“The ones that got away: Tates rejected designs,” The Art Newspaper, Jun 2, 2014

04. Nolli Plan highlighting Tate and St. Pauls

Giles Gilbert Scott

The Bankside Power Station has been in place since 1891 however, the building as it is known now designed by Giles Gilbert Scott, was built in 1953. The architect of the power station was also responsible for other landmarks in UK cities. “Scott is best known as the designer of London’s other great power station at Battersea, now sadly derelict, and Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, as well as the once ubiquitous red telephone box.”8

At this time London was a very different city to as it is now, the air was thick with smoke and the legacy of the second world war could be seen everywhere. “London was once a manufacturing city, a centre of the industrial revolution, and nowhere was as ruthlessly disfigured by factories and crammed slum housing as Southwark.”9 This industrial London has left behind multiple redundant buildings, the current population now can reinvent these spaces to serve a new purpose.

Scott’s design of the Bankside Power Station was not without controversy. One issue the public had with the building was “It has been said that the power station will dwarf St. Paul’s.”10 This ‘cathedral of power’ facing up to St. Paul’s on the opposite side of the riverbank could be seen as a potential issue however, Scott reassured the city that his chimney would stand lower than the grand dome of city cathedral. In addition to the issue of height, many within the city were beginning to worry about the effects of air pollution, including the King who wrote to the Prime Minister to voice his concern however it seems Parliament were more worried about the city’s electricity supply than health of its people. Although the Power Station had many critics it was built and remained in operation until October 1981 when its doors were closed and left in waiting for a new purpose. .

05. Battersea Power Station, London 06. Anglican Cathedral Church of Christ, Liverpool 07. Red Telephone Box

8 Frances Morris, Michael Craig-Martin, Andrew Marr and Sheena Wagstaff. Tate Modern: The Handbook. (London: Tate Gallery, 2006), 22. 9 Frances Morris, Michael Craig-Martin, Andrew Marr and Sheena Wagstaff. Tate Modern: The Handbook. (London: Tate Gallery, 2006), 15. 10 Rowan Moore and Raymund Ryan. Building Tate Modern: Herzog & de Meuron transforming Giles Gilbert Scott. (London: Tate Gallery, 2000), 177

“Nothing is more boring or stupid than to wake up in the morning naively confident in what you already know”11 – Jaques Herzog “Nothing is more boring or stupid than to wake up in the morning naively confident in what you already know”11 – Jaques Herzog

11 Richard C. Levene and Fernando Márquez Cecilia, “Herzog & de Meuron 1993 – 1997,” El Croquis, No. 84 (1997): 7 – 21.

Herzog & de Meuron

Herzog & de Meuron are an ever learning and ever-changing practice, unlike many architects who have a set style, like the afore mentioned Frank Gehry for example, who’s buildings are all identifiable by their deconstructivist stainless steel form. What Herzog & de Meuron do instead is experiment with the building form and materials that they use. “It is this ability to continually surprise – the constant reinvention of their style, their refreshing lack of preconceptions about what their buildings look like – that marks them out as some of today’s most interesting designers”12

The skin of the building is the first aspect of the building that is seen upon approach, it gives the user their first impression of the architecture which they are about to experience. The practice has a rather interesting way of observing this skin, Jaques Herzog explained this approach in an interview stating “In that respect the human body can be compared to a building. Everybody creates his or her own architecture, which then becomes part of the city. Clothes are a kind of link between the public and the private just like a house”13 This approach helps us consider how the architects are so fluid with the design of buildings, they consider what is fashionable at the time and give people what they want rather than force ideas upon them. The skin of the Tate modern is certainly nothing like the architects have designed before, keeping the details that Giles Gilbert Scott has gifted them has maintained the heritage of the building.

Frank Gehry

08. Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health, Las Vegas 09. Walt Disney Concert Hall, Los Angeles 10. Museum of Pop Culture, Seattle

Herzog & de Meuron

11. Elbphilharmonie Hamburg 12. Laban Dance Centre, London 13. De Young Mueseum, San Fransisco

12 Naomi Stungo, Herzog & de Meuron. (London: Carlton Books, 2002): 2. 13 Richard C. Levene and Fernando Márquez Cecilia, “Herzog & de Meuron 1993 – 1997,” El Croquis, No. 84 (1997): 7 – 21.

Appealing to the people of London was essential, preserving the heritage of the building and the city helped this drastically. “We like to deal with existing structures, make them more powerful, expose them and add some new parts if necessary. We try to enhance the existing qualities to rediscover what is here in front of all of us.”14 This part of the firm’s philosophy was essential to them winning the competition with their design. By accepting the architecture of Giles Gilbert Scott and making small changes to the skin, rather than try to mould the building to create their own gesture it improved the aesthetic of the gallery. “At Tate Modern it is not always possible to know where Gilbert Scott ends and Herzog & De Meuron begin.”15

The architects never wanted to design an abstract eyesore but rather a building that would be comfortable in its context. “We never wanted our architectural works to be seen as art works. We have always thought of them as part of the city, i.e., as part of something subject to change, with or without our participation.”16 This aspect of their philosophy also links back to the buildings need to appeal to people in the city. It allows us to view the building not as something belongs to the architect but as a public space.

“Here it is, an old behemoth of Heavy I

ndustry re-presented for the twenty-first century, a redundant power station poised as a

14 Richard C. Levene and Fernando Márquez Cecilia, “Herzog & de Meuron 1993 – 1997,” El Croquis, No. 84 (1997): 7 – 21. 15 Rowan Moore and Raymund Ryan. Building Tate Modern: Herzog & de Meuron transforming Giles Gilbert Scott. (London: Tate Gallery, 2000), 8. 16 Richard C. Levene and Fernando Márquez Cecilia, “Herzog & de Meuron : 1981 – 2000.” Madrid: El Croquis.

“Here it is, an old behemoth of Heavy Industry Palace of Art and Experimentation”17 re-presented for the twenty-first century, a redundant power station poised as a Palace of Art and Experimentation”13

17 Rowan Moore and Raymund Ryan. Building Tate Modern: Herzog & de Meuron transforming Giles Gilbert Scott. (London: Tate Gallery, 2000), 13.

The Tate is a prime example in the important recycling of old buildings. Adaptive reuse is needed more than ever in our current society where the needs of the public change so often. “Sarah Castle underlined the importance of retrofit in view of the fact that around 85 per cent of the UK’s current buildings will still be in existence by 2050.”18 The Bankside Power Station can be described as the host building for the museum. The term ‘host building’ refers to the skin in which the new building can live similar to a hermit crab inhabiting its shell. “All host structures are in many ways found objects, whole existing structures that have lost their relevance and are unused or underused.”19 In the UK especially there is a large stock of these hosts that are in need of being repurposed. There are a six types of host building shown in the diagrams below, of which the Tate conforms to the shell category.

The Environmental impact of building is very well documented and the building industry plays a large role in the production of carbon. “Noting that nearly 40% of final energy consumption in Europe is in buildings”20 Architects hold a responsibility to adapt buildings as the world we live in changes or it has potential to prove costly to the environment. The city of London is starting to wake up and see the benefits of retrofitting, programs like RE:FIT will have a positive impact in kickstarting a revival of the cities old buildings. “RE:FIT aims to retrofit at least 40% of London’s public-owned buildings by 2025 and cut CO2 emissions across the city’s public sector by 45,000 metric tons by the end of 2015.”21 Projects like this will help to show the public the benefits of reusing old buildings and lead the way in reducing the carbon footprint to which the building industry plays a huge part in.

Entity Shell Semi-ruin

Fragmented Relic

14. Host Structure Types Group

18 “The Rise of Reuse,” Architecture Today, accessed Jan 2, 2020, https://architecturetoday.co.uk/the-rise-of-reuse/ 19 Liliane Wong, Adaptive REUSE: Extending the Lives of Buildings. (Basel: Birkhäuser,2017), 104. 20 Gurkan Kumbaroglu and Reinhard Madlener, “Evaluation of economically optimal retrofit investment options for energy savings in buildings.” Energy and Buildings, no.49. (2012): 327-334. 21 “Cities100: London – Large-scale building retrofit reduce emissions, C40 Cities, 2015, Accessed Jan 2, 2020, https://www.c40.org/case_studies/cities100-london-large-scale-building-retrofits-reduce-emissions#:~:text=RE%3AFIT%20aims%20to%20retrofit,emissions%20by%2093%2C000%20metric%20tons.

Though the reuse of buildings has a positive impact on the environment, there is economic punishment for retrofit in the form of a 20% tax in the UK whereas the newbuild and demolition categories is usually zero-rated.22 This is a rather peculiar tax which seems to discourage a very viable and effective building solution. Campaigns to restructure the levels in tax within the building industry are ongoing and have been for many years now. One of the most recent began in January 2021, when a petition was created to lobby the government to implement such changes. The outcome of this petition is yet to be made clear however, it is a step in the right direction. One of the main arguments against the changes was that the government was constrained by EU law to make them, however this is no longer an issue.

22 Isabella Kaminski. “Vat chance: Can tac reforms spur a retrofit renaissance?” Architects Journal, 2020, Accessed Feb 15, 2021, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/vat-chance-can-tax-reforms-spur-a-retrofit-renaissance.