Page 72 - Beyond Decommissioning

The fundamentals of industrial redevelopment 53

even more controversial. The traditional view is that these buildings should be
appreciated for their utilitarian functions, but they are endowed per se with no artis-
tic merits: this is epitomized by the quotation “Life without industry is guilt, and
industry without art is brutality” (John Ruskin, 1819–1900, Lectures on Art (1870),
Lecture 3, The relation of Art to Morals’ sect. 95). The reader should note, however,
that “brutality” is different from “brutalism,” an artistic movement flourishing in
post-World War II years and contributing to the architecture of most NPPs
(Fig. 1.5). For decades, brutalist architecture was something underclass to escape
from. Today, brutalism is back in fashion. As gentrification has become a bad word,
these huge concrete masses represent an age of optimism and use architecture to
transform society. Brutalist buildings are now viewed by many with care and
respect.
Nuclear buildings tend to be sited in remote coastal or fluvial areas—not just to
ensure safety of the public in the event of an accident, but also because power stations
need access to abundant water as the plant coolant. Therefore, most of existing and
planned NPPs are located near nature reserves or national parks, a serious environ-
mental and aesthetic impediment indeed. Would any other type of building be allowed
to occupy such sites, let alone without strict aesthetic requirements? And what kind of
post-decommissioning site redevelopment would be possible except the building of
new industrial plants?
In the context of industrial buildings, and especially nuclear buildings, one won-
ders about the role of architects. The range of views here varies from “no role at
all” to “business as usual,” with the best approach possibly striking a happy medium.
Architects deal with the assemblage of manned volumes (inside and outside a plant),
forms and the relationships between these volumes and the landscape, meaning, and
usefulness. NPPs make no exception of the architectural domain. In fact, they pose
new challenges. While NPPs are not unique in size and general appearance among
industrial buildings (think of steel factories, blast furnaces, or aircraft hangars),
it is their geography that makes the difference. Unlike other industrial installations,
NPPs are located in isolation in open, vast plains and can be seen from afar:
“hiding” or integrating a nuclear plant in the natural environment is out of the ques-
tion. Therefore, a basic contrast (but not necessarily an insurmountable conflict)
between plant and landscape drives the architectural approach and creates a new
landscape. In truth, a similar contrast came about when motorways started to be
ubiquitously built: experience now tells that the new landscapes made up by motor-
ways can be beautiful. One issue affecting the architecture of NPPs is the need to
reconcile the plant standardization (dictated by economics, safety, and other engi-
neering aspects) with site-specific features. It is noteworthy that the architectural
approach to building NPPs was investigated in France well before the country mas-
sively embarked in the construction of a pressurized water reactor (PWR) fleet
(Andreu, 1977).
Research reactors are less constraint in shape than NPPs by their functional objec-
tives. Therefore, it has been possible to their architects to create “beautiful” structures,
more palatable to the man-on-the-street for being closer to classical standards.