|  |
 | | | Subject: Battersea Stadium?
Posted May 4, 2012 by MMF - Keeper of Mustelids, with added P.M.A. "Cry God for Harry, England and St. George"
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
6
  | | Heads or Tails? Some historical meat on the bones of a neglected beautiful industrial Masterpiece, unlike the Monstrosity that has been preserved as a gross suppository for Modern 'Art', namely Tate Modern, aka Millbank Power Station.
Proposed build in 1926.
Sir Giles Gilbert Scott, creator of the K2 public telephone box, was bought in to help with design.
Last chimney finished - 1955
(this being a Power Station that used the River Thames to cool it's generators, not Cooling Towers)
Battersea closed down, with Battersea A closed 1975, and B in 1983.
Roche Consortium and John Broome (Alton Towers) purchase Battersea 1987.
Roof and West wall removed 1989 (including sections that were listed).
Bought by Park-view, a Hong-Kong based investment group in 1993.
Took full possession 2003.
Real Estate Properties, Irish-based group, purchased 2008.
At current estimates, refurbishment would cost £150m, including total demolition and rebuild of the iconic towers.
Why Tate Modern couldn't have been incorporated into this iconic building, being just across the river from Tate Britain, instead of the gargoyle of a barn that was Millbank defeats me.
Btw, did you know it s the largest brick-built building in Europe? Another reason to save it.
PS. When it was operational and The British Genius Exhibition, to celebrate the Queen's Silver Jubilee, was on in Battersea Park (the area is still known as The British Genius Site) I and my family saw a dolphin swimming off the hot water outlet, by Chelsea Bridge close to the mobile café on that side of the bridge. He made a fortune that day, once we pointed it out.
Do back to Icy's Question?
Only if the Power Station is preserved in the style of the Midland's Hotel, aka St Pancras. A SW arts venue similar to O2, Wembley, etc?
MMF
|
| | | Subject: Battersea Stadium?
Posted May 4, 2012 by (Mahatma) 2legs - Resident loon and Cloud Cuckoolander -- Bliss is folding towels.
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
7
| | Turning any old building, expecially those of a more functional nature, where that function isn't any logner required, to a new use, is one of the few ways to help ensure its preservation....
Not everythign can or should be preserved, it just wouldn't be practicle... Is there musch of the origional left to preserve or is it pretty deraclic and just falling down now? 
I saw a fab idea, a while ago, in NOrwich, where part of the reminant of the origional Medivial wall, had been incorperated into a new office block, thereby ensureing its preservation... if it'd just been left it'd have eventually just weathered away being exposed to the elements, and now, its listed nature, and maintainance of it, falls on the people who own the new shiney office block.. 
|
| |
| | | Subject: Battersea Stadium?
Posted May 5, 2012 by atinythorn
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
9
| | I have been watching the deliberate dereliction of the Battersea power station for some years, and have been a little disappointed with the lack of initiative by it's many owners.
The church of Scotland sets the benchmark for how to destroy beautiful old buildings that are held in regard by the local community, and I thought Battersea would follow the rules set by this venerable mob of vandals, but no.
Yes, there was some initial fine work by Mrs.Thatcher, who, having realised the public might want the building listed and preserved, sold it off to a company who pretended to have a use for it. This was the 'Theme Park' ploy. Not one used by the CoS, they prefer to sell their buildings to developers who will 'retain the character of the building while opening it up to different public use'
Here we have a similarity. The original plan fails due to inflation/cost issues......but not before the roof has been removed from the structure. Now we wait a while as nature does it's bit, and quickly starts to make the structure unsound. If we are lucky, after a few years dereliction is complete, demolition is the only answer, and the site is cleared for housing or offices, and we all trouser a vast sum of money, and trot off to the Bahamas for lunch.
However, poor old Battersea is a more solid structure than a C14 church in Hawick or Peebles, and so the blighter just won't get unsound enough, quick enough.
Here is where I'm really disappointed with the developer's initiative. They seem to be just sat around waiting (rather glumly) for nature to kill off the place.
A quick word with a dog-collared Visigoth from North of the border would have given them the solution. The place has to 'Gae an fire'
This is a kind of spontanious combustion which occurs when a particularly stubborn structure stands in the way of profit, and can frequently be witnessed in Glasgow.
Still, now the old place is making the news again, I'm sure the LFB will be putting extra crews on to cover the possibility.
Red Sky at night,
The station's alight.
Red sky at the dawning,
It's our heritage we're mourning.
|
| | | Subject: Battersea Stadium?
Posted May 5, 2012 by atinythorn
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
11
| | I think Battersea deserves the heritage tag, as is an iconic building in the heart of the city. Its not just the towers from the outside that are worth preserving, but the whole 'temple of power' concept. If for no other reason, these buildings are reminder of our industrial heritage, and is one of only three remaining examples.
The cavernous interior was also a beautiful thing, but that has mainly been lost now.
Architecture is always at it's most vunerable after around a hundred years, and tastes have moved on sufficiently to despise what went before.
|
| |
| | | Subject: Battersea Stadium?
Posted May 5, 2012 by Pink Paisley
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
14
| | Generally speaking, I am in favour. I'm not a Chelsea fan, my team's ground is incredibly humble by comparison, but it would make a fantastic stadium and go a long way to preserving the building.
As a football stadium, it would almost certainly attract worldwide attention. As a derelict power station it will probably carry on falling to bits and I would regret that, it is one of the landmarks that I like to see when in (or flying over), London.
I dare say, that BPS is most widely known for its appearance on the front of 'Animals' and I wouldn't mind betting that most people couldn't really describe what is underneath the chimneys.
PP
|
| | | Subject: Battersea Stadium?
Posted May 5, 2012 by  Icy North
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
16
| | I suspected this would be the general reaction, and I think Chelsea's proposal may well go ahead on the basis of what's been said here.
My concern is about what exactly we're doing with this site. I agree that we should reuse heritage buildings to preserve them, but I just don't think a football stadium is the right option here. Football is a divisive, tribal game, and turning this wonderful site into a shrine for skinheads in blue shirts isn't a) in keeping with the dignity of the place and b) is handing ownership of the landmark to a particular tribe.
There's something stark about the site which makes me think a lot about Britain's industrial past, and I can only see that wonder being lost. The four chimneys will emerge from a steel and glass edifice housing conference centres, sports clubs, etc - all the paraphernalia of a modern football stadium, and despised by all fans of a different colour.
Tate Modern was different. The power station was tastefully redeveloped into a public facility. You can still go there - for free - and gaze at features like the turbine hall. It's still owned by the people.
|
| | | Subject: Battersea Stadium?
Posted May 5, 2012 by Solnushka (Foundation)
This is a reply to this Posting
| | Posting
17
| | Trouble is, all the plans from previous years have been about turning it into hotels or apartments or both, and swish ones at that. And right now, you can drive or walk past the very high boards over wich you can see the chimneys and not much else. So I'm not sure that the football idea doesn't represent a step up although I take your point about giving it to one particular tribe. Still at least other footballing tribes will visit it. And, forgive the terrible sterotype, but were it turned into a museum or art gallery, would those people go anywhere near it?
What should we do with it were money no object?
|
|
