Lets make some pretty nuclear plants!

[madd0ct0r]

I wonder if you could just make the power plant look like, well, some regular houses or such. Better yet, what about building some sort of "living roof" structure, and have the roof slope toward the outside world, so people looking at the plant just see plants & trees...

Hotchkiss Biomass Local Heating plant:



http://www.archdaily.com/340641/hotchki ... -planners/


Diablo Canyon (and many more)





I quite like the honey pot of this one, but sadly the blog does not name it. Buildings should also look good at night.

[Purple]

This has probably been said by every generation and isn´t true imo. If you just image search the term "contemporary architechture" you´ll porbably find some buildings you like.

People probably just notice the stuff they find ugly and annoying more than all the other buildings.
A significant amount of people also seems to have to get used to certain styles (one major factor that generates the complaining). The ones that find new stuff ugly will be same that protets 40 years later when one of their beloved (former ugly as sin) beautiful pieces of history gets torn down. That´s why we shouldn´t listen to the complaining.

People don´t register the vast majority of architecture anyway. Only very iconic buildings are registered and these are allways open to draw controversy because of their iconic nature.

I just don't like the curved melty plastic thing and the walls made of windows with no facade in between them that architects love these days. That's all. I also don't really like the fad of covering everything with night lights. Buildings should look good during the day and be ominous shadows in the nights sky during the night. Also I don't get the obsession with adding grass to buildings. Yes it can look decent at times. But fundamentally it's just a gimmick.

[salm]

This has probably been said by every generation and isn´t true imo. If you just image search the term "contemporary architechture" you´ll porbably find some buildings you like.

People probably just notice the stuff they find ugly and annoying more than all the other buildings.
A significant amount of people also seems to have to get used to certain styles (one major factor that generates the complaining). The ones that find new stuff ugly will be same that protets 40 years later when one of their beloved (former ugly as sin) beautiful pieces of history gets torn down. That´s why we shouldn´t listen to the complaining.

People don´t register the vast majority of architecture anyway. Only very iconic buildings are registered and these are allways open to draw controversy because of their iconic nature.

I just don't like the curved melty plastic thing and the walls made of windows with no facade in between them that architects love these days. That's all. I also don't really like the fad of covering everything with night lights. Buildings should look good during the day and be ominous shadows in the nights sky during the night. Also I don't get the obsession with adding grass to buildings. Yes it can look decent at times. But fundamentally it's just a gimmick.

There are plenty of other styles that are built at the moment. I´m no fan of bubble gum architecture either nor do I like most deconstructivistic approaches but there is so much other stuff.

[Purple]

There are plenty of other styles that are built at the moment. I´m no fan of bubble gum architecture either nor do I like most deconstructivistic approaches but there is so much other stuff.

I guess. I just frankly think that designers these days are so obsessed with being original for the sake of being original that they have forgotten their purpose is to design things that look good. Design of any kind and architecture in particular aren't art.* You aren't supposed to express your self through them any more than I am when writing software. You are supposed to make something that's clean, looks good and works.

*At least not unless you are specifically designing something for an exhibition. If you do that, you get a pass. There simply needs to be a line drawn between design as art and design for stuff that's supposed to be functional.

[salm]

There are plenty of other styles that are built at the moment. I´m no fan of bubble gum architecture either nor do I like most deconstructivistic approaches but there is so much other stuff.

I guess. I just frankly think that designers these days are so obsessed with being original for the sake of being original that they have forgotten their purpose is to design things that look good. Design of any kind and architecture in particular aren't art.* You aren't supposed to express your self through them any more than I am when writing software. You are supposed to make something that's clean, looks good and works.

*At least not unless you are specifically designing something for an exhibition. If you do that, you get a pass. There simply needs to be a line drawn between design as art and design for stuff that's supposed to be functional.

You´re not supposed to make something that´s clean. You´re supposed to make something that´s clean only if clean is a required property of the object or if it enhances the object.
Something being art and good design aren´t mutually exclusive. There is no reason not to turn a design piece into a peice of art.
Form follows function is a principal that is preached in plenty of architecture/design schools. Plenty of designers and architects these days use and promote this principal to a large degree in my experience.
When cities say they want beautiful buildings (in this case nuclear power plants) the form actually is a function. In this case the function of it is propaganda which is supposed to make nuclear energy more acceptable.
Also, believe me, designers are not obsessed with being original. The first thing that is done when designing something is using google image search and youtube to check how other poeple did it.

[Borgholio]

I don't like any of the gothic style ideas for nuke plants. I mean when you're looking at a gothic cathedral, it actually looks rather terrifying. The idea here is to get people to like the sight of a nuke plant, not have another reason to fear it. I like the ideas that make it look like it belongs there, and isn't an ugly wart on the ground. A living roof wouldn't be a bad idea, but trying to make it blend in with the landscape or look more organic would be best. I'm thinking of this:



This is the California Academy of Science in San Francisco. The inside of the building is very open with lots of natural light, and the outside blends in so well with the surrounding greenery, that from straight up it's actually hard to see. This building doesn't look like a blight on the area, the green roof is nice, the surrounding land is a well-kept park...if a nuke plant looked something like this, people might not even know it WAS in their backyard in their first place.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yeah that took me a couple tries to see the building in the foreground. Mainly because I was looking at the twisted thing in the background and thinking "wtf? How can he recommend something like this?"

[Irbis]

I mean when you're looking at a gothic cathedral, it actually looks rather terrifying.

Um, terrifying how...? I mean, take on look at my old uni building, it has distinct Gothic look, yet I don't recall anyone calling it 'scary', not outside exam time anyway...

The CAS building that you linked, while kind of nice, has same big problem a lot of "ecological" architecture has - sprawl. It's low, wastes space and only keeps illusion of belonging there if you keep immaculate well trimmed and watered lawns around.

I prefer high, low footprint buildings, and since NPP already requires high rises why not make it as small and tall as possible? Or even package all NPP buildings into fake cooling tower next to real ones for uniformity and just have 4 or 5 uniform, futuristic towers? Look at pictures here, some of these paint schemes look really nice.

people might not even know it WAS in their backyard in their first place.

Don't worry, idiots screaming about Baltic tsunamis, Alpine earthquakes and (*gasp*!) scary breeding reactors would constantly remind them about it

[salm]

Um, terrifying how...? I mean, take on look at my old uni building, it has distinct Gothic look, yet I don't recall anyone calling it 'scary', not outside exam time anyway...

Things like cathedrals and similar architecture of power (no pun intended), are specifically designed to be intimidating and make you feel small.
It´s probably a bad idea to use such architecture for PR purposes if you want to make your precious new nukes look as squeeky clean and safe as wind and solar.

[madd0ct0r]

I mean when you're looking at a gothic cathedral, it actually looks rather terrifying.

Um, terrifying how...? I mean, take on look at my old uni building, it has distinct Gothic look, yet I don't recall anyone calling it 'scary', not outside exam time anyway...

The CAS building that you linked, while kind of nice, has same big problem a lot of "ecological" architecture has - sprawl. It's low, wastes space and only keeps illusion of belonging there if you keep immaculate well trimmed and watered lawns around.

I prefer high, low footprint buildings, and since NPP already requires high rises why not make it as small and tall as possible? Or even package all NPP buildings into fake cooling tower next to real ones for uniformity and just have 4 or 5 uniform, futuristic towers? Look at pictures here, some of these paint schemes look really nice.

people might not even know it WAS in their backyard in their first place.

Don't worry, idiots screaming about Baltic tsunamis, Alpine earthquakes and (*gasp*!) scary breeding reactors would constantly remind them about it

Irbis, the CAs building is 5 stories tall - it's got a rainforest inside part of it! (taller then your college )
Small and tall as possible costs money, and as a rule you shouldn't be building power stations where land is in short supply. Energy-to-waste plants being the exception.

[InsaneTD]

Instead, we'll likely see either boring Brutalist designs or hideous post-modern styles.

I'd take brutalism over the modern garbage any day. A solid block of concrete still looks better than something that appears to have melted.

*cough*

That works. Although I was thinking of something more along the lines of proper European cathedrals. Like these:
1.
2.
3.

Imagine an atomic plant with facades like those! Especially #3.

So you want a Warhammer 40k mechanicus designed power plant?

[Borgholio]

Um, terrifying how...? I mean, take on look at my old uni building, it has distinct Gothic look, yet I don't recall anyone calling it 'scary', not outside exam time anyway...

Well it's not actually true gothic. Here is what I mean:



The spires, jagged edges, gargoyles, dark stone...the whole thing is meant to look almost evil in a way.

The CAS building that you linked, while kind of nice, has same big problem a lot of "ecological" architecture has - sprawl. It's low, wastes space and only keeps illusion of belonging there if you keep immaculate well trimmed and watered lawns around.

That's kinda the point. A low building is easier to overlook and less likely to attract attention. Wasting space isn't an issue since there is likely going to be a large security zone around the plant anyways...why not fill that area with trees?

[InsaneTD]

Cause trees obscure line of site, making it harder to defend? It'll also attract wildlife which could set off or damage sensors and other security systems.

[Borgholio]

Cause trees obscure line of site, making it harder to defend? It'll also attract wildlife which could set off or damage sensors and other security systems.

So have the trees set back a fair distance and leave an open area with grass or low plants, fish ponds, flower garden...you get the point. Anything except ugly steel and concrete.

[InsaneTD]

I fully agree, it's a waste of what's normally good farm land. The least we should do is use for beauty.

[orbitingpluto]

The spires, jagged edges, gargoyles, dark stone...the whole thing is meant to look almost evil in a way.

I've tried to think why a Gothic Cathedral isn't evil looking, and the pointy spires, imposing heights, gargoyles, and stained glass with people being murdered and tortured all are kinda hard to argue for. I've never thought of them that way before though- I'm usually too impressed with the engineering, and awed in general.

[Irbis]

Things like cathedrals and similar architecture of power (no pun intended), are specifically designed to be intimidating and make you feel small.

Uh, ave-inspiring, yes, but intimidating...?

I'd say that for a lot of people something evoking image of centuries old church would fare a lot better than some futuristic gizmo, not only people like what they know but cathedrals and the like evoke image of stability and rock-solid foundations.

Irbis, the CAs building is 5 stories tall - it's got a rainforest inside part of it! (taller then your college )

Um, yes, I get that part. But it also has bad (IMHO) height to area ratio. If you added just 2 floors to it, you could more than replace whole big building behind it, using less land, electricity, and heat than they currently do.

By the way, it being taller is bad, as Collegium Novum has 4 floors above ground and 2 floors below, in basements. Housing archives, infrastructure, less often used offices and conference halls, making the space above ground very spacey and well lit. Even central staircase is very open and accessible, so much big elevator for disabled fit easily in corner without requiring any modifications, all in XIX century building. So, big, glassy, space wasting buildings like two or three new university campuses where I worked don't impress me, our ancestors did more with less a lot of times.

Small and tall as possible costs money, and as a rule you shouldn't be building power stations where land is in short supply. Energy-to-waste plants being the exception.

Uh, land is pricey and in short supply in big cities. Which happen to be the places to build power plants. Building them away just wastes energy in transmission and makes all the infrastructure needed to transfer it where it's useful devour even more land.

[Borgholio]

I'm usually too impressed with the engineering, and awed in general.

Oh yeah they are magnificent buildings, but the whole style of Gothic is not meant to make people feel good...so if that's your goal you should probably look elsewhere.

[salm]

Things like cathedrals and similar architecture of power (no pun intended), are specifically designed to be intimidating and make you feel small.

Uh, ave-inspiring, yes, but intimidating...?

I'd say that for a lot of people something evoking image of centuries old church would fare a lot better than some futuristic gizmo, not only people like what they know but cathedrals and the like evoke image of stability and rock-solid foundations.

I don´t understand this statement. Why are you implying that we have to chose between a church and a "futuristic gizmo"?

[fordlltwm]

Electric Mountain / Dinorwig Hydro electric station. Built in the remains of a victorian slate quarry the powerstation is invisible from outside except the doors, quite an impressive site to visit.

[Zeropoint]

Re: Electric Mountain: Aww yeah, that's the way to do it! They've effectively built most of the plant OUT of "the environment" (in the sense that the interior of a solid mass of rock is a space that does not normally participate in the ecosystem) as well as out of view. They're serving the needs of the community with minimal aesthetic and environmental impact. Good on them!

I have to confess that the idea of putting a nuclear power plant into a Gothic cathedral feels like something out of Warhammer 40,000 to me. If we're going to have GW-themed power plants, I like Tau architecture better.

[Simon_Jester]

Small and tall as possible costs money, and as a rule you shouldn't be building power stations where land is in short supply. Energy-to-waste plants being the exception.

Uh, land is pricey and in short supply in big cities. Which happen to be the places to build power plants. Building them away just wastes energy in transmission and makes all the infrastructure needed to transfer it where it's useful devour even more land.

Power plants are intrinsically big; the cost of building in the urban area is almost invariably going to be higher than the cost of building outside it, because wasting kilowatt-hours of electrical energy is often cheap compared to urban property taxes.

Plus, a lot of power plant types have specific restrictions on where you can put them. A solar power array really shouldn't be put anywhere that tall buildings or hills can cast a shadow on it. Most turbine-based power plants (including things like coal and nuclear) require plentiful supplies of cooling water and really do work best when put by a river. And so on.

[jwl]

If you ask me that second picture looks beautiful. It has just the right amount of Victorian in it.

Battersea power station is a listed building. I'm not aware of any nuclear power stations this is true for.