2. Influence of Design
The sublimity, scale, and tasteful ornament seen in both Bankside and Battersea Power Stations endow the stations with a sense of monumentality, a quality that ultimately led to the decision to preserve the structures. In addition, the designs of the two power stations also hint toward reasons the two buildings developed so differently after their decommission. One such reason is related to the buildings’ relative sizes: Battersea is about twice as large as Bankside, indeed Battersea could house the entirety of St. Paul’s Cathedral between its two symmetrical boiler houses. While Bankside would eventually be selected by the Tate Gallery to be the home of its modern collection, Battersea was also considered as a potential candidate, but was discarded after it was decided the building was too large and unwieldy.[1] Battersea’s immense size has led to several creative proposals for the structure’s redevelopment, including a roller coaster surrounding the structure, and a new home for the Chelsea Football Club.
Another reason relates to the level of iconicity and recognition that each building possesses. [2] While Bankside is considered by most architects to be the most aesthetically pleasing and fully developed of Scott’s industrial designs, Battersea Power Station is considered by many, including historian and author Gavin Stamp, to be “the power station” of London, and its iconic four-tower design has been featured in films, album covers, and other popular media. [3] It may be this very iconicity that makes Battersea Power Station so difficult to develop. While the exterior and form of Bankside has been successfully subsumed by the program and identity of the Tate Modern museum, any development on Battersea will most likely never overshadow its original design and implied program as a power station. While the landmark status of Battersea makes it a popular venue and attractive brand, its iconicity makes redeveloping the structure into an entirely new entity a complex and difficult process.