When Power Plants Looked GOOD (Part I)
September 4th, 2010
|
| Share |
Power plants exist to generate power. In the name of economics and efficiency this usually means that power plants are built in a very utilitarian style, with little or no concern for how they look and few decorative details. Yet this was not always the case. Many power generating stations built in the first half of the 20th century were designed with as much concern for style as function. Those which still exist are even considered architectural treasures.
The style of these power stations varies a great deal. Some are built in a monumental neoclassical style and others are of a more modern style, often with an art deco streamlines design. In general the design of these plants does not reflect a desire to hide their function, but rather to celebrate their very purpose. As Cathedrals of Industry they commonly have the name of their operator emblazoned across their walls. Their design elements may also include symbolic tributes to their very function, such as stylized lightning bolts or images of power and industry.
These structures may embody lofty ideals from an era when technology and human ingenuity had an almost universally positive reception. They are unapologically grand, even invoking classical and mythological themes to accentuate their function. They are not only powerful, they look powerful, yet are simultaneously beautiful. They are more than just monuments – as they not only symbolize the servitude to man, they do serve mankind.
Is it possible that such aesthetic concerns may still have a place in the design of modern power plants?
With the cost of modern nuclear power plants raising into the billions of dollars, it’s a comparatively small expense to add some decorative and artistic items to the structure. Doing so may have practical benefits to the operator. For one thing, they are a way of promoting a positive corporate image. A pleasing design may also increase communicative receptiveness to construction and operation of a plant and generate positive publicity. An attractive plant may even an outreach tool to increase interest in power generation and the company behind the plant.
At least one organization, Pop Atomic Studios, is beginning an attempt to revive the consideration of art and aesthetics in power generation.
Here are some excellent examples from the past:
Toronto Power Generating Station
(Ontario, Canada)
Yes, it’s a power plant. From the looks of this grand structure, you might think it’s the parliament building of a European country or a prestigious museum or library. The Beaux-Arts styled structure was designed by architect E.J. Lennox and is built of limestone quarried in Indiana. It was built between 1906 and 1913 by the Electrical Development Company of Ontario – later becoming the Ontario Power Generation company. The power plant was retired in 1974 and designated an historic landmark in 1983.
The powerhouse is located just off the Niagara River, slightly upstream from Niagara Falls. Power was developed from a series of turbines located in pits under the powerhouse. Water was taken in from the river and discharged through a massive tunnel cut under the river, emerging under the falls. In addition to its ornate architecture, the huge tunnel carved through the bedrock under the river makes this power plant very unique.
The Battersea Power Station
(London, UK)
It may very well be the world’s most famous power plant or at least the most recognizable. The massive Art Deco styled power plant has been featured in a number of films and television shows and also was used as the cover for Pink Floyd’s Animals album. The power plant operated from 1939 until 1983, however it was actually built in two phases. When first constructed, the power station had only two smoke stacks and a single towering structure. This section would later become Battersea-A, when Battersea-B was constructed in 1955, doubling the size of the power station and increasing its power output from 243 megawatts to 503 megawatts.
The Battersea power plant has a unique appearance that is unapologeticly industrial while maintaining an aesthetic appeal reminiscent of sky scrapers and ocean liners. It was designed by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, an accomplished architect and industrial designer who is also noted for designing the red telephone boxes seen in the UK and numerous public buildings. The plant also featured a stylized interior, with a streamlined appearance that combined traditional and modern design features in areas such as the administrative areas and control rooms.
Despite it’s attractive design, the power plant was coal fired and therefore extremely dirty. (When I visited London last year, I mentioned the Battersea Power Station to my cabbie. He told me that when he was in grade school, his class took a field trip to the power plant, which was still operating at the time. Outside, ash was falling like snow.) Being in the heart of London, the Battersea Power Station contributed significantly to pollution in the area, leading to its use being scaled back, starting in the 1960’s. Battersea-A was shut down in 1975, with Battersea-B operating until 1983, although by the time, it was no longer being used for baseload generation.
Since it’s closure, the power plant has been considered as a site for a theme park, residential development and numerous other possible uses. Unfortunately, plans for preservation and reuse of the structure have repeatedly run out of money or been scrapped before getting very far. Much of the equipment at the plant was demolished after shutdown in 1983. Currently, the walls and chimneys are still intact, but the roof from the main hall of the building has been removed, leaving the Battersea Power Station as a shell. Other rooms and side areas are more intact. The World Monuments Fund considers the power station to be one of the 100 most endangered monumental structures in the world.
Battersea-A Before the construction of Battersea-B:
After Expansion:
After Decommissioning / In Present Condition
Interior:
The IRT Powerhouse
(New York City, USA)
The IRT Powerhouse was built in 1904 by the Interborough Rapid Transit Company, a private subway operator in New York City which existed prior to the acquisition of the subway system by the city of New York in 1940. The plant was built primarily to provide power to the subway and elevated train system owned by IRT. It operated in this capacity until the 1950’s, when the subway system switched to fully grid-provided power. The building was then transferred to Con Edison who continued to use it as a power station and a steam plant for the New York City Steam System.
Located at 59th street and 12th avenue, the IRT powerhouse is in the heart of Manhattan, near the Hudson River. The structure occupies an entire city block. The structure is cited as an example of the City Beautiful movement, with an ornate classical style designed by noted architect Sanford White. The original design included six smokestacks, which have since been removed. In addition to being functional, the style of the stacks was intended to reflect the funnels of ocean liners, which frequently docked at the piers near the powerhouse.
Today the outside of the powerhouse is much as it was at the time of its construction. A single tall smokestack was built in the 1960’s, replacing the original six stacks. Most of the original equipment has been removed. There has been discussion of retiring the building from its function as a steam plant and reusing the structure for other purposes.
Seaholm Power Station
(Austin, Texas, USA)
Seaholm Power Station was built in 1950 to provide electricity to the local public utility in Austin Texas. Its design is not as ornamented or ornate as some of the other power plants mentioned on this page, yet it has an attractive streamlined look that is both modern and classic. The design includes art deco elements as well as neon-illuminated signs and chrome decorative trim.
The power station has become an iconic building which has been the inspiration for numerous pieces of pop art, some of which can be seen here and here. Now decommissioned, plans are to preserve the structure of the power plant for redevelopment into housing and retail.
Richmond Station
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA)
Richmond Generating Station was built in 1925 in Philadelphia PA to provide additional generating capacity for the rapidly increasing power demand in the greater Philadelphia area. The original structure was built in a classical style, complete with a carved stone exterior and tall plate-glass windows. The main turbine hall of the power station has a vaulted, arched ceiling with natural illumination from skylights.
The power station was expanded in the 1950’s and again in the late 1960’s. The expansion included the addition of gas turbine generators and additional switching equipment. Most of the metal, industrial-looking structure was built after the initial power plant during these expansions, which apparently cared less about aesthetics.
The steam plant at Richmond Station was finally closed in 1984. All but two of the gas turbine units were subsequently removed. The property is still owned by the utility and although the original power station has been abandoned, the switching yard is still live and the two gas turbine generators, located in a separate area of the property continue to function as peaking power generators. The original structure has been allowed to decay and is in danger of being lost completely if preservation action is not taken.
Chester Generating Station
(Chester, Pennsylvania, USA)
Built in 1918 by the Delaware County Electric Company, Chester Station has a unique style that includes classical design elements as well as integration of power plant features, such as the coal loading hoists with the architecture of the plant. The structure has elongated windows and stone columns. The decorative details continue inside the plant, where the turbine hall has an ornamented, arched ceiling worthy of a major railway station or public building. The structure also included an illuminated sign for some time.
Chester Station was closed in 1980 and has since be rehabilitated for other uses. The structure has been added to the National Registry of Historic Places.
This post turned out to be just too long to include other examples. It was taking far too much time to put together. However, a second part with more beautiful power plant pictures will be posted soon.
This entry was posted on Saturday, September 4th, 2010 at 12:17 pm and is filed under Culture, Enviornment, Good Science, History, Misc, Nuclear, media. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
View blog reactions

































































































September 4th, 2010 at 7:24 pm
Thanks for these, it does evoke a time when electric power was given the respect it deserves, something that has been lost, even as we grow more dependent upon it.
I visited the Toronto Power Generating Station in 1972 during a family trip to the Falls. I remember the turbine hall with the brightly painted generators, and the prevalent 25Hz hum, since that was the frequency of the AC it produced. The visit was very short, as I was the only one really interested , which was too bad. I wish now that I had some pictures of that day.
Quote Comment
September 4th, 2010 at 10:02 pm
I’ve driven by the TPGS a few times and always wondered what was inside such a beautiful building so close to the falls. Modern power plants can be somewhat ugly places – I work at Bruce Nuclear and our power stations are giant steel clad boxes painted harvest gold – which I guess was trendy in the 1970’s… there have been some recent efforts to clean up the outside with new flower beds and such, but really it’s like sticking lipstick on a pig. Don’t get me wrong, our power plants are fantastic – they just don’t look fantastic. Inside isn’t much better, some areas have been repainted with new colours, but for the most parts it is 60s/70s colours and architecture at it’s worst.
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2010 at 12:45 am
Here are some interior photos of TPGS:
http://www.abandoned-britain.com/overseas/hydro/1.htm
http://www.ntropy.us/jannx/pblog/index.php?showimage=182
I believe there are areas of the building that were once power company offices as well.
Not sure of the dates. I’ve seen other pictures that seem to indicate at least some of the generators have been removed – probably for their copper. The current state of the building is that it has some minor surface and cosmetic deterioration but it’s receiving the minimal necessary upkeep (holes in roof fixed ad such) from the parks service. Glass windows have been replaced with plywood etc. Hopefully they’ll eventually spiff it up again though.
It’s still up in the air what it will become, but it’s designated to be preserved. It may eventually become a museum and visitors center or something like that, but probably not for years, because there are no projects like that pending right now. If it does, I hope they can preserve some of the internal equipment as is.
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2010 at 9:11 am
Great photo collection! Awhile back, maybe a year or two the WNN put up a contest to draw a future nuclear power plant. I couldn’t find the exact article but found one of the finalist drawings here:
http://www.ecofriend.org/entry/eco-tech-glimpses-of-21st-century-nuclear-power-plants/
Sometimes beauty is in the eye of the beholder of course. I like the lines and modern look of the Qinshan nuclear plant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CANDU_at_Qinshan.jpg
I think you put up a picture of TMI, but there are a number of American nuclear power plants that photograph very nicely at least from certain angles. Diablo Canyon gets a lot of its good looks from being set against the beautiful coastline. The Cook NPP, which pretty much looks the same as Diablo Canyon, has some nice photos out as well.
For the many existing industrial facilities that need a makeover, I think some landscaping with a few trees and shrubs can go a long way to at least hide some of utilitarian look. But of course, everything is scrutinized in the name of safety and security, I’m sure even a decorative mural on the side of a cooling tower would have to be approved by the NRC.
And who wants to go through all that pain in the name of beauty?
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2010 at 9:58 am
Jason Ribeiro said:
Bloody NRC…
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Maybe a little off topic, but I recall reading about the Battersea Power Plant being used for the Pink Floyd album Animals. They actually had a big inflatable pig made for the album photo shoot and filled it with helium then floated it on a theater between the stacks of the power plant. After a while it broke free and started to fly away and caused some major concerns for air traffic safety before eventually coming down.
For all that effort, they decided against using the actual photos of the pig floating above the power station. They ended up just inserting it into an older image of the power plant.
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2010 at 8:43 pm
Jason Ribeiro said:
That reminds me of an idea my cousin and I were kicking around earlier this summer over beers and cigars one evening while solving the world’s problems. I had mentioned that the cooling towers of nuclear plants had become a particular target of antinuclear feelings, after telling him my pet theory that most NIMBY is driven by the fear of falling property values, particularly if the towers are in view.
He wondered if the solution to that might be to use Dazzle camouflage to break up the appearance of the towers, making them less a visual presence on the horizon. Seemed to me at the time to be an idea worth considering.
Quote Comment
September 5th, 2010 at 9:23 pm
DV82XL said:
I think you’re onto something there. I met this artist a few weeks ago Momoko Sudo who paints wave patterns which look like fabric, water ripples, or wind blown sand. Seeing these works up close, they create a dramatic division of space with the illusion of movement. I could see how patterns like these applied to existing facilities could be really interesting.
Here’s an example of a mural on an industrial storage tank in Tampa:
http://www.tampabayaquarium.com/images4/MVC-220S.JPG
Here are some other clever ideas:
http://weburbanist.com/2007/10/10/3d-architectural-illusions-amazing-paintings-murals-and-mosaics/
Paintings such as these might even have some security application to appease those who believe nuclear plants are in grave danger of being rammed by a plane driven by terrorists (big eye roll). It’s a hell of a lot better idea than putting nuclear plants inside of giant bird cages:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsrHmf8YVtI
^ That video is laughable. Talk about creating a massive eye sore! That’s one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever seen. Martin Sheen has really lost it.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 2:48 am
There has been quite recent talk about resurrecting Battersea, including an extension to the Tube. The American embassy is apparently planning to move to the area as well.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 8:17 am
Very nice indeed. A similar approach was taken with many early machines, which were ornate and very pleasing to the eye.
Quote Comment
September 6th, 2010 at 8:25 am
There are often music concerts at Battersea powerstation
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2010 at 7:07 am
Austrian artist Friedensreich Hudertwasser designed this incenerator/district heating plant http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hunderwasser_Fernheizwerk.JPG
I have also always wondered why cooling towers are not decorated like these from the word go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soweto_Cooling_Towers.JPG The left and one is a bank advertisement and the right hand one is just pretty pictures.
The power station is de-comissioned but the cooling towers are used by crazy people to jump from.
http://www.orlandotowers.co.za/index.htm
Quote Comment
September 9th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
Don’t forget Hoover Dam. I had been to it’s “sister” dam up river, Glen Canyon, a few years prior. The difference was night and day! Glen Canyon was beautiful in it’s own way, stark white concrete against the red canyon walls and cobalt blue water, but Hoover Dam is something out of a Fritz Lang movie. The powerhouses are of a grand scale, with terrazzo tile artwork in the floor, lighting fixtures that were designed specifically for the dam, and details that showed that the people working on the project understood that here was something special.
I know the primary purpose of Hoover and Glen Canyon are for water storage and irrigation, but when people think of these big structures their first thought is hydropower.
Quote Comment