the Caribbean, and elsewhere.89 The financial devastation of the war also made the prospect of maintaining the empire less appealing than it was before the war.90 Britain granted
India its independence in 1947, and over the course of several more decades Britain would lose more and more of its colonies. Ghana, Sudan, and Nigeria in Africa, Malaysia in Southeast Asia,
Israel in the Middle East, and Jamaica in the Caribbean were just a few of the dozens of countries that would be formed as a result of Britain's post-war decolonization.9'
As Robert Tombs describes in The English and their History:
"The onset of the Cold War and the permanentmilitary andpolitical competition
of the two superpowers over the next four decades would make all other countries
to varying degrees their satellites, hasteninggeneral decolonization and leaving
little room for lesser states, such as Britain or France, to act as credible Great
Powers." 92
Over the course of the 1950s-60s, the US and the USSR fought a bitter Cold War that was at times technologically thrilling, and at other times appeared as though it would bring the world to nuclear destruction. This conflict inspired the scientific innovations of the two superpowers. In
1957, a Soviet satellite named Sputnik soared across the sky, its visible light boasting of Russia's technical and ideological superiority. The Apollo 11 moon landing, televised in 1969, was the
89 John Darwin, Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreatfrom Empire in the Post-war World, (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988). 90 Ibid. ' Ibid. 9 Robert Tombs, The English and Their History, (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016), 775. 58 American counterpoint. The technological advances of the 20th century had made the horrific annihilations of the First and Second World Wars possible. The greatest irony came in the form of the nuclear bomb, a technological innovation so powerful that it would keep war between the two superpowers at bay through a mutually assured destruction. The remainder of the 20th century would be dominated by scientific innovations such as those brought on by the Space
Race.
The destruction and debt that Britain amassed during WWII made its post-war role more conservative. Britain was in fact still actively developing new technologies, though often lagging behind the Americans and Soviets, and never so prominently in the geo-political limelight. This is a time in British history where its cultural empire overtakes its political empire. At the same time that Britain was decolonizing, it was also developing music, art, and architecture that was becoming regarded internationally. The Beatles' 1964 arrival in America led to the British Invasion; Britain's reign over Rock and Roll would prove unassailable.
London's cosmopolitan reputation grew, with Scott's red telephone boxes becoming an internationally familiar symbol of British culture.
Battersea Power Station reached its peak output during these decades, Scott's vision having finally been fully realized. The decades ahead would be primarily peaceful ones for
Britain, but internal social tensions were already building. One image of the station would change its history forever, drawing it into a new symbolic role that, for many, would encapsulate
Britain's social struggles.
59 9. Animals
In 1976, Roger Waters could see Battersea Power Station from the window of his home.
Waters had been a student at the Regent Street Polytechnic school of architecture starting in
1962, but had abandoned his studies within a few years to pursue his love of music. A few of his fellow architecture students had done the same, and together they had formed the band Pink
Floyd. By the mid-i 970s, Pink Floyd had already produced their most famous album The Dark
Side of the Moon, which sold tens of millions of copies over the following decades and became one of the best selling albums of all time.93 Pink Floyd, led by their frontman Roger Waters and the design studio Hipgnosis, were in the process of choosing an album cover for their newest recorded work.
Hipgnosis had worked with Pink Floyd previously to create many of their iconic album covers, including the cover of The Dark Side of the Moon. They had also worked with The
Beatles, Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, The Who, and many of Britain's most influential rock bands of the 1960s-70s. Aubrey Powell, who worked for Hipgnosis, explains the origins of the legendary image:
"Roger Waters called up one day and said 'I'm thinking of doing something with
BatterseaPower Station'... At that time it was still in full working order, with
steam coming out of the chimneys. The band hadjust had an inflatablepig built
for a tour. Roger and I both looked up at the Station, and said, 'let'sfly the pig
between the chimneys'. Just like that. "'
' "Gold & Platinum." RIAA, Recording Industry Association of America, www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab-active=defaultaward& ar=Pink%2BFloyd&ti=Animals#searchsection. " Flo Wales Bonner, "Meet the Man behind Pink Floyd's Iconic Battersea Power Station Album Cover," Now Here This. August 28, 2013. Accessed February 20, 2018. 60 Speaking in a 1977 interview promoting the recording, Waters explained further his decision to include Battersea on the cover of this new album: "I think it's a very nice building.
It's very doomy, and inhuman... I quite like the very crude symbolism of Battersea Power
Station, anyway. I like the four phallic towers and the idea of power, I find rather appealing in a strange way." 95 With a keen architectural eye, Waters identifies the intentional imagery of power that Sir Giles Gilbert Scott utilized in his design. His analysis of the building, however, also identifies the unintentional symbolism of a building aged 40 years, constructed in a very different United Kingdom. The idea that Scott and the others involved in Battersea's design intended the imagery as phallic is doubtful, especially given the more sexually conservative era of the 1920s and 1930s. Waters' interpretation of the chimneys is valid, whether or not it was the intention of the architects. Just like the minaret and the steeple before it, the chimney served not only a functional purpose. It managed to call attention to the building, to impose itself vertically and stake a claim on the attention of people far and wide. Rather than asserting a moral superiority, the chimney asserted an industrial and economic superiority.
There was not only a crudeness in the phallic imagery of Battersea, but also in the way that its height and grandeur continued to insist upon its own greatness even into the 1970s, when coal burning was being replaced with cleaner sources of power, and the symbolism of an early-20th century industrial Britain seemed almost piteously anachronistic. The younger generation was brought up after the war and reached their maturity in the cultural and environmental revolutions of the late 1960s. In the eyes of many of them, such as Waters,
https://now-here-this.timeout.com/2013/08/28/meet-the-man-behind-pink-floyds-iconic-battersea-power-station-alb um-cover/. 9 Roger Waters. "Pink Floyd 'Animals' 1977 Album Interview," interview by Nicky Horne, Capital Radio Stories, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJgXGEnpd g. 61 Battersea exemplified an older, oppressive and damaging institution whose continued, crude self-importance in an age of social upheaval was deplorable.
Figure 9-1. Cover of Pink Floyd's Animals (1977).96
The most notable element of the cover, besides Battersea itself, is the small, floating pig that soars between the two southern chimneys. This large, inflatable pig (named Algie) was made for the upcoming tour as a set piece. When it was hoisted into the air on the day that the image was taken, it broke free of its tethers and sailed thousands of feet up in the sky. It grounded all flights in or out of Heathrow airport, and led to the arrest of Aubrey Powell.97 The
9 Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/pictures/9523224/Battersea-Power-Station-a-history-of-the-London-la ndmark-in-pictures.htmI?frame=2329743. 9' Flo Wales Bonner, "Meet the Man behind Pink Floyd's Iconic Battersea Power Station Album Cover," Now Here This. August 28, 2013. Accessed February 20, 2018. https://now-here-this.timeout.com/20 13/08/28/meet-the-man-behind-pink-floyds-iconic-battersea-power-station-alb um-cover/. 62 attention that this brought the band simply brought more attention to their upcoming album. In that 1977 interview, Waters also speaks to the symbolism of Algie: "The flying pig is the symbol of hope."9" The pig was an unlikely piece of humanity caught between the looming towers of brutishness.
Power was one of the main topics of the resulting album, titled Animals. The album departs from the deeply personal, human topics of Pink Floyd's previous two albums, topics of loss, mortality, mental health and loneliness. In Animals, Waters condenses the world into a ruthless landscape of dogs, pigs, and sheep. He uses these metaphors to describe the way that different social classes treat each other cruelly and can unintentionally aid in their own oppression. Animals was Pink Floyd's most angry album to date; its cynical analysis of Britain's class structure describes power as a means of suppressing the weak. Bookending these scathing social criticisms are two short, acoustic love songs. Said Waters, "I thought [they were] very necessary, otherwise the album would've just been a kind of scream, you know, of rage."99
These songs, collectively entitled "Pigs on the Wing", allude to the glimmer of hope that Waters described, and they contrast the inhuman savagery represented by the album's core and by
Battersea itself.
Animals was released in January 1977 and was accompanied by a record-selling tour of
Europe and North America. While not as popular as their previous two albums, Animals still sold incredibly well, reaching quadruple-platinum status in the United States.' 0 Prior to the
9 Roger Waters. "Pink Floyd 'Animals' 1977 Album Interview," interview by Nicky Horne, Capital Radio Stories, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJgXGEnpd g. 9 Ibid. 100 "Gold & Platinum." RIAA, Recording Industry Association of America, www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab-active=defaultaward& ar=Pink%2BFloyd&ti=Animals#searchsection. 63 album's release, Battersea Power Station was an important icon within London but was not a universal household image like Big Ben. While it would never reach that level of fame, the release of Animals was responsible for this depiction of Battersea being distributed to millions of households globally. Rock fans across the world who had never before seen Battersea would now have its image sitting among their vinyl collections; Waters' symbolic interpretation of the station would be emblazoned in the minds of millions.
The cover of Animals was the single most important image ever taken of Battersea Power
Station. Its worldwide distribution brought the station a level of fame that none of its original designers could have foreseen. Through this cover, Battersea transcended the normal bounds of architecture and became a two-dimensional icon, twisting the symbolism of the original architects for the purposes of a new age. Battersea as a symbol of oppression and unequally distributed power was novel in this depiction. This newfound fame would usher Battersea Power
Station into position as one of London's most significant architectural icons. It would also help provide the catalyst for Battersea's dozens of film and television appearances. Many of these forthcoming depictions would follow Animals in its cynical interpretation of Battersea's symbolism.
64 10. King Coal
"What do you get for pretending the danger's not real? Meek and obedient you follow the leader down well-trodden corridors into the valley of steel." -Pink Floyd, Sheep, from Animals (1977)
In 1974, Eric Varley, the new Labour Secretary of State for Energy, had an optimistic view of coal's place in the UK energy sector: "King Coal is back on his throne again. He is firmly established on it. No one can knock him off. The only way he can lose is by abdication."
10 With the sort of incautious insistence that could only precede an ironic twist of fate, here
Varley appeals to the Derbyshire constituents that had helped end the Conservative government and bring Labour to power in 1974.102 The men and women of Varley's district made up several thousand members of a coal industry that in 1974 was comprised of around a quarter million workers. 3 Within ten years the UK coal industry would be facing a massive decline in output and would be in the midst of the greatest workers' strike of all time.
Coal has been mined in Great Britain since the Romans occupied the island 2000 years ago. Pre-industrial Britons used coal to warm their homes and to power their industries. The innovations brought about by the Industrial Revolution, including combustion engines and the machinery that powered new industries, such as steel, created a new demand for coal power that led to a sharp growth in the industry. Thousands of coal mines opened and saw production in the late-Victorian period, such that in 1913 the UK produced 292 million tonnes of coal.' 4 The repercussions of this growth were vast; coal production created an immense source of
1' Mark Seddon, "The Long, Slow Death of the UK Coal Industry," The Guardian, April 11, 2013, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/Il/slow-death-coal-industry. 102 Ibid. '0' "Historical Coal Data: Coal Production, Availability and Consumption 1853 to 2016." gov.uk, July 27, 2017, www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-coal-data-coal-production-avaiability-and-consumption- 185 3-to-201 I. 104 Ibid. 65 employment for people who lived by the collieries where the coal was mined. At its peak in
1920, there were 1,191,000 workers in the coal industry.105 The industry animated the towns around these collieries, and many became "mining towns" whose local economies were reliant on the industry. Not only did the growth of coal vitalize these towns, but all industries that were enabled through the burning of coal, the running of engines, and eventually through the use of electricity. The advent of the super-station was the product of an ever-growing demand showing no signs of curtailment. Battersea Power Station produced over 500 megawatts of power and burned over a million tonnes of coal every year, and it was only one of an endless sea of power
stations in Britain.106 The power station was a monument to an industry that fueled Britain and made its power possible; the super-station was its most grand incarnation.
The reign of King Coal was threatened severely in the 1960s; in 1960 the industry had
607,000 workers, but by 1970 employment in the industry had fallen to just 290,000.107 The reasons for this plummet are manifold. The main threat to coal was the increasing prominence of other sources of energy. In 1900, 95.5% of energy consumed in the UK came from coal power.
108 Slowly over the course of the century, the UK began to extract crude oil, partially as a result of its economic endeavors in the Middle East. The 1960s and 1970s saw not only an enormous upswing in the total percentage of energy consumed in the UK by oil extraction, but also the
105 Ibid. 106 "Coal-fired power stations," UK Parliament,House of Commons Debate, January 16, 1984 vol 52 cc42-5W, https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1984/jan/I6/coal-fired-power-stations#S6CV0052PO_198 40116_CWA281. 17 "Historical Coal Data: Coal Production, Availability and Consumption 1853 to 2016." gov.uk, July 27, 2017, www.gov.uk/govermment/statistical-data-sets/historical-coal-data-coal-production-availabiity-and-consumption- 185 3-to-201 1. 108 Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser, "Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources," 2018, https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources. 66 introduction of natural gas power.'09 As a result, by 1984 coal power made up only 29.3% of the energy consumed in the UK." 0
Additionally, of that coal which was consumed in the UK, a smaller and smaller percentage of it was actually being extracted within the country. The rise of coal extraction in foreign countries made importing coal cheaper, and therefore was more attractive to the UK energy market. The exhaustion of existing coal mines in the UK also made the price of domestic coal increase."' As these mines got deeper, the cost of extraction grew because it took more machinery and manpower to bring the coal to the surface." 2 Starting whole new mines was also a costly endeavor, and made importing coal more appealing. In 1945 the UK produced 186 million tonnes of coal and did not import any." 3 By 1984, the UK produced only 51 million tonnes and imported 9 million." 4
There was also a non-economic reason for this momentous shift in energy consumption.
Over the course of the century, the devastating environmental impact of coal-burning became more clear; in London this was seen most dramatically in the Great Smog of 1952. This new awareness helped bring about not only the environmental legislation of the late 1950s but also the global environmental movements of the 1960s-70s. Only during this time period did the concept of a global climate change, influenced by human activity and measurable at a human
109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. "' Scott Patterson, "End of an Era: England Closes Its Last Deep-Pit Coal Mine," The Wall Street Journal, December 11, 2015, https://www.wsj.com/articles/pit-closure-marks-dying-embers-of-british-coal-industry- 1449837861. 112 Ibid. "' "Historical Coal Data: Coal Production, Availability and Consumption 1853 to 2016." gov.uk, July 27, 2017, www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/historical-coal-data-coal-production-availability-and-consumption- 185 3-to-201 1. "4 Ibid. 67 1. -4
timescale, become popularly understood." 5 Coal was seen as an aggressor of this global danger, and so its use was curbed not only through legislation but through improved popular understanding of environmental science.
1,300 ______
1.200 _ _ _ __
0 0 3a t_ _ _ _
100 ___
1400 1090 1900 0910 0920 1930 1940 0990 1960 1970 190 1990 2000 2010 2020
Figure 10-1: Domestic employment in the UK coal industry since 1880."16
The obliteration of the UK coal industry in these decades led to the closure of hundreds of collieries across Britain, as well as the closure of many coal-fired power stations. Battersea's
A Station was decommissioned in 1975. By then the A Station had actually been burning oil as well as coal for some time, but was closed in 1975 due to its age and the wear on its machinery and structure." 7 Battersea Power Station was built with an intended lifespan of only about 30 years." 8 While it could feasibly have been refurbished to extend that lifespan, given current energy trends the economic choice became closure. This was true not only of Battersea, but of dozens of coal-fired power stations across the UK. In 1976 alone, 27 coal-firing power stations
"5 Mike Hulne. "Climate Change (concept of)." Academia.edu. Accessed April 16, 2018. https://www.academia.edu/10358797/Climate-changeconceptof_. 116 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKminers%27_strike_(1984%E2%80%9385). "7 "Coal-fired power stations," UK Parliament, House of Commons Debate, January 16, 1984 vol 52 cc42-5W, https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/1984/jan/l6/coal-fired-power-stations#S6CV0052PO_198 40116_CWA_281. "1 Gavin Stamp, "What shall we do with this cathedral of power?" The Times (London, UK), April 16, 1983. 68 were decommissioned, reducing the UK's power output via coal burning by 1,967 megawatts.' 19
While many of these stations were similarly aging out of commission, the large number of
simultaneous closures is evidence of a concerted effort on the part of the government to abandon
domestic coal consumption. Dozens more stations were closed in the following few years, and
in 1983 Battersea's B Station was decommissioned as well. After 50 years of service to its
country, Battersea Power Station would finally cease to produce power. It would join the dozens
of other defunct power stations in and around London, forming a broad landscape of derelict
abandonment. These stations were now like scavenged carcasses, their machinery stripped away
and their chimneys smokeless. Battersea's was the largest of these lifeless bodies. In its prime,
Battersea's critics had compared it visually to an overturned cow. Perhaps now this comparison
was more apt than ever.
What was receiving more attention at this time, however, was not the closure of these
power stations. The closure of coal collieries all across Britain had led to stirrings of social
unrest for decades. Down to a quarter million workers in the early 1970s, the National Union of
Mineworkers (NUM) had led strikes in 1972 and 1974, movements that included the threatened
closure of collieries and the successful election of 1974's Labour government.2 0 Eric Varley
assured his constituents of coal's unshakably brilliant future; likewise his new government would
make promises to the miners that would not last.
Despite publicly endorsing the Plan for Coal in 1981, Margaret Thatcher would
ultimately have her own plan for the industry when her Conservative government came to power.
I19 Ibid. 20 Arthur Scargill, "Arthur Scargill: 'We Could Surrender - or Stand and Fight'," The Guardian. March 07, 2009. Accessed April 1 7, 2018. https://www.theguardian.con/politics/2009/mar/07/arthur-scargill-miners-strike. 69 121 Thatcher's government of the 1980s became famous for economic conservatism and re-privatization of industry. Thatcher was uninterested in the maintenance of the dying coal industry if it meant the government would be paying more than was sensible to power the country. She was also disinterested in bending to the will of organized labor. The war between the unions and the government was waged in 1984 when the government announced it would be closing five more coal pits, despite having previously told the NUM leadership otherwise. 1 22
This sparked a year-long strike that at one point included 142,000 workers and led to approximately 624,000,000 person-hours of labor lost."2 The strike was mired in controversy regarding the behavior of both the government and the strikers, including Thatcher's ruthless castigation of the striking miners as "the enemy within." Despite their best efforts, the strike was ultimately a failure. Not only did it do little to stymie the closure of the coal collieries, but it also invigorated the government's efforts to suppress the industry and to disenfranchise labor unions.
12 Ibid. 122 Ibid.
23 Sjaak van der Velden, Heiner Dribbusch, Dave Lyddon, and Kurt Vandaele, Strikes Around the World, 1968-2005: Case-studies of15 Countries. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007). 352-4. 70 UNITEDWE
Figure 10-2: Strikers posing at the Polmaise Colliery during the 1984-85 strike.1 4
Global economics in the 19th century was characterized by empires and the colonies that
they simultaneously ravaged and "acculturated" into the western world. The 20th century saw
the slow abandonment of imperialism, with Great Britain at that system's unrelenting fore, and
the replacement of that system with an ideological battle of economic principles led by the two
new superpowers. At the end of the century, facing a new millennium, the world was coming to
terms with the dissolution of the USSR's failed experiment in socialism. Capitalism,
unequivocally, would be the principle to govern the coming age, but the capitalism of the
globalizing 1980s-90s would prove far different from that of the imperial era. The free market became king, and the economic conservatism of Thatcher and Reagan supported governments that were not willing to impede upon that market's freedom. Growth in international communications and banking would also act to make the free market more global. New markets, such as those provided by the UK's new foreign energy suppliers, threatened the livelihoods of
i4 Source: http://republicanconmunist.org/blog/2018/02/25/cowie-niners-polmaise-colliery-and-the- 1984-85-miners-strike/ 71 the UK's miners. The Miners' Strike forced the government to answer an ever more pressing question in the approaching age of global capitalism: what is the government willing to do to protect those powerless in the face of a free market? Thatcher's answer: nothing.
The ideas of unforgiving global markets and Battersea Power Station will converge in time. In the meantime, Battersea finally stood empty and abandoned. It and every other defunct, coal-firing power station in Britain stood as relics of a coal industry that had enabled the development of Britain's empire and global reign. They also stood as symbols of the
Conservative government's abandonment of the working class men and women who comprised that industry. Battersea was of course the largest of these symbols. Perhaps nothing could more appropriately actualize the social commentary of Animals than the cessation of smoke from
Battersea's chimneys. As a now-globally familiar image due to that album, Battersea Power
Station was now purely an icon, a cultural export on vinyl.
In 1980, recognizing the closure of Battersea on the horizon, the Secretary of State for the
Environment named Battersea Power Station as a Grade II listed building. The policy for listed buildings in the UK is such that "no listed buildings should be demolished until every possible alternative use has been explored.""' This listing saved Battersea from the destruction that so many of its fellow coal-firing stations would face in the coming years. Listings such as these are reserved only for buildings of substantial historic or architectural significance, and what differentiated Battersea from its peers was Sir Scott's remarkable brickwork. The writer of one
Times article written on the week of its listing summarizes its significance well:
15 "Grade 2 Listed Building Restrictions." Historic Building Advice, www.lheritage-consulting.org/grade-2-buiIding-restrictions. 72 "Its claim simply as a landmark is strong - and thatfactor is one that ought
always to carry some weight. It has a place in the affections of many who care
nothing about architecture. It is also the supreme embodiment of thirtyish ideas
about cathedralsof industry, and this too gives it a claim which cannot easily be
overlooked..."126
Other contributors were less kind, questioning the aesthetic merits of Battersea and the decision to preserve it: "Battersea power station has rather less grace, style and elegance than an upturned kitchen table. I am dismayed that we are apparently to be lumbered indefinitely with its looming ugliness." 127 Battersea would survive into the post-coal age simply because it was considered by many (though not all) to be beautiful and architecturally significant. The vast majority of the other decommissioned stations would be demolished.
Due to this listing, as of 1983 the UK government owned one of the largest brick buildings in the world, on an immeasurably valuable piece of riverside land, with priceless architectural importance yet zero functional value, that it could not remove. What was to be done with such a building?
126 "The Listing of Modern Buildings" The Times (London, UK), October 18, 1980. 127 Sylvia Sobernheim, "Smoke signals", The Times (London, UK), April 23, 1983. 73 11. The Station, Decommissioned
Over the next 30 years, Battersea Power Station as a physical building would change relatively little. Its roof would be removed as well as significant parts of its walls and interior.
The importance of this period in Battersea's history is not about the station as architecture, but the station as idea and icon. Over these decades, artists and innovators would utilize Battersea's abandonment for the sake of imagining the station in another form. For real estate developers, these conceptualizations would take the form of plans for redeveloping the land. In doing so they were imagining Battersea as it could be, and deciding what the people of London wanted most. For artists and filmmakers, these conceptualizations would take the form of Battersea's appearances in TV, movies, and other media. In doing so they were imagining an alternative present for Battersea, and making statements about Britain's current social situation. Battersea's appearance on the Animals cover made clear the idea that the image of the station could be as important as the station itself. These three decades followed in the wake of Animals; its physical form and architectural use would come secondary to its image. Battersea remained empty and falling apart, yet the mystery of its fate led to the station being as popular and discussed as ever.
Saved from eventual demolition by its Grade II listing, Battersea Power Station stood functionless and largely torn apart. Eager to find a new purpose for the building as soon as possible, the Central Electricity Generating Board was "holding a competition to elicit other ideas for the future of Battersea... It has asked the Taylor Woodrow group to organize the developer competition to find a viable use for the listed building," and, says the author of a
Times opinion piece from 1983, "it is reassuring to learn that the retention, unaltered, of the
74 exterior is regarded as axiomatic."2 While physical changes to a building's exterior appearance
are technically allowed for Grade II listed buildings, any changes, even simply those to materials
used in maintaining the building, must be approved by the Local Authority. 129 Without doubt,
the Generating Board was most interested in maintaining the exterior appearance of the station
due to how iconic it had become. Any notion of removing the now-useless chimneys or altering
the Art Deco brickwork would have constituted conservational blasphemy. While this imposed
rigidity upon the upcoming architectural competition, it did leave room for imagination
regarding its interior and its overall new purpose.
The enormous interior space within Battersea provided both an interesting opportunity
for redevelopment as well as a complication. What was the best way to utilize such an enormous
interior space, especially with the conservational constraints imposed by the Generating Board?
The 1980 Times editorial suggested "an aeronautical museum, like the impressive Air and Space
Museum in Washington, perhaps, hung with Spitfires and Swordfishes - or even Concorde,
pointing skywards?""' While the future utility of Battersea remained mysterious, it was clear
that its use would need to live up to its history and its scale.
Architectural design competitions have existed for millennia. A war memorial on the
Acropolis of Athens was the result of a design competition in 448 B.C. 13 ' The Palace of
Westminster in London, built after the previous Parliament building's fiery obliteration in 1834, is the result of a competition won by architect Charles Barry. Architectural competitions are
2 Gavin Stamp, "What shall we do with this cathedral of power?" The Times (London, UK), April 16, 1983. "Grade 2 Listed Building Restrictions." Historic Building Advice. www.heritage-consulting.org/grade-2-bu Iding-restrictions. "The Listing of Modem Buildings" The Times (London, UK), October 18, 1980. 3 Sam Hall Kaplan, "Competitions: Risk and Rivalry." Los Angeles Times (Los Angeles), December 4, 1988, articles.latimes.com/' 1988- 12-04/realestate/re-I 120 1 international-design-competition. 75 commonplace for projects that are under heavy public scrutiny or that are of great symbolic importance, such as the design of modem war memorials or the conservation projects of historically significant buildings. This is due to the importance of public opinion on the project; the more submissions that the developer receives, the more likely they are to find an imaginative solution that pleases the public. Competitions also sometimes appeal to architects, who have a chance at winning a very public commission, thus either acquiring or strengthening their fame.
They are not entirely without controversy, however. Sometimes those holding architectural competitions are criticized for taking advantage of architects or for being prejudiced in their selection of the entries."'
The CEGB publicized their competition in October 1983. It came down to seven seriously considered entrants, whose proposals were judged in April 1984. The function of the hollowed-out station, as envisioned by the seven competitors, varied widely. According to one
Times article: "one of the entrants proposes using the station for a theatre with 'a stage complex fit to accommodate a Busby Berkeley-scale show'. Another says it needs more than 200 luxury flats to survive commercially, while another wants to fill it with 'some of the most advanced leisure technology in the world'." It seems that the industrial past of Battersea was given significantly less consideration than its cultural popularity and potential for tourist attention.
The winner of this competition was Roche and Co. Consortium, which soon renamed itself Battersea Leisure. Under the direction of a man named John Broome, Battersea Leisure was going to revitalize the building. An optimistic 1987 press release heralded the coming resurrection of this architectural icon: "Now derelict and in bad repair, Battersea Power Station,
1 Ibid. 3 Hugh Clayton, "Plans to save power station go on show," The Times (London, UK), April 5, 1984. 76 as a Grade II listed building, will be brought back to its former art deco glory.""' The press
release quotes Broome, his starry-eyed vision in unabashed display:
"The vast size of Battersea Power Station, one of London 's most prized and
historic landmarks, has provided us with the scope to create a unique leisure
development of a scale and magnitude which could never be realized anywhere
else in the world The very latest technology will be exploited to offer the most
diverse spectrum of leisure attractionsincluding interactive rides and exhibitions,
cinemas and theatres, together with top-class restaurantand retailfacilities....
We believe that this totally new concept in leisure experience will become
London's most outstanding tourist attraction. "n
Broome was offering an urban Disneyland the likes of which Britain had never before seen."'
He had previously been in charge of developing Alton Towers Resort, an amusement park in
Staffordshire that opened in 1980 and in 1985 alone had received nearly 2 million visitors.'3 7
The success of that endeavor led him to his next great venture: Alton Towers' London
counterpart.
"4 Battersea Power Station Scheme Announced, March 31, 1987, AN 18/1939, The National Archives, Kew, London. "5 Ibid. 136 Charles Knevitt and Kenneth Gosling, "'English Disneyland' plan at Battersea power stations site," The Times (London, UK), July 3, 1984. "7 Revised Battersea Project Proposal submitted by Alton International Ltd., February 7, 1990, PREM 19/3119, The National Archives, Kew, London. 77 Figure 1-1: John Broome and the plans for Battersea Leisure, 1984. "'
Bringing the novelty of an amusement park to the city, and having it encroach upon one of that city's most beloved architectural symbols, was far from universally embraced. On the contrary, many local residents were concerned over the future of their community: "Mr. Ken
Livingstone, leader of the Greater London Council, gave a warning... against creating 'Mickey
Mouse' jobs: low paid work in cleaning and catering."'39 Despite assurances that the exterior architecture would remain intact and that the complex would in fact generate jobs for locals, many questioned that this was the most honorable use of the station. Battersea and the other abandoned stations were the relics of the coal industry whose recent deterioration brought with it the loss of thousands of jobs. One could sense a certain indignity in the replacement of the
138 Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/property/pictures/9523224/Battersea-Power-Station-a-history-of-the-London-la ndmark-in-pictures.html?frame=2329734. 139 Kenneth Gosling, "Battersea park decision upsets locals" The Times (London, UK), July 4, 1984. 78 power station's higher-paying engineering jobs with the "Mickey Mouse jobs" of Mr.
Livingstone's fears.
Despite controversy, the renovation of the building began in 1986. However, it was very quickly impaired and proved to be a dismal failure within a few years. The cost of the project soared as a result of discoveries made during the renovation process itself. Firstly, Broome's people discovered that the foundations of the building were "virtually non-existent," and were
14 compromised even more greatly with the removal of the station's machinery. ' They also discovered that much of the building contained asbestos, the safe removal of which would be incredibly expensive.14' Finally, they realized that they would need to destroy more of the building than originally planned, which led to the destruction of the roof and of one of the long upper walls of a turbine hall. This all compounded together to add millions of pounds to the project's cost. Battersea Leisure refinanced the project among different consortia and renamed itself; a new plan for the complex was even drafted that severely pared down the facilities, mainly focusing on hotels and conference centers.'14 Ultimately nothing could save the ill-fated project, and construction ceased in 1989.
A confidential 1990 briefing for Prime Minister Thatcher concerning a potential meeting between herself and Broome details some of this complexity. The briefing was drafted by Paul
Gray, Thatcher's Private Secretary for Economic Affairs, and primarily urged the importance of
Thatcher's remaining neutral regarding any sort of planning approval for the revised project.
[4 Tom Harrad, "How Battersea Power Station Almost Became London's Very Own Alton Towers," Vice, April 7, 2016, www.vice.com/en uk/article/bnkpj5/battersea-power-station-theme-park. "" Ibid. 14 Revised Battersea Project Proposal submitted by Alton International Ltd. titled "The Battersea Project", February 7,1990, PREM 19/3119, The National Archives, Kew, London.
79 The briefing contained the small section shown in Figure 11-2 below. Thatcher's terse, handwritten comment in the right-hand margin perhaps indicates better than anything else her general approach to government funding:
Quite what Mr. Broome wants to tell you I obviously don't know. But I would guess it will be one of two main things:
i) some reference to the planning position;
ii) a plea for Government financial aid. V
Figure 11-2: Part of a confidential briefing from Paul Gray to Margaret Thatcher, 1990."41
One could question Broome's motives for carrying out this redevelopment scheme. It is possible that, after his success with Alton Towers further north, he saw an opportunity to take advantage of the capital's international tourism for the sake of a cash grab. Broome's enthusiasm for the project, however, betrays a more genuine motivation than money. Reading the descriptions of the rollercoasters and the glass elevators that would have filled The
Battersea's interior, Broome's vision for London seems whimsical and Wonka-esque. His exploits both here and at Alton Towers characterize a man who likes to test the limits of fun by building worlds in which his visitors could return to a childlike wonder. Broome seems a man who wants to bring the joy of the American theme park experience onto the British Isles. For this he was embraced at Alton Towers, but failed in London. Broome was not an architect, nor seemed to be particularly interested in honoring the building's architectural or symbolic history.
If anything, the power station provided a large and conveniently renowned structure within
"I Briefing for Margaret Thatcher by Paul Gray title "Proposed Meeting with John Broome", February 2, 1990, PREM 19/3119, The National Archives, Kew, London. 80 which he could bring his London dream to life. It is clear, however, that the local community was not in total agreement about the merits of this new plan for their beloved brick cathedral.
Regardless of Broome's intentions, his project failed. In 1993 he sold off the property, and his company's 75.8 million debt, to a Hong Kong real estate group named Parkview.144
Parkview intended to continue with Broome's leisure park plan, but further monetary constraints eventually made this impossible. 4 5 This sale rang the death knell of Broome's vision for a
London mega-attraction. Rather than revitalize the station, Broome's endeavor accidentally brought the station further destruction, and the community around it a sense of false hope that something might be done with their abandoned relic.
Battersea Power Station went into the 21st century in this condition, with its owners floundering to find some use for it. If there is an upside to the immense free time the station had on its hands over these decommissioned decades, it came in the form of media. The abandonment of Battersea in the 1980s coincided with the increased international attention that
Animals brought to it. Creators of visual media, especially film and T.V. producers, increasingly became interested in featuring Battersea in their works, and Battersea sat conveniently unoccupied and available for filming.
As discussed earlier, Battersea had its first appearance in filmed media with the 1936 film
Sabotage, in which the station was the vulnerable target for foreign subterfuge. During
Battersea's active years it was featured in a few other films, including the 1951 film High
Treason (with a strikingly similar premise to Sabotage). It also featured briefly in the 1965
Beatles film Help!, providing another link between the station and British rock music. The
4 Edward Simpkins. "Regenerating Battersea." The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, September 10, 2000, www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/comment/4464770/Regenerating-Battersea.htm . 145 Ibid. 81 frequency of Battersea's appearances in filmed media skyrocketed after the station was decommissioned, and the nature of its appearances changed as well. Most of its previous appearances in film portrayed it as a literal power station, primarily as concerned its susceptibility to attack. Its post-decommissioning portrayals often shed the station in a more ominous light.
Battersea's first significant portrayal after its decommissioning was in the 1984 film adaptation of George Orwell's 1984. The station was used in exterior establishing shots of the
Victory Mansions of Orwell's imagined London. The Victory Mansions are the residences of members of the Ingsoc Party, the government bureaucrats whose job it is to destroy any historical remnants of people who were disloyal to Big Brother. In the novel, Orwell describes the ironically poor conditions of these "mansions": "The hallway smelt of boiled cabbage and old rag mats.... Winston made for the stairs. It was no use trying the lift. Even at the best of times it was seldom working, and at present the electric current was cut off during daylight hours."'46 The deteriorated state of the station at that time may have lent itself to residences of this description.
London's Art Deco architecture is utilized elsewhere in the film. Senate House, which was the actual home to Britain's censorship office during WWII, was possibly Orwell's basis for
London's Ministry of Truth and featured as such in the film.'4 7 It is a building of gray stone brick, appearing almost as a tiered ziggurat with a prominent vertical buttress down its center.
Art Deco buildings such as these became useful figures for the representation of power at this time. The largest Art Deco incarnations imposed themselves powerfully among newer, less
146 George Orwell, 1984. (New York: Harcourt Inc., 1949), 3. 147 Dan Hill, "Senate House, University of London". City of Sound. November 22, 2003, http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2003/1 1/senate houseun.html. 82 opulent constructions. Their symmetry and rectilinearity evoked order and control, and their grandiose ornamentation was reminiscent of a bygone pre-war opulence that had grown foreign to the Londoners of the late 20th century. As the largest and most famous of these Art Deco buildings in London, Battersea often became the target for such representations. In 1984,
Battersea portrayed a building that was dominated and run by the Party, whose occupants were complicit in its oppressive actions. No longer a symbol of vulnerability, Battersea's portrayals were now primarily that of an oppressor.
Figure 11-3: Senate House, London.
Other instances of Battersea's role as filmic oppressor include the 1995 film adaptation of
Shakespeare's RichardIII, in which the exterior of the station became the grounds for the final
Battle of Bosworth Field. Richard III (in Shakespeare's fictionalized version of history) was the oppressor king who was responsible for murdering his brother, nephews, wife, and countless others to get ahold of the English throne. This modernized film version of the play also utilizes
London's Art Deco works to create a sense of governmental control. Sir Scott's Bankside Power
83 Station (which was also decommissioned at this time) was used for interior shots of The Tower of London, in which multiple characters reside before their deaths at the hands of Richard.
Since 1983, Battersea has been depicted in dozens of other works of film and television including Children ofMen (2006) and The Dark Knight (2008). Not every representation of the station has come with this connotation of oppression. Doubtlessly many filmmakers wanted to use Battersea as a filming location simply because it had become somewhat stylish to do so. But those filmmakers who did use Battersea for the purpose of conveying authoritarianism did so for a reason that goes beyond aesthetics. Battersea had proven itself a symbol of power since its construction, and that symbolism had been both reinforced and mutated by the 1980s. Animals altered the symbol into one of social disorder, the power of a corrupted capitalism. The symbol was further utilized by these film portrayals to insinuate the governmental tyranny of Orwell's and Shakespeare's writings. With the loss of its empire, Britain's governmental focus had moved inward, as evidenced by the industrial nationalizations of the post-war era. While the
Thatcher and post-Thatcher Governments were far from resembling anything Orwellian, the social strife of this late 20th century era was viewed by some as being exacerbated by the government. Thatcher's reaction to the striking miners in 1984 is an excellent example of this.
The anger of Animals and the hopelessness of 1984 speak to a constituency that felt increasingly powerless to effect governmental change in the technological age. As a newly popular filming location, Battersea Power Station became the symbol of this helplessness.
Filming at Battersea occurred as late as 2013, 30 years after its decommissioning. During this time, Battersea continued to exchange hands. Proposals for its redevelopment came and went continually, and by the new millennium many had given up hope that its redevelopment
84 would ever occur. In 2005 its listed status was upgraded to Grade II* in the hopes that this might
invigorate interest in the project.148 Its fame and influence in media were vital, and its use as an
artistically rendered image was more prominent now than ever. However, as of 2012 Battersea
Power Station continued to sit abandoned and falling apart.
'""Battersea Power Station - List Entry Summary", Historic England, accessed April 2018, historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1357620. 85 12. Redevelopment
"What a chance for an architect!" -Charles Barry, supposedly, while watching Britain's Parliament building burn down in 1834
After the redevelopment debacle with John Broome, Battersea Power Station remained not only empty, but in more disrepair than ever. Such a dreadful, expensive failure begs the question: what does a successful architectural redevelopment look like? The question goes beyond economics; of course the Battersea Leisure redevelopment of the 1980s was a failure simply by virtue of its failing to have come to fruition. However, would the redevelopment have been considered a successful one had it been completed? There are several obvious metrics one could use: the number of tourists per annum, the number of jobs created, the invigoration of the local economy, the attractiveness of the new complex. Some of these metrics are objective, some subjective, but how does one determine which metrics are important for a given project?
What will a successful redevelopment project for Battersea look like? In answering these questions, it will be useful to analyze the case of a similar redevelopment project that occurred in these next few decades during which Battersea sat empty. This is the story of Bankside Power
Station, Battersea's brother downriver.
Sir Giles Gilbert Scott designed Bankside Power Station much later than Battersea. This oil-burning station, which is located just across the river from St. Paul's Cathedral, was completed in 1952. It was perhaps the work of which Sir Scott was most proud, the most authentic realization of his brick cathedral style.149 It too had an exterior made entirely of brick, also with minimal visible fenestration. The building is completely symmetrical, with each side of the large turbine hall housing a long building whose brickwork features three sets of
' Rowan Moore and Raymund Ryan, Building Tate Modern, (London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2000), 183. 86 --~1
decorative vertical striations. The turbine hall is shadowed by a massive, 99-meter high rectangular chimney.
Figure 12-1: Bankside Power Station, 1985. 1
Bankside was decommissioned in 1982, in the same wave of power station closures that befell Battersea. A 1983 Times editorial that lamented the fate of Battersea mentioned Bankside
Power Station as "Scott's masterpiece, the only complete realization of his ideal 'cathedral of power'. Battersea was a compromise with which he was never quite happy; at Bankside he gathered up the flues into one great campanile."15" The writer of the editorial goes on to praise
Bankside's architectural perfection, saying it was "in much better condition than Battersea. It ought to be listed and it could also be found an alternative use. I hope the CEGB are thinking of
52 its next competition." 1 Despite its architectural significance, Bankside was not listed.
However, interested parties began to ideate on its future use.
15 Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BanksidePowerStation. 151 Gavin Stamp, "What shall we do with this cathedral of power?" The Times (London, UK), April 16, 1983. 152 Ibid. 87 Because Bankside was never listed, it could have been dramatically remodeled, or even destroyed. For over a decade proposals for the building's future use were made. Fans of Sir
Scott's work feared for the building's fate. Finally, in 1994, the Tate art museum announced that, after a long search for a site worthy of their new modem art gallery expansion, Bankside was the site of choice.
Scott had never envisioned that the most successful rendition of his signature brick style would be used as an art gallery, yet the idea, in theory, seems to work. Bankside was confidently modem and unlike anything else located in that part of the city; the works inside would be similarly assertive and modem. The large interior offered ample space for different galleries, and the style of the exterior would make the museum a distinctively eye-catching attraction for both tourists and locals. Many voiced concerns about the Tate organization's choice, however.
As discussed in Building Tate Modern, among much of London's architecture community "it was seen as an example of the excessive conservatism and respect for heritage that had limited
British architecture in the 1980s."153
The question that arises during any such redevelopment goes beyond function, but to form. Choices regarding the specific repurposing of both the station interior and exterior inevitably had to be made. Unlike at Battersea, there would be no governmental enforcement as to how much the exterior could be altered. The design, as put forth by the architect, would make a statement about the new building's purpose and its relationship to the original architect's intention. How much should Scott's design be honored, and to what degree should the station be brought into the 21st century? Every choice speaks volumes.
'5 Rowan Moore and Raymund Ryan, Building Tate Modern, (London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2000), 17. 88 In their 1994 announcement, the Tate organization also announced an international architectural competition, similar to that which had been attempted at Battersea one decade earlier. The entries that they received came from some of the world's most influential contemporary architects, each of which took a different approach to how Bankside should be altered to accommodate the new gallery. A common approach in architectural competitions is for an architect to distinguish him/herself from the other entrants by making bold, signature choices. In the case of a redevelopment competition, this serves to stake an architectural claim on the preexisting work of another architect, and in doing so purposefully altering the exterior of that building. Such reasoning can help explain some of the design entries that the Tate organization received. The entry from Tadao Ando's group (Figure 12-2) features two enormous, rectangular glass protrusions that emerge from the station's brick facade and hang over the South Bank walkway. The walkway is also significantly altered, creating a tiered system of stairs that leads up to the foot of the station. Ando's entry explains that "the project faces the approaching 21st century by reactivating a sense of historicity and at the same time transforming the site into a stage for new creative energy." 154
British architect David Chipperfield took an even more radical approach to the redevelopment in at least one iteration of his proposal. This submission suggested eliminating the chimney entirely, removing from the museum Bankside's most recognizable feature. Rem
Koolhass and Richard Gluckman together proposed a version of the station in which the chimney is stripped of Scott's iconic brickwork, exposing the steel skeleton beneath. Other entries were
1 Tadao Ando Architect and Associates, Tate Gallery of Modern Art, TG/12/4/6/8/a, Tate Archive Online, www3.tate.org. uk/researcli/researchservices/archive/showcase/item.Jsp?selection= 1. 89 received by architects such as Renzo Piano and Rafael Moneo, all of which demonstrated an enormous degree of thoughtfulness and respect for the original building.
Figure 12-2: The competition entry from Tadao Ando Architect and Associates.'"
IUt
56 Figure 12-3: The competition entry from David Chipperfield Architects.'
15 Rowan Moore and Raymund Ryan, Building Tate Modern, (London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2000), 18. 156 Ibid. 90 7 Figure 12-4: The competition entry from Rem Koolhaas with Richard Gluckman."1
The competition was won by Jacques Herzog and Pierre de Meuron of Switzerland, whose entry was less flashy than the rest but no less well considered. In Building Tate Modern, the authors explain the choice as one that fell in line with the interests of the Tate organization:
"Why did the Swiss team win? Paradoxicallybecause they proposedthe least
drastic changes to the fabric of Bankside itself Rather than obliterate the
qualities of the industrialbuilding that initially attractedthe Tate, they would
heighten them. The Herzog & de Meuron scheme has never been about making
strange complicatedshapes or obliteratingthe past. Londoners will still be able
to recognise Gilbert Scott's power station... "158
The proposal by Herzog and de Meuron featured an exterior that was nearly identical to that of
Bankside station. The primary alteration that they proposed was an elevated upper floor extending off the top of Bankside's roof. This glass structure would provide a tasteful, yet noticeable touch of modernity to the building, as well as scenic riverside views for the building's
157 Ibid, 19. " Ibid. 91 ______--I
new occupants. At night, this "light beam" would also serve to accentuate the existing structure's prominent silhouette.'59 The proposal for the station's interior, on the other hand, included massive changes to allow for the new gallery spaces. These simple, unassuming spaces are accompanied by more obvious architectural changes such as the glass bay windows that overhang the turbine hall. The turbine hall itself was stripped of its machinery and fitted with an enormous ramp that leads down from one entrance. The void that this created became the museum's monumental centerpiece and spine, and today it is almost always occupied by enormous works of interactive or intrusive art.
Figure 12-5: The Tate Modem, as designed by Herzog and de Meuron.16
Herzog and de Meuron were interested in honoring the building's history and context, a quality that Broome and the Battersea developers of the 1980s did not appear to share in any deep sense. In a 1999 interview, before the opening of the Tate Modem, Jacques Herzog and
Tate director Nicholas Serota sat to discuss their perspectives on Bankside's redevelopment.
Herzog comments on the importance of Bankside's Britishness:
' Ibid, 127. 160 Source: http://www.tate.org.uk/about-us/hi story-tate/history-tate-modern. 92 "Forme, beingfrom outside the country, the fact that it's a brick building and
that it's a very English building makes it very interesting. It couldn't be in Paris
or New York. And when you talk about the politicalrole of museums it's very
good that the Tate has such an English building even if it'sfor a very
internationalaudience, even if it's transformed by Swiss architects and it contains
internationalart. "161
In this way, Herzog treats Bankside almost as the venue of a World's Fair: a monumental
structure which is representative of British artistic authority for an international crowd. The
choice of Bankside Power Station as a venue for the Tate Modern simultaneously saved it from
potential demolition as well as revitalized its image for international consumption.
Herzog also comments on the nature of redevelopment projects more generally:
"Forme it's very interesting to deal with an existing structure because in the
future we will have to deal with existing structures in Europe. You cannot always
startfrom scratch. So unlike many people who criticise us because they think the
twenty-first century should be expressed in something glamorous and very unique
I think it's interesting to show that the world is notjust one idea and there are
many things which need to come together to make a very complex thing.""
It is this removal of ego that led his conservative exterior design and won him and de Meuron the commission in the first place. Herzog addresses the complicated issue of 21st century architectural conservation. The fires and the bombings of previous centuries were responsible for the destruction of countless buildings; the London Blitz itself was responsible for a prolific
'61 Ibid, 47-48. 162 Ibid, 48.
93 post-war architectural resurgence in the city. In an age where these disasters would hopefully become relics of the past, the temporary nature of buildings, even of great architectural works, will become more of a problem. What to keep, what to destroy, and what to adapt, will always be a troublesome question. Herzog and de Meuron's answer for Bankside avoided the temptation of most architects to lay overwhelming claim to the existing building. In avoiding the highly visible external intrusions of Tadao Ando or the postmodern tropes of Rem Koolhaas,
Herzog and de Meuron allowed Scott's work to live on in a new light aided by their relatively minor external additions.
It is impossible to say if the other architects' proposals would have led to more or less successful redevelopments of the station. Each gave careful thought to the significance of
Bankside's past, and simply came to different conclusions as to how the station should best be carried into the new millennium. By selecting the more conservative proposal, the Tate organization made apparent their view on how works of the past should be honored. That is not to say that more radical approaches cannot be successful. The redevelopment of the Louvre in the 1980s included I.M. Pei's eye-catching glass pyramid as a centerpiece. While public reception was highly polarized, it has undeniably become a landmark of Paris, and an attraction that has helped bring the museum millions of visitors since.
The Tate Modern opened in 2000, and saw immediate success in attracting international attention. Its permanent collection displays the works of some of the modern era's most significant artists, including Pollock, Warhol, Rothko, Dali, Picasso, and countless more. It is home to numerous temporary exhibits as well as large-scale interactive works in the turbine hall.
The architecture has been praised as a tasteful reinventing of Scott's original design. In 2016,
94 the museum received nearly 6 million visitors from across the world, and was the UK's third
most visited attraction.6 3 This international interest has brought Scott's work newfound love,
and it has given London further authority in the world of modern art. By nearly every obvious
metric, the Tate Modern has been a success.
I think there is a less obvious metric that is actually more telling about the Tate Modem's
significance to British culture. It can perhaps best be summarized in a quote from Tate director
Nicholas Serota in that same interview with Herzog:
"An ambitionfor the Tate was literally to open to a large public building that had
previously been closed With a very simple gesture Herzog & de Meuron
somehow releasedsome of the potential of Scott's box and opened it to the public,
whereas some of the other competition entries set out to mask the box or deal with
perceived inadequaciesof the box. "164
Here Serota addresses a democratic element that other metrics fail to grasp. The Tate took this private space and made it not only public, but free of charge. The Tate Modem runs on a pay-what-you-can model and subsists on donations and government subsidies. This choice alone forms another vital statement, that our artistic and architectural past is for the people and should not be made available only for a select few. This ideology is complemented by the museum's central location; it is highly visible on the Thames. This visibility makes it not only extremely accessible but also an important landmark for the city.
Location, business model, architecture, and ideology all combine to create a redevelopment project that has proven to be an overwhelming success, and that has marked the
" "Tate Modern Drew Record Visitor Numbers in 2016." BBC News, March 27, 2017, www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-39404206. 1 Rowan Moore and Raymund Ryan, Building Tate Modern, (London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2000), 46. 95 turn of a new era in British artistic and architectural history. While Scott's original intentions for the building's function were obviously erased, his influence on the building remains on display, with humble architects working tirelessly to incorporate his existing forms into the building's new purpose. The redevelopment of any building is a difficult problem for which there is no
single correct answer, and, as intimated by Herzog, we are approaching the age where these problems will become increasingly prevalent.
The redevelopment of Battersea into a leisure park would have been a very different statement than the redevelopment of Bankside into a free, public art gallery. In the decades since the Battersea project's failure, those responsible for that building failed to form any feasible plan for it. Meanwhile, Bankside was home to London's most successful architectural redevelopment in decades.
96 13. "An Industrial Yet Luxurious Feel"
After coming under the ownership of the Hong Kong-based Parkview company,
Battersea underwent a jumble of new proposals and property ownerships. More proposals came and went, none of them considered feasible enough to bring to life. Parkview sold the property in 2006 to an Irish real estate developer that created yet another plan for its redevelopment.161
This company also failed to meet its goals, and put the property up for sale once again in 2012.166
A group of Malaysian real estate developers, SP Setia and Sine Darby, purchased the site for
E400 million.1 67 This redevelopment project is now being led by the Battersea Power Station
Development Company.
After nearly 30 years of decommissioning, abandonment, and dereliction, in 2012 the
Battersea Power Station Development Company finally unveiled its version of the redevelopment project. The new redevelopment project was to remodel not only Battersea
Power Station, but the full 42-acre site around it over the course of decades. The architect in charge of the project's master plan is Rafael Vifioly, an internationally renowned architect from
Uruguay. Vifioly's group had been involved with the Battersea redevelopment since at least
2007, long before SP Setia and Sine Darby had owned the property. Vifioly is probably most famous in London, or perhaps despised, for the design of 20 Fenchurch St., a skyscraper in the
City referred to as "the Walkie-Talkie" due to its irregular, looming concave shape. His plan is
165 Graham Ruddick, "Battersea Power Station: Timeline," The Telegraph, October 26, 2011, Accessed April 28, 2018, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8850340/Battersea-Power-Station-timeI ine.html. 166 Ibid. 167 Yantoultra Ngui, "SP Setia, Sime Darby to Redevelop Iconic Battersea Power Station," Reuters, June 07, 2012, https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-spsetia-simedarby-battersea/sp-setia-sime-darby-to-redevelop-iconic-battersea-pow er-station-idUKBRE85608920120607. 97 to develop the Battersea site in seven distinct phases, each focusing on a different region of the site and each including a collage of different architects.
16 Figure 13-1: Sketch by Rafael Vifloly of his envisioned Battersea site, as viewed from the Thames. "
The buildings on this site, including the station itself, will be largely residential. Most of the buildings are tall, some around 17 stories, and have glass facades that offer astonishing views of the station to residents, and mirage-like reflections of the station to pedestrians.169 Vifioly has, unavoidably, made the station the centerpiece of this new development. The glass residences around the station curve around it in an apparent embrace. Those further away provide long commercial avenues with impressive views of the station that reveal themselves upon approach.
The centrality of the station is emphasized on Vinoly's website:
"The primary design goal is to reinforce the presence of the Power Station as the
main architecturalfeature of the site by setting it in a formal space ("The
Circle") defined by a reflecting pool and open to views to andfrom the Thames
and its north bank. Accessibility to the site is further increasedby creating three
168 "Battersea Power Station Master Plan." Rafael Viholy Architects. Accessed May 5, 2018. https://www.rvapc.com/works/battersea-power-station-master-plan/. The first drawing under "Sketches". 169 "Battersea Power Station Phase 1: Circus West Village." SimpsonHaugh. https://www.simpsonhaugh.com/projects/battersea-power-station-phase- 1. 98 primary streets that link the Power Station to the site's southernperimeter and
through to a future extension of the waterfrontpark and river walk."170
1 Figure 13-2: Rendering of the new Battersea site proposal.m7
The residences surrounding the station have been designed by many different architects, including a series directly south of the station designed by Frank Gehry. Despite what could in theory have come to resemble an conglomeration of different architects' designs, lacking any cohesion, in his oversight Viholy has done a tremendous job ensuring that the different design approaches of these architects are restrained by a programmatic uniformity. Glass rectangles and an emphasis on horizontality act to accentuate the brick verticality of the station.
The redesign of Battersea Power Station itself has been directed by WilkinsonEyre, a
British architecture firm. The exterior of the station will receive a series of updates that will
" "Battersea Power Station Master Plan." Rafael Viioly Architects. Accessed May 5, 2018. https://www.rvapc.com/works/battersea-power-station-master-plan/.
171 Source: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/04/24/battersea-power-station-delays-building-affordable-homes-due/ 99 make the interior program more functional and the properties more valuable. These updates are primarily fenestrations. The long brick exterior walls of the turbine halls, which were previously solid brick punctuated with vertical ornamentation, will be given large vertical windows that generally cohere with the style established by Scott. The brickwork will be cleaned and retouched, and the concrete chimneys have already been demolished, replaced, and repainted in a shiny cream color. The most drastic change that will be made to the station comes with the roof, which will be fitted with rectangular glass structures that will be home to luxury penthouses.
The rooftop of the station, as well as the rooftops of many of the surrounding residences, will also have a large garden through which residents can stroll.'72
The interior of the station will receive a complete overhaul. Because the machinery and much of the interior infrastructure was removed in the 1980s with John Broome's project, at the time that Vifioly got around to the project the station was essentially an empty brick shell, offering the complete creative license of an empty canvas. Much of the station's base and central boiler house are occupied by a public commercial space, while the station's exterior and upper portions are occupied by still more luxury apartments. The station interior will also include a large amount of office space. In 2016, Apple announced that its new UK headquarters would be moved into the station's office spaces in 2021, and in doing so it will reportedly occupy around 500,000 sq. ft. of the station's office space.' 73 The station will also include a hotel, an energy museum, and public event spaces.' 74
172 "Battersea Power Station - WilkinsonEyre," WilkinsonEyre, http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/battersea-power-station. 173 James Vincent, "Apple Is Moving Its UK Headquarters to London's Iconic Battersea Power Station," The Verge, September 29, 2016, https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/29/13103702/apple-uk-hq-london-battersea-power-station. 174 Rafael Vifioly Architects, "Battersea Power Station Master Plan - The Vision," Vimeo, July 22, 2016, https://vimeo.com/175844006. 100 The solid, opaque ceiling in many places will be replaced with vast skylights to allow for maximum natural lighting, with minimal impact on the brick exterior walls. Much of this interior space is built of glass and steel, modern materials that intentionally juxtapose the original brick shell of Battersea. In some cases, such as in Figure 13-4, these different materials are brought into acute contrast with one another. In this way, the architects honor the building's history by refusing any attempt to blend their new interiors with the original brickwork. This is an unreserved acknowledgement that Battersea is in a new phase of its life.
Figure 13-3: Proposed interior of a Battersea turbine hall rendered by WilkinsonEyre.'75
75 "Battersea Power Station - WilkinsonEyre," WilkinsonEyre, http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/battersea-power-station. 101 76 Figure 13-4: Proposed interior of the Battersea boiler house rendered by WilkinsonEyre.'
Possibly the most ambitious part of the whole project is related to Battersea's devastating environmental history. Not only will the new Battersea Power Station become Europe's largest zero-carbon building1 77, but the station will in fact begin to produce energy again. Underneath the station, an electricity-generating plant will be constructed that will burn natural biofuels, and emit a water vapor that will rise through three of the four chimneys.17 The fourth chimney will be topped with a glass observation deck, providing incredible views from one of London's tallest historic structures. As Vifioly discusses in an interview, the iconic image of Battersea in Animals
176 "Battersea Power Station - WilkinsonEyre," WilkinsonEyre, http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/battersea-power-station. 177 "Battersea Power Station Master Plan." Rafael Viholy Architects. Accessed May 5, 2018. https://www.rvapc.com/works/battersea-power-station-master-plan/. 178 Rafael Vifioly Architects, "Battersea Power Station Master Plan - The Vision," Vimeo, July 22, 2016,, https://vimeo.com/1 75844006. 102 included the dark exhaust of its chimneys.' 79 For decades now, the lifelessness of these chimneys have come to remind Londoners of Battersea's persistent floundering state of redevelopment limbo. Viifoly's vision is that Battersea's new life will be widely heralded by the resuming of these chimneys' function.
If successful, it could do more than this. By honoring Battersea's history as a station complicit in the world's environmental degradation, Vifioly's team will allow the station a degree of absolution. It will establish the project as being environmentally-conscious, and provide a national symbol for changing energy practices. What was once the UK's most efficient burner of coal will become a symbol of sustainability.
Despite what sounds like a broad acclamation of the redevelopment project, it has validly received very serious criticism. Most of this criticism relates to the implications of its residential programming, and particulars regarding its architectural layout. The apartments in the station and in the surrounding residences are generally described as "luxury flats" in the media. For reference, a three-bedroom apartment in Switch House West (part of the station) runs for
3,900,000.180 Penthouses on the roof run for even greater sums. The author of a 2015 article in
The Guardianclaims that these luxury flats are primarily sold for the benefit of foreign buyers
(an idea that will be returned to heavily in Section 14):
"When Labour members of the London Assembly attacked the drive to sell the
power stationflats to wealthy foreigners, saying they were 'a million miles from
affordable to ordinary Londoners', London mayor Boris Johnson called the
17 Ibid.
80 This number comes from an advertisement at the Battersea development headquarters, on the construction site itself. The residential leasing portion of the company's website is more reticent with regard to specific prices, though apparently they take enquiries at +44 020 7501 0688. 103 critics 'gloomadonpoppers '", adding that '600 hundred affordable homes are
better than no affordable homes'. "12
The original master plan for the site intended for the construction of 636 "affordable homes," but in 2017 the developers announced that the number was being reduced to 386.183 Many op-ed writers took offense to this, and vocalized their fears that this redevelopment project was truly a capitalist enterprise only targeted at bettering the lives of its wealthy residents.
Battersea's new economic model, namely, the sale of these multi-million dollar flats, could not be in greater disregard of Battersea's symbolic past. The destitution of the coal workers through the downfall of the coal industry, the social critiques of Animals, and the dystopian predictions of 1984 have all intersected to make Battersea's conversion into luxury condos highly ironic. What was once the icon for social and political commentary will now become the Victory Mansions of a new London. Many people fear, rather than the fascist tyranny of Orwell's description, the capitalistic disorder of our own 21st-century non-fiction.
The other major criticism of the new scheme is how it treats Battersea for a wider audience. Because of the lack of development around the station, before this project began
Battersea was visible from nearly every direction, and at a significant distance. As indicated in
Figure 13-5, the new residences will surround the station entirely. This will allow for the residents to have incredible views of the structure, but will obscure the view for anyone else on
"" A term apparently invented by Boris Johnson (and somehow not Lewis Carroll) to describe anyone with concerns for the future of Britain. 82 Julia Kollewe, "Battersea Is Part of a Huge Building Project - but Not for Londoners," The Guardian, February 14, 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/14/battersea-nine-elms-property-development-housing. " Julia Kollewe, "Battersea Power Station Developer Slashes Number of Affordable Homes," The Guardian, June 21, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21 /battersea-power-station-affordable-homes-almost-halved-by-de veloper. 104 the South bank of the Thames. In an explanation of his vision, Rafael Vilfoly describes how he
has maintained access to the station for the local community south of the site:
"The second and perhaps most spectacularpoint of access is what we call The
Prospect. The main purpose of The Prospect is to link the local community to the
site, to enable people to have a very clear view of the power stationfrom
BatterseaPark Road "184
This Prospect is the smallest of possible concessions to make for the local community.
Figure 13-5 makes clear the fact that The Prospect allows only a small view of one part of the
station, and even then this view is only visible along a small stretch of the road. 18 5 The view to
the station is even greatly diminished from the river. The height of the buildings that will be
constructed directly east and west of the station have tightened the aperture through which the
station will be visible from the north. Eventually the only thing that will be visible from a
significant distance will be the chimneys, peaking overtop their new glass neighbors. The new
development project has turned the sight of Battersea into a commodity that can be bought and
sold, and which will eventually be owned by just a small portion of the public. The writer of an
opinion piece in The Architects'Journalsummarized this eventuality:
"BatterseaPower Station has almost disappeared This gargantuanbuilding,
which towered over this part of London for 80 years, is dwarfed, pinched and
tucked in by the new apartments that have sprouted up around it. What is
184 "Battersea Power Station: Architect Rafael Vinoly Shares His Vision." YouTube. April 23, 2012. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCM5ETcYORU. 85 This span is visible between Phase 3 and Phase 4 on Figure 13-5. 105 I
happening to the Thames looks increasinglylike satire, some sort of activist's
hoardingabout the dangers of overdevelopment... "186
0
Figure 13-5: The seven different phases of the Battersea redevelopment project, as viewed from above.'87
These two largest criticisms could not be applied to the Tate Modemn redevelopment.
The Tate Modemn is directly on the river, and its view remains unobscured. The highly public and democratic nature of Bankside's new function as a free art gallery stands in stark contrast to
Battersea's redevelopment as an expensive real estate venture. The Bankside redevelopment invited in the local public and London's tourists, while Battersea's, despite the claims of Vifioly, is already in the process of visually excluding them. Given its history as a symbol for social control, this project fails at honoring the social aspects of the building's past. In some ways, the locals are in a similar situation to that crisis of 1929, in which an unstoppable development was
186 Owen Hatherley, "This Dire Battersea Power Station Development Is Genuinely Dystopian," Architects'Journal, March 12, 2018, 0028763.article.
187 Source: https://www.buildington.co.uk/london-sw8/1 88-kirtling-street/battersea-power-station/id/497. 106 coming to threaten their livelihoods. This time, rather than oppressing the locals with the unavoidable visual imposition of a power station, the developers will be depriving the locals of the view with which they had grown accustomed.
The issue, now, becomes the dissonance in realizing that this redevelopment project, which appears to primarily benefit the wealthy few, has only been made possible due to the global capitalism that its critics are railing against. In fact, the worst aspects of its architecture are a direct result of the things necessary to make this capitalist venture possible. Battersea sat dormant for over 30 years because all of its owners lacked the proper funds to bring a redevelopment project to fruition. The business model of this new project only works because the flats are so expensive, and the flats are so expensive because the station is such an icon. The rejuvenation of Battersea is thus reliant on an architectural program that surrounds it and overshadows it, providing stunning views for the wealthy occupants in the nearby residences. It is possible to imagine an alternative program, like the Tate Modern, that would have been more democratic and inclusive, but developers tried and failed for decades to come up with such an alternative.
Without knowing more about the specific financial accounting of SP Setia and Sine
Darby, it is impossible to determine whether or not more affordable housing could have been possible. It is very likely that the developers, as most real estate developers would do, are taking advantage of their situation and squeezing every drop they can from Battersea's worldwide fame.
The resulting design of Vinfioly's master plan is beautiful, and honors the station's architectural and environmental history. Without this Malaysian real estate consortium and their economic
107 contribution, it is likely that the station would continue to lay dormant. It is a shame, however, that this station's newfound beauty will likely only be enjoyed by the select few who live there.
Phase 1 of the development is complete, and some residents have already moved into the building west of the station, called Circus West. Circus West stands like a gleaming oasis in the midst of a giant, barren construction site. We will not know whether Viftoly's project will be considered a success for around a decade, once each phase of the project has been completed.
One can only hope that the project will indeed be completed, and not fall into bankruptcy like
John Broome's project. The refinancing of the project'88 and the replacement of the
Development Company's CEO'89 in 2018 may not bode well, but the construction continues.
This latest, seemingly inevitable phase of Battersea's life serves to accentuate Britain's increasing social inequality and separation, thus mocking the class anxieties that Roger Waters explored in Animals. The icon of Battersea as an industrial powerhouse is being commodified, and its buyers are of a social class whose status gives them the luxury of considering industrial labor to be fashionable. The silent, looping video that plays on the project's website promises that life at Battersea will be full of wealthy, attractive, smiling faces enjoying the "iconic living" of their luxury flats. 9 0 Many of these smiling faces will likely frequent the expensive coffee shop beneath Circus West, whose rustic, copper bathroom piping and retro lighting fixtures indicate the same quaint nostalgia for industry that Battersea Power Station is coming to represent.
188 Patrick Greenfield, "Battersea Power Station to be sold for fl.6bn," The Guardian, January 18, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/I 8/battersea-power-station-to-be-sold-for- I 6bn. 189 BPSDC Press Office, "Rob Tincknell Hands Over CEO Role to Simon Murphy," Battersea Power Station, April 5, 2018, , accessed May 10, 2018, https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/news/article/ceo-announcement-rob-tincknell. "1 https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/residential-sales?filter=Masterplan - silent, looping video active as of May 24, 2018. This website is also where the quotation that forms the title of this section can be found. 108 14. Rule, Britannia
"Thee haughty tyrants ne'er shall tame: / All their attempts to bend thee down, / Will but arouse thy generous flame; / But work their woe, and thy renown." -from James Thomson's "Rule, Britannia!", 1740
"It's by constantly giving way over small things like that that we've ruined the Empire." -George Orwell, Burmese Days, 1934
A cold January morning brought me shivering to the South Bank. "It's changed," an
older gentleman kept repeating, each time with a disgusted shake of the head. He was born and
raised in London, and was lamenting the recent decades of urban development that were driving
up housing prices and driving out the locals.19' Gentrification and over-development are
phenomena prevalent in many major cities in Europe and America. London, especially, has been
home to a steady wave of real estate investment which has rapidly changed the skyline. Some of
London's most famous contemporary skyscrapers have only been constructed since 2010,
including The Shard, Vifnoly's Walkie-Talkie, and 112 Leadenhall Street (referred to as The
Cheesegrater). Major real estate developments, like those in the City of London, Canary Wharf
on the Isle of Dogs, and further east around the 2012 Olympic Park, were accelerated in the
1990s into the 2000s.1 92 Enormous real estate ventures are always ongoing in London, evidenced
not only by the Battersea redevelopment but by the perennial rows of cranes that never seem to
entirely vacate the banks of the Thames. The skyline now would be practically unrecognizable
to someone in Thatcher's London, only 30 years ago.
He was right, of course; London has changed. Many of these changes, including the
resurgence of expensive real estate development in the city, are direct consequences of the
191 This was not a formal interview, but a random conversation in January 2018 with a man who never told me his name. 1 Lindsey German and John Rees, A People's History of London (Croydon: Verso, 2012), 286. 109 enacted tenants of Thatcherism. The 1980s and 1990s saw the re-privatization of numerous industries; the Electricity Act 1989 approved the privatization of the electricity grid, which would be implemented in the 1990s. Leftist activists Lindsey German and John Rees, in their book A People 's History ofLondon, describe today's London as being a function of Thatcher's intense support of the private sector and of the Labour Party's partial embrace of these principles upon their rise to Government in 1997.193 They also claim that this private-sector push has seen the abandonment of public council housing developments and the marginalization of the lower class:
"Local working-class people, very few of whom obtained work in the new
businesses [brought into the city by Thatcher'spolitics], found that their needs
for decent housing were ignoredwhile new private developments, impossible for
all but the rich to afford, were being built at a rate which meant that the
proportion of council housing on the Isle of Dogs hadfallen from 83 per cent
before the development began to 40 per cent by 1988. "194
Those with more economically conservative political views argue that this new London is enabling investment that is boosting the local economy by providing employment. A factor that complicates this view is the knowledge that much of this new investment into the city comes from incredibly wealthy, foreign investing groups. The Battersea redevelopment is as good an example as any; SP Setia and Sine Darby, as well as the company that the 2018 refinancing of the project has now placed in ownership of the station, Permodalan Nasional Berhad (PNB), are
Malaysian companies. In 2018, the Association of Foreign Investors in Real Estate collectively
" Lindsey German and John Rees, A People's History of London (Croydon: Verso, 2012), 284-285. 19 Ibid, 286-7. 110 ranked London their top city for investment.'95 Even smaller residential projects in London have become the targets for foreign investors. An article in The Guardiandescribes the scale of this investment: "Led by investors from Hong Kong and Singapore, foreign buyers snapped up 3,600 of London's 28,000 newly built homes between 2014 and 2016, according to the most comprehensive survey yet of international investment in London housing."1 96
Foreign real estate investment has become more prominent internationally in the past several decades. Often, the targets of the most wealthy investors are large, new residential projects (like Battersea), which are both prodigiously expensive and globally renowned. Foreign investment's unavoidable consequence is the disruption of a local real estate market such that the only buyers with the ability to afford the resulting leases are also incredibly wealthy foreigners, not locals. In some cases, the speculative prices on the most expensive luxury apartments lead to their never being sold. As of 2018, according to one Guardianarticle: "All 10 of the apartments at the top of the Shard - priced at up to f50m each - remain unsold more than five years after the
Duke of York and the former prime minister of Qatar officially opened 'Europe's first vertical city ."197 The unwillingness of the developers to lower the price on these residences leads to countless near-empty apartment buildings, with the developers hopeful that they will one day be able to recoup their investment at the current price.
115 Peter Jeffrey, "London Beats New York Among Foreign Investors in Real Estate," Bloomberg, January 08, 2018, https ://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/london-beats-out-new-york-among-foreign-investors-in-real- estate. 196 Robert Booth, "Foreign Investors Snapping up London Homes Suitable for First-time Buyers,"The Guardian, June 13, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/I 3/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-ti me-buyers. 117 Rupert Neate, "Ghost Towers: Half of New-build Luxury London Flats Fail to Sell," The Guardian, January 26, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/26/ghost-towers-half-of-new-build-luxury-london-flats-fail-to-sell. 11 In other cases, the residences are successfully sold, but are left strategically unoccupied by their new owners. For example, at the new 432 Park Avenue in New York, an "'anonymous
Chinese buyer' recently purchased three combined penthouses for $91.1 million."'98 According to the author of a scathing New York Post article on the subject, these super-wealthy buyers often have no intention of moving into their new residences, but rather are using them as investments to later sell for millions of dollars in profit: "The upright piggy banks for sheikhs, rubber moguls and hedge-fund pirates define Midtown's new visual profile."1 99 In this case, the real estate developer recoups his or her investment on the property, but the absence of the new owner will do nothing to boost the local economy. The only boon for locals is the taxes paid by the absent owner, a prospect that does little to comfort the locals who are continually being displaced by such ventures.
Whether or not the residences are ultimately leased, the resulting price inflation for the local housing market drives out those who used to live there. This is gentrification on an unprecedented scale, in which even the middle class cannot take a stand. It destroys the local communities and moves them further away from the city center, leading to a working class that must commute into the city.200 It appears that the Battersea redevelopment is falling victim to exactly this phenomenon, as opined in another Guardianpiece:
"Facedwith a barrageof criticism when most of the first phase of 865 flats were
sold to overseas buyers, many from Asia, the developers marketed the second lot
of 254 homes only in London. But for the third tranche, of 539 apartments, a
9 Steve Cuozzo, "These Vacant Eyesores Are Piggy Banks for the Global Elite," New York Post, March 10, 2018,, https://nypost.com/2018/03/1 0/super-rich-property-buyers-are-bad-for-nyc/. I Ibid. 20 Lindsey German and John Rees, A People's History of London (Croydon: Verso, 2012), 290. 112 marketing campaign ran in Tokyo, Beijing and Kuala Lumpur, and there were
celebrity-studded launch parties in New York and Los Angeles. "201
Time will tell if these wealthy buyers intend to occupy their Battersea flats or simply to let them
increase in value as they lie empty. The idealized community rendered by Vinioly and his
architects will likely consist entirely of the super-rich, if it comes to exist at all.
The feelings of disenfranchisement felt by displaced locals in these instances can easily
lead to radicalized emotions regarding the economy and globalism. In 1993, amid the Canary
Wharf redevelopment project, electors in that area voted in Derek Beackon, a member of
Britain's fascist party.202 Another outlet for this social pressure came in the form of Reclaim the
Streets, a grassroots anti-capitalism organization that held non-violent protests, touting slogans
such as: "Our streets are as full of capitalism as of cars and the pollution of capitalism is much more insidious."203 These radicalized feelings are similar to those which helped inspire 2016's
Brexit. Interestingly, though, the majority of Londoners (59.9% of those that participated in the referendum) voted to remain in the European Union.204 Wandsworth, where Battersea is located, had a 75% Remain vote.205 In fact, most of the Leave vote came from the English countryside, where the impact of this recent urban upheaval is not felt.
Part of what has made London into the metropolis that it is, and so attractive to investors around the world, is because of the breadth and duration of the empire that it oversaw. The empire fuelled the city, and created ties between the UK and foreign nations that persist to this
201 Julia Kollewe, "Battersea Is Part of a Huge Building Project - but Not for Londoners," The Guardian, February 14, 2015, , https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/14/battersea-nine-elms-property-development-housing. 202 Lindsey German and John Rees, A People's History of London (Croydon: Verso, 2012), 287. 203 "Reclaim the Streets!" Do or Die, 1997, 1-10, http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no6/rts.htm. 204 "EU Referendum: The Result in Maps and Charts," BBC News, June 24, 2016, , http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028. 205 Ibid. 113 day. As of 1997, with the relinquishing of Hong Kong to China, the British Empire was dead.206
Yet the British ties to those independent nations have remained, and the new wealth of some of their industries has turned the tables on Britain. The top three foreign nations investing in
London's real estate are Hong Kong, Singapore, and Malaysia2 0 7, all of which were once British colonies. In an indirect way, their domination by the British in the 20th century has enabled some of the current financial success of these nations' industries, and thus the real estate market upheaval in London.
A Londonist graphic shows that 510 new skyscrapers 20 are in the development pipeline for London, which could provide as many as 106,000 new residences within the city.209 Of course, it is not currently clear what the price points of these new flats will be, but if history has provided any honest indication, many will likely be out of the buying range for the average
Londoner.
Reviewing the advertisements for Battersea's residential properties, much of the language insinuates how wonderful it would be to own a piece of this famous British landmark. Perhaps these advertisements are indeed primarily directed toward foreign buyers in Asia. With this in mind, Battersea Power Station has not simply become a symbol of social inequality, but also of the complete reversal of empire. The fluted chimneys that once smoked and fueled an empire are now being leased out to buyers whose ancestors were colonized under the British flag. Even
206 Andrew Higgins, "A Last Hurrah and an Empire Closes down," The Guardian, July 01, 1997, https://www.theguardian.com/world/1997/jul/OI/china.andrewhiggins. 207 Robert Booth, "Foreign Investors Snapping up London Homes Suitable for First-time Buyers,"The Guardian, June 13, 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/ 13/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitable-for-first-ti me-buyers. 208 Defined in this case as being at least 20 stories. 209 Matt Brown, "510 More Skyscrapers Are Planned For London," Londonist, April 18, 2018, https://londonist.com/london/news/fly-through-the-highrise-ondon-of-the-future. 114 the office space in Battersea will be leased out to one of its former colonies. Apple, which
currently holds most of Battersea's office space, will instill in Battersea the ideals of America's
international empire of capitalism. In the 1930s and 40s, exemplified in Hitchcock's Sabotage,
the British were continually afraid of foreign incursion destroying Battersea. In a way, it finally
has.
The victims of the global capitalism which Britain has come to embrace are the urban
lower and middle class (Roger Waters' "sheep" and "dogs"). The gloominess of the man on that
cold January morning cannot be trivialized. The unrest of these marginalized groups will
continue to surface as this problem persists, whether in another referendum, another protest, or
another ghastly act of terror. The discontent of the average Londoner in 2018 is not dissimilar to
that of the 1929 Londoner that felt helpless in the face of the unstoppable Battersea project. As
one Mr. J. Morrison said of the Battersea project then: "All this because London is so big that its
citizens cannot get together to protect it from exploitation from interested men trading on the
ignorance or indifference of its appointed Guardians.""' Once again, Battersea has helped us
trace yet another way in which the British public continues to feel powerless against the forces that control their cities.
Perhaps the symbolism of Battersea was never attached to Britain 's power specifically, but was rather the brick incarnation of power in an ideal, platonic sense. Britain was at the seat of that power for a time, but perhaps the sale and foreign "occupation" of the station is appropriate given Britain's current global standing. Power in the 21st century means success in a global market. Power in the 21st century means an influence that is won by economic entities
210 J. Morrison, Letter to the editor of The Daily Mail, December 7, 1929, POWE 12/232, The National Archives, Kew, London. 115 and not by Navies. Power in the 21 st century is fueled by capitalism. Battersea has come to embody all of this, even though Britain has not yet done so. In this manner, Battersea Power
Station continues to serve as an apt symbol for the shrunken status of Britain, if only in a helpless, ironic way. Battersea has once again come to represent the failure of the British government to protect its less powerful citizens. An equally appropriate architectural symbol might be Grenfell Tower,2" ablaze and filling the London sky with the acrid smoke that
Battersea has not produced in over 30 years.
211 The London public housing complex that in June 2017 caught fire, leading to at least 72 fatalities. 116 Bibliography
1. The Station, As It Stands
Greenfield, Patrick. "Battersea Power Station to be sold for 1.6bn." The Guardian,January 18, 2018, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/I 8/battersea-power-station-to-be-sold-for- I6bn.
2. A Proposal by the Thames
Bevir, Ernest. Letter from Ernest Bevir to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission. April 1, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Bishop, W. Letter from W. Bishop to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission. June 18, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Enumeration of objections lodged against the Battersea proposal, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
French, R.T.G. The Electricity Commission's approval of the Battersea Proposal. October 27, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Hunt, John. Letter from John Hunt to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission. April 8, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Letter from the solicitor of Waterloo Station to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission. April 13, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Luckin, Bill. Questions of Power: Electricity and Environment in Inter-war Britain. New York: St. Martin's Press Inc., 1990.
Murray, Stephen. "Electrifying the City: Power and Profit at the City of London Electric Lighting Company Limited." The London Journal 43, no. 1 (2018): 72-91.
Pearce, Leonard. Labelled map of the proposed Battersea construction site. 1927, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Pearce, Leonard. Elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station. February 28, 1927, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Pearce, Leonard. Plan view of the proposed Battersea Power Station. February 28, 1927, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Ritchie, J.D. Letter from the Port of London Authority to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission. June 14, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Williams H., et al. Letter from Mrs. H Williams, Emma Blandford, and Edward Pope to the Secretary of the Electricity Commission. March 25, 1927, POWE 12/160, The National Archives, Kew, London.
3. The Media Battle
Bailey, T. Leon. Letter from T. Leon Bailey to Mr. Gibbon. July 8, 1929, HLG 55/36, The National Archives, Kew, London.
117 Clapcott, C.B. et al. "Letter to the editor." The Times (London, UK), April 9, 1929.
Fladgate, W.F. "Letter to the editor," The Times (London, UK), May 15, 1929.
Fry, Geoffrey. Letter to E. Hilton Young. February 8, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Fry, Geoffrey. Letter to E. Hilton Young. February 26, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Harding, A.H.L. Letter from A.H.L. Harding to Neville Chamberlain. April 12, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Letter from government chemist to the Secretary of Transport. October 3, 1929. POWE 12/232. The National Archives, Kew, London.
Morrison, J. Letter to the editor of The Daily Mail. December 7, 1929. POWE 12/232. The National Archives, Kew, London.
Young, E. Hilton. Letter to Geoffrey Fry. February 6, 1929, PREM 1/69, The National Archives, Kew, London.
4. Sir Giles Gilbert Scott
Coltman, Richard. "The Story of Kiosk No 2." The Telephone Box. http://www.the-telephone-box.co.uk/kiosks/k2/.
Pearce, Leonard. Alternative elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, July 16, 1928, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Pearce, Leonard. Elevation view of the proposed Battersea Power Station, July 16, 1928, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Pearce, Leonard. Planview of the proposed Battersea Power Station, July 16, 1928, POWE 12/140, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Scott, Richard Gilbert. Giles Gilbert Scott: His Son's View. Liverpool: Liverpool Cathedral Publications, 2011.
5. Architectural Overview
"Battersea Power Station." Architecturally. October 19, 2017. http://architecturally.london/buildings/battersea-power-station.
"Putting Battersea on the Map." South Chelsea. Archived at: https://web.archive.org/web/20120310153152/http://www.southchelsea.freeserve.co.uk/page 1 I.html.
6. Sabotage
Adams, Sam. "Why Will Air Raid Sirens Ring out over London? It's 75 Years since This Happened." Mirror. December 29, 2015. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/air-raid-sirens-sound-over-708 8 5 57.
Carter, J.F.C. Letter to W.H.A. Webster. March 8, 1940. MEPO 2/3678. The National Archives, Kew, London.
Cole, Christopher; Cheesman, E.F. The Air Defence of Great Britain, 1914-1918. London: Putnam, 1984.
118 Kirby, Edward Norman. "Kirby, Edward Norman (Oral History)." Interview by Peter M. Hart. IWM 16084. Imperial War Museum Archive. London. October 15, 1995.
Milton, Derek. "Milton, Derek (Oral History)." Interview by Conrad Wood. IWM 11451. Imperial War Museum Archive. London. August 2, 1990.
Pearce, Leonard. Letter to the Chief Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. January 5, 1940. MEPO 2/3678. The National Archives, Kew, London.
"Sabotage - Trivia." IMDb. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0028212/trivia?ref_=tttry try.
Tombs, Robert. The English and Their History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.
Webster, W.H.A. Letter to Lieut. Colonel J.F.C. Carter. December 13, 1939. MEPO 2/3678. The National Archives, Kew, London.
7. Smog
Browne, Anthony. "London's Air Cleanest since 1585." The Guardian. June 10, 2001. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jun/10/physicalsciences.research.
"Changing Air Quality and Clean Air Acts." Air-quality.org. http://www.air-quality.org.uk/03.php.
Fry, Geoffrey. Letter to H.T. Tizard. February 8, 1929. PREM 1/69. The National Archives, Kew, London.
Hyde, Timothy. "'London Particular': The City, Its Atmosphere and the Visibility of Its Objects." The Journalof Architecture 21, no. 8 (2016): doi:10.1080/13602365.2016.1255988.
Ireland, F. E. "Flue Gas Washing at Battersea Power Station." February 10, 1970. HLG 120/1297. The National Archives, Kew, London.
Klein, Christopher. "The Great Smog of 1952." History.com. December 06, 2012. https://www.history.com/news/the-killer-fog-that-blanketed-ondon-60-years-ago.
Macmillan, Harold. Letter to H.T. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. November 17, 1953. MH 58/398. The National Archives, Kew, London.
"Report of the Health Committee (No. 2)". January 27, 1953. MH 58/398. The National Archives, Kew, London.
Singleton, John; Millward, Robert, eds. The PoliticalEconomy of Nationalisationin Britain, 1920-1950. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.
8. The Station, Completed
Darwin, John. Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreatfrom Empire in the Post-war World. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1988.
Tombs, Robert. The English and Their History. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2016.
9. Animals
119 Bonner, Flo Wales. "Meet the Man behind Pink Floyd's Iconic Battersea Power Station Album Cover." Now Here This. August 28, 2013. Accessed February 20, 2018. https://now-here-this.timeout.com/2013 /08/28/meet-the-man-behind-pink-floyds-iconic-battersea-power-sta tion-album-cover/.
"Gold & Platinum." RIAA, Recording Industry Association of America, www.riaa.com/gold-platinum/?tab active=defaultaward& ar=Pink%2BFloyd&ti=Animals#searchsection.
Waters, Roger. "Pink Floyd 'Animals' 1977 Album Interview." Interview by Nicky Home. Capital Radio Stories. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJgXGEnpdg.
10. King Coal
"Coal-fired power stations." UK Parliament.House of Commons Debate, January 16, 1984 vol 52 cc42-5W. https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/written-answers/ 984/jan/I 6/coal-fired-power-stations#S6CV005 2P0_19840116_CWA_281.
"Grade 2 Listed Building Restrictions." Historic Building Advice. www.heitage-consulting.org/grade-2-building-restrictions.
"Historical Coal Data: Coal Production, Availability and Consumption 1853 to 2016." gov.uk. July 27, 2017. www.gov.uk/goverment/statisticaI-data-sets/historical-coal-data-coal-production-availability-and-consum ption- 1853-to-201 1.
Hulme, Mike. "Climate Change (concept of)." Academia.edu. Accessed April 16, 2018. https://www.academia.edu/10358797/Climate-changeconcept-of_.
Patterson, Scott. "End of an Era: England Closes Its Last Deep-Pit Coal Mine." The Wall Street Journal. December 11, 2015. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pit-closure-marks-dying-embers-of-british-coal-industry- 1449837861.
Ritchie, Hannah; Roser, Max. "Energy Production & Changing Energy Sources." 2018. https://ourworldindata.org/energy-production-and-changing-energy-sources.
Scargill, Arthur. "Arthur Scargill: 'We Could Surrender - or Stand and Fight'." The Guardian. March 07, 2009. Accessed April 17, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/07/arthur-scargill-miners-strike.
Seddon, Mark. "The Long, Slow Death of the UK Coal Industry." The Guardian. April 11, 2013. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/apr/Il/slow-death-coal-industry.
Sobemheim, Sylvia. "Smoke signals", The Times (London, UK), April 23, 1983.
Stamp, Gavin. "What shall we do with this cathedral of power?" The Times (London, UK), April 16, 1983.
"The Listing of Modem Buildings." The Times (London, UK), October 18, 1980.
Van der Velden, Sjaak, et al. Strikes Around the World, 1968-2005: Case-studies of 15 Countries. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007.
11. The Station, Decommissioned
Battersea Power Station Scheme Announced. March 31, 1987, AN 18/1939, The National Archives, Kew, London.
120 "Battersea Power Station - List Entry Sumrnary". Historic England. Accessed April 2018, historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1357620.
Briefing for Margaret Thatcher by Paul Gray titled "Proposed Meeting with John Broome". February 2, 1990, PREM 19/3119, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Clayton, Hugh. "Plans to save power station go on show." The Times (London, UK), April 5, 1984.
Gosling, Kenneth. "Battersea park decision upsets locals." The Times (London, UK), July 4, 1984.
"Grade 2 Listed Building Restrictions." Historic Building Advice. www.heritage-consulting.org/grade-2-building-restrictions.
Harrad, Tom. "How Battersea Power Station Almost Became London's Very Own Alton Towers." Vice, April 7, 2016, www.vice.com/en uk/article/bnkpj5/battersea-power-station-theme-park.
Hill, Dan. "Senate House, University of London". City of Sound. November 22, 2003, http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2003/l I/senatehouseun.html.
Knevitt, Charles; Gosling, Kenneth. "'English Disneyland' plan at Battersea power stations site." The Times (London, UK), July 3, 1984.
Orwell, George. 1984. New York: Harcourt Inc., 1949.
Revised Battersea Project Proposal submitted by Alton International Ltd. February 7, 1990, PREM 19/3119, The National Archives, Kew, London.
Stamp, Gavin. "What shall we do with this cathedral of power?" The Times (London, UK), April 16, 1983.
Simpkins, Edward. "Regenerating Battersea." The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, September 10, 2000, www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/connent/4464770/Regenerating-Battersea.html.
"The Listing of Modern Buildings." The Times (London, UK), October 18, 1980.
12. Redevelopment
Ando, Tadao. Tate Gallery of Modern Art. TG/12/4/6/8/a. Tate Archive Online, www3 .tate.org.uk/research/researchservices/archive/showcase/itei.jsp?selection=I.
Moore, Rowan; Ryan, Raymund. Building Tate Modern. London: Tate Gallery Publishing, 2000.
Stamp, Gavin. "What shall we do with this cathedral of power?" The Times (London, UK), April 16, 1983.
"Tate Modern Drew Record Visitor Numbers in 20 16." BBC News, March 27, 2017. www.bbc.con/news/entertainm-ent-arts-39404206.
13. "An Industrial Yet Luxurious Feel"
"Battersea Power Station: Architect Rafael Vinoly Shares His Vision." YouTube. April 23, 2012. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCM5ETcYORU.
121 "Battersea Power Station Master Plan." Rafael Viholy Architects. Accessed May 5, 2018. https://www.rvapc.com/works/battersea-power-station-master-plan/.
"Battersea Power Station Phase 1: Circus West Village." SimpsonHaugh. https://www.simpsonhaugh.com/projects/battersea-power-station-phase- 1.
"Battersea Power Station - WilkinsonEyre." WilkinsonEyre. http://www.wilkinsoneyre.com/projects/battersea-power-station.
BPSDC Press Office. "Rob Tincknell Hands Over CEO Role to Simon Murphy." Battersea Power Station. April 5, 2018. Accessed May 10, 2018. https://batterseapowerstation.co.uk/news/article/ceo-announcement-rob-tincknell.
Greenfield, Patrick. "Battersea Power Station to be sold for 1.6bn." The Guardian. January 18, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/I 8/battersea-power-station-to-be-sold-for- I 6bn.
Hatherley, Owen. "This Dire Battersea Power Station Development Is Genuinely Dystopian." Architects'Journal. March 12, 2018. https://www.architectsjoumal.co.uk/opinion/this-dire-battersea-power-station-development-is-genuinely-dy stopian/1 0028763.article.
Kollewe, Julia. "Battersea Is Part of a Huge Building Project - but Not for Londoners." The Guardian,.February14, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/I 4/battersea-nine-elms-property-development-housing.
Kollewe, Julia. "Battersea Power Station Developer Slashes Number of Affordable Homes." The Guardian. June 21, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jun/21 /battersea-power-station-affordable-homes-almost-halve d-by-developer.
Ngui, Yantoultra. "SP Setia, Sime Darby to Redevelop Iconic Battersea Power Station." Reuters. June 07, 2012. https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-spsetia-simedarby-battersea/sp-setia-sime-darby-to-redevelop-iconic-batter sea-power-station-idUKBRE85608920120607.
Rafael Viholy Architects. "Battersea Power Station Master Plan - The Vision." Vimeo. July 22, 2016. https://vimeo.com/l 75844006.
Ruddick, Graham. "Battersea Power Station: Timeline." The Telegraph. October 26, 2011. Accessed April 28, 2018. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/constructionandproperty/8850340/Battersea-Power-Stati on-timeline.html.
Vincent, James. "Apple Is Moving Its UK Headquarters to London's Iconic Battersea Power Station." The Verge. September 29, 2016. https://www.theverge.com/2016/9/29/13103702/apple-uk-hq-london-battersea-power-station.
14. Rule. Britannia
Booth, Robert. "Foreign Investors Snapping up London Homes Suitable for First-time Buyers." The Guardian.June 13, 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/I3/foreign-investors-snapping-up-london-homes-suitabe-fo r-first-time-buyers.
122 Brown, Matt. "510 More Skyscrapers Are Planned For London." Londonist. April 18, 2018. https://londonist.com/london/news/fly-through-the-highrise-london-of-the-future.
Cuozzo, Steve. "These Vacant Eyesores Are Piggy Banks for the Global Elite." New York Post. March 10, 2018. https://nypost.com/2018/03/1 0/super-rich-property-buyers-are-bad-for-nyc/.
"EU Referendum: The Result in Maps and Charts." BBC News. June 24, 2016. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-36616028.
German, Lindsey; Rees, John. A People's History of London. Croydon: Verso, 2012.
Higgins, Andrew. "A Last Hurrah and an Empire Closes down." The Guardian. July 01, 1997. https://www.theguardian.com/world/1 997/jul/0 I /china.andrewhiggins.
Jeffrey, Peter. "London Beats New York Among Foreign Investors in Real Estate." Bloomberg. January 08, 2018. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-08/london-beats-out-new-york-among-foreign-investor s-in-real-estate.
Kollewe, Julia. "Battersea Is Part of a Huge Building Project - but Not for Londoners." The Guardian. February 14, 2015. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/feb/I 4/battersea-nine-elms-property-development-housing.
Morrison, J. Letter to the editor of The Daily Mail. December 7, 1929. POWE 12/232. The National Archives, Kew, London.
Neate, Rupert. "Ghost Towers: Half of New-build Luxury London Flats Fail to Sell." The Guardian. January 26, 2018. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jan/26/ghost-towers-half-of-new-build-luxury-london-flats-fai 1-to-sell.
"Reclaim the Streets!" Do or Die. 1997. http://www.eco-action.org/dod/no6/rts.htm.
123