Architecture in Me, in the World and the Tate Moderns application for a new gallery space

‘Architecture’ is much debated as to what defines its true meaning and how design should compare with function and con-
struction. Some say architecture should be solely for practical purpose whilst others would argue aesthetics are more impor-
tant. These days it’s very focused around sustainability and being eco friendly but how is architecture sustainable when it uses
so much energy and resources in the process of materials and construction? Is it personal or should it be from and for the com-
munity? Or is it just the response to it that matters? And what is an architect? Is he a scientist, mathematician, designer or an
artist? Or maybe it’s a bit of each?

I have no real first-hand experience of involvement in an architecture practice or building anything professionally, apart from
a week of work experience with an architecture technician company, so feel at this moment in my life the field of actual prac-
ticing architects is still a world away from me. So do I even have the knowledge to engage with the questions I have asked my-
self in the first paragraph? In reality probably not, but I can still write about my somewhat naive ideas and responses architec-
ture creates in me.
 Since I studied Art and Design Diploma in college I have always said archi-
tecture should be ‘sculpture with a purpose’. I have since learnt this is sur-
prisingly similar to a quote from renowned Romanian sculpture Constantin
Brancusi who says “Architecture is inhabited sculpture”. However, since
moving on and broadening my own experience in the field, via university
and just life itself, I feel I need to change my view slightly.
Not every abstracted form makes a good base for a design and the ideas a
lot of modern architects seem to churn out proves this. For me the right
balance between function and aesthetics is crucial. This method should
then in turn generate its own precise sculptural form without becoming
over the top or fancy for no real reason.
For example, Antoni Gaudi (1852-1926) who combined art nouveau into
his modernist style created buildings with decoration and colour oozing out
of every corner. In many ways I enjoy the natural forms and impressive
building techniques he created and in particular his use of natural light in
the interior of spaces. Buildings like his Casa Batllo make use of an inner
courtyard that lets light into the inner rooms at the very heart of the build-
ing. This is similar to John Soane, the English architect who often uses this
technique and on my recent study trip to India found this form to be the
general building style for all domestic buildings as it provides light whilst
giving shade at the same time.
And yet I find Gaudi’s designs a little too over done. Often the colours and
details are more than a little sickly and brash. Gaudi’s Sagrada Familia, by
far his most prestigious project, shows off his over the top love of decora-
tion in a building. Undeniably this building is a masterpiece yet it is so com-
plex it’s almost impossible to take it in and understand. To date the building
is still being constructed and the fact the project took 43 years of his life
and still outlived him proves to me the sheer amount of this form of detail-
ing is too much. If he had simplified his ornate sculptural elements and
bright colours I think Gaudi would be one of the greatest architects.
Decoration on the Sagrada Familia
 In some ways his style is similar to that of Frank Gehry (1929- ) - at least in the way he tries to keep natural forms as the sub-
stance for his buildings - and perhaps Gehry took Gaudi’s work as inspiration for his own as he bought it into a more sophisti-
cated age of glass and steel. Thankfully Gehry lost the fancy details but instead of this he pushed the shapes of his buildings
even more to the extreme. I feel sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn’t.

Hotel Marque de Riscal. Rasin building.

A Gehry building that didn’t work so well, for me.. ..And one that I quite like.

But whilst I admire this sort of architecture I don’t feel it’s what I want to be doing with my future. I want my designs to be im-
pressive without having to stand out in such an obvious and iconic way. I want the users of my buildings to feel from their ex-
perience of the space and the smaller details that they have been in a well thought out and carefully planned building that suits
their purpose. This experience of being cared for by the architecture is what I would like to try and construct through my work.
 From first hand experiences I feel this is more in the style of
Herzog and De Meuron. This company spend extensive time re-
searching and experimenting on a wide range of aspects and
elements that would come into play when the building is fin-
ished. I think this level of care is essential to make good archi-
tecture that will both fulfil its needs and still look aesthetically
pleasing. Although sometimes their buildings do take on a more
spectacular effect this is generally done in a way that combines
the needed structure with an interesting technique of accom-
plishing it. This means they’re not being fancy for the sake of it
but out of necessity.
For instance the National stadium, colloquially known as the
Birds Nest stadium, in Beijing is a very prominent building. It’s
given its name from its nest like outer shell which is a very con-
temporary design. It has an unusual structure derived from at-
tempting to hide the steel supports for the retractable roof, re-
quired in the bidding process. Herzog and de Meuron developed
the seemingly random additional steel to blend the supports
into the rest of the stadium and despite its unorthodox appear-
ance each half of the stadium is nearly identical. This shows
how although iconic in design this impressive building was de-
signed with function in mind. And it’s this combination of func-
tion with aesthetics that I admire.

Steel shell over the Birds nest Olympic stadium

 Another architect who claims to use this philosophy is David Chipperfield. This extract is taken from his website; ‘The practice
is driven by a consistent philosophical approach, not a predetermined house style. As a result it aims to create specifically de-
tailed buildings that are intimately connected to context and function’.
Although this sounds exactly how I feel architecture should be I’m not so sure all his designs fulfil this statement. For instance,
projects like his proposition America's Cup Building in Valencia, Spain and his Am Kupfergraben, Berlin do the opposite in my
opinion. I don’t think they are horrible buildings but they become obvious landmarks for their iconic design. This is unlike his
Neues Museum (which put him as a contender for the Stirling prize award) or even his Folkwang Museum, also in Germany.
Whilst being impressive buildings they have something special about their designs in the subtlety and precision that gives a
sense of an incredible iconic building without becoming so contemporary in appearance.
In the Neues Museum project he worked in modern ideas and methods whilst still incorporating its history and atmosphere of
the past to blend the old and new together. I really like this design and the way he has pulled all these different elements to-
gether.

Interior of the Neues museum, showing the relationship between new and old.
 Another key aspect in the way I would like to design is about being environmentally friendly and saving as much resources as
manageable. This is a big aspect in today’s society as we strive to save what’s left of our dwindling resources. A way around this
is to design with fully sustainable appliances such as solar panels, grass roofs, solar thermal collectors, etc. This provides energy
gained from a resource that won’t run out. Many experiments have been done with these methods to find the perfect useable
construction with as little CO2 emissions lost as possible using renewable resources through solar or wind energy. These include
buildings like the London Ark, the BedZED housing scheme and the Green Lighthouse as well as many, many more.
A different way to looking at this would be to carefully plan the construction before building so you can limit waste, expense
and time. Materials should be chosen carefully and research done as to what is most eco friendly.
Jonathan Essex, lecturer on Managing Waste Resources, put another slant on being truly sustainable when he said “If we were
to be truly sustainable we wouldn’t build at all”. This is surprisingly true, as whatever we make will use up some resource and
cause harmful emissions. I feel my goal as an architect is to design and construct in a way that will cause as little damage as
possible. Even if not fully environmentally friendly it is still being environmentally aware, which at this time is possibly the big-
gest step towards this that we can take.

I was born in South London and lived there for the first 8 years of my life before moving to the coastal town of Torquay in
Devon. The way of life is incredibly different and during my time in Devon I have always wanted to come back London to live.
When I had the chance to return in order to study, I took it straight away. I think there is no better city to study Architecture in
than London as it has such a great variety of styles and histories through all the ages. What I like most about the buildings here
is the amazing mix between old and new; where beautiful Corinthian columns and huge stone facades rub shoulders with pol-
ished glass and steel towers. I particularly love areas such as Finsbury and the London Bridge area where this juxtaposition is
very common in the most majestic looking buildings built throughout the centuries.
 I remember living in London when the Canary Wharf tower was finished and my
dad took me and my brothers to go and see it. We travelled by DLR, very excit-
ing, and then spent the afternoon in the Docklands and Canary Wharf marvel-
ling at the ingenuity and design of the building. That day has stuck in my mind as
an experience of what I imagined the future of London would look like over the
next few years as big building tycoons took over areas and developed them.
Thankfully it hasn’t turned out quite like that.

Canary Wharf

Another building in London that had a big impact on my life was the 30 St Mary Axe, otherwise
known as the Gherkin, by Norman Fosters and Partners. It was finished in 2004 whilst I was liv-
ing in Devon but on trips back I would love to go and visit this unusually shaped building and
try and remember how the area was before. This building had a big impact on architecture
around the world as its contemporary shape formed a cleverly designed space for offices. This
building function was needed in many countries and I’m sure it inspired many of the designs
that have sprung up in Dubai over the last few years. I particularly liked this design as each
floor rotates 5 degrees from the one below creating spiralling light wells and ‘sky gardens’
within a very dense urban area. Having a building like this appear in the heart of London
heightened my love of the city and made me miss it all the more.

30 St Mary Axe
 Another building I always seemed to end up visiting when I returned to London on my travels was the Tate Modern. Formerly
the Bankside Power Station (built by Giles Gilbert Scott 1880-1960), the building was transformed into the large contemporary
and modern art gallery of the Tate Modern by Herzog and De Meuron in May 2000. Since its opening it has become phenome-
nally popular and although a titanic building it still gets greatly overcrowded with floods of visitors every day; 25 million people
have visited the Tate Modern in just its 10 years of existence. This led to the demand of a new gallery space where more exhibi-
tions and viewing areas could be situated and so ideas of ‘Transforming the Tate’ came to fruition.
Herzog and De Meuron eagerly took up the challenge of designing an adjacent gallery space, now known as the Tate Modern
2, as they beat off other competitors for the project in a shortlist in 2005. Requirements for the building were primarily to pro-
vide the much needed space but also, and very importantly, to connect with the existing building in a way that would celebrate
its design whilst being unique in some way. Having the Tate 2 at the opposite side to the main entrance would also engage with
public from another side and move away from its direct correlation with the River Thames. A number of issues were encoun-
tered along the process of the planning application and many people are still wary about its design and the effect it will have. I
hope to look into these issues in the next part of this writing.

The existing Tate Modern building

 Tate Modern was designed for 1.8 million visitors but in its opening year it got a massive 5 million. It has now settled down to
a steady 4 million a year but there is serious overcrowding in many parts of the building, particularly at weekends. There is also
a need for more space to show Tate's collection which would enable works to be brought out of storage and shown on a more
permanent basis. More exhibitions could be displayed in their ever growing range of art from around the world and more var-
ied spaces for large-scale works and installations are required. Another need is a development of wider ranges of education fa-
cilities where families, young people, schools and the local community have time and space to explore the museum. The new
design hopes to incorporate all these requirements into its design whilst also improving areas in the existing building. It will
give 60% more space (23,400m2) to the gallery as well as more cafes, shops and educational facilities. If all goes to plan the
build hopes to be finished in 2012.
Unknown too many there is a large energy sub-station run by EDF energy in The Switch House building (as shown in the image
below). This provides the energy to a large part of the city and South London. EDF need to modernise the station's equipment
giving an opportunity to move the plant into a smaller area of the building and thus freeing up space for Tate Modern to ex-
pand to the south. A new building can therefore be developed which would adjoin the existing building on the footprint of the
power station's former oil tanks.

Existing Energy Sub-Station in the Switch House The proposed Tate Modern 2 expansion
 Landscape Master Plan of the Tate Modern site, as prepared by the Herzog and De Meuron led design team.

This master plan of the buildings and local area was created to establish the full potential of the site to contribute to cultural
development, the community and public spaces on Bankside. The master plan covers the whole site and proposes a series of
new public spaces and routes on all sides of the former power station, within which two new buildings will be set.
 The first building (Tate 2), will be located on the site of the disused underground oil tanks and is for Tate's expanded galleries.
The potential for a second new building is identified in front of the east end of the Switch House. This would permit another
cultural organisation to move to Bankside.
A further planning application would have to be made for this in the future. The master plan comprises these key elements:

 A new 23,400m2 building for Tate Modern.

 Potential for a further 7,000m2 of space for another cultural organisation, to complement Tate Modern and to
strengthen the Cultural Quarter. There would be a planning application at a later date for this building.

 New pedestrian routes - in this part of Bankside pedestrian routes are limited and not well defined. The new develop-
ment will create a new north-south route or 'street' through the building, linking the City to Elephant and Castle. This
would be open for at least 12 hours a day.

 Improved public spaces - a series of high quality new public spaces would be created all around Tate Modern to increase
the opportunities for visitors to sit and relax, meet with friends and enjoy the Bankside environment.
 Overall plan showing the setting for a ‘Bankside Urban Park’

A new landscape strategy called the Bankside Urban Park is also being developed to unify and integrate the new public realm
surrounding Tate Modern and distinguish the different types of spaces and their functions. For this over 1350 new trees will be
planted and new seating provided.
So in theory the new development of Tate Modern will be much more than just a building; it will become a dynamic part of
London with a creative campus stretching to the South. This would transform the area in incredible ways.
 The design for the Tate Modern 2 underwent many changes throughout this process and originally was to be largely made
from glass on many of its exterior facades. However, this was changed, probably because of the larger development it now had
to sit in of the Urban Park. Its interior would be made up of series of ‘boxes’ that would rest on top of each other at uneven in-
tervals. This would create a stack like appearance and if made from glass would create a series of different heights from which
to view out and into the building and surrounding area.

Initial concept drawings showing the box like structure as it would sit on site.
This is a few extracts from the Minutes of the Board of the Trustees of the Tate Galleries from a meeting early on in the design
process. I haven’t included all of it because I don’t think it’s all relevant but the important parts I have outlined in bold;

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TATE GALLERY HELD ON
WEDNESDAY 18 MAY 2005 AT 9.30 AM IN THE BOARD ROOM AT TATE BRITAIN
Staff present:
Sir Nicholas Serota (Director)
Alex Beard (Deputy Director)
Jan Debbaut (Director, Tate Collection)
Dr Stephen Deuchar (Director, Tate Britain)
Richard Fairbrother (observer)
Will Gompertz (Director, Communications)
Anna Jobson (minutes) (Head of Policy and Planning and Secretary to the
Boardof Trustees
Andrea Nixon
Vicente Todoli
Sian Williams
1 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies were received from Jennifer Latto, Julian Opie and John Studzinski.
2 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TATE GALLERY HELD ON
WEDNESDAY 16 MARCH 2005
The minutes were approved as a true record and signed by Paul Myners.
3 CONFLICT OF INTEREST DECLARATIONS
There were no declarations.
4 MATTERS ARISING
There were none.

6 MAIN BUSINESS ITEM

6.1 Completing Tate Modern Operational and Architectural principles
6.1.1 Planning Application Budget
Following discussion at the March meeting and subsequent discussion at the recent meeting of the
Finance and Operations Committee, it had become apparent that further expenditure would be required in order to submit a planning applica-
tion for this project. This had arisen in consequence of the need to submit a detailed as opposed to outline planning application.
 The new budget was approved and Trustees further noted that additional funds might be incurred in defending the submission.
6.1.2 Operational and Architectural principles
By way of introduction, Trustees noted that work had been progressing on three fronts:
an internal working group had been formed to develop the case for the project, a set of principles regarding the operation a Completed Tate
Modern and an outline client brief to inform design development; this had been supported by a small number of external advisors. The group
had established a number of key principles, the most important of which were that the new project should form one integrated whole with the
existing Tate Modern, and that it should be viewed as an opportunity to establish a greater sense of adjacency and integration of displays, learn-
ing, social facilities and offices;
the architectural team had meanwhile been developing a set of architectural principles within which to progress the design;
external consultation had been ongoing with the key statutory authorities and advisory bodies.
The principal challenge now was to conclude the design process so that wider consultation could take place over the summer. There was one
major issue for resolution, which was the delivery of a scheme that gave Tate the space it needed within a budget that it deemed affordable.
Leonie Oliva from Drivers Jonas and Harry Gugger and Michael Casey from Herzog & de Meuron were introduced to members of the Board; they
made a presentation on the context to the planning submission and on progress on the design.
Leonie Oliva reminded Trustees of the key contextual issues surrounding the development. These were the removal of EDFE from the main part
of the switch house and surrounding landowner activity. She reported that a set of master planning principles had emerged from this situation –
and from the policy context of the London Borough of Southwark’s Unitary Development Plan for the area – which had provided an initial brief
for architects Herzog & de Meuron when they were appointed earlier in the year.
Harry Gugger took Trustees through the architectural principles that had emerged during the design process and brought them up to date with
the design itself.
Howard Davies and Jon Snow joined the meeting.
Trustees warmly welcomed progress on the design, noting that the internal disposition of facilities were likely to change considerably before
the scheme was finalised. It was agreed that Anna Jobson would send a note to Trustees on the forward design programme indicating when and
how their further comments would be solicited.
7 REPORT FROM THE COLLECTION COMMITTEE
It was noted that the first meeting of the Collection Committee had taken place the previous month and the new format of reporting from the Collection Committee was ap-
proved.
7.1 Annual Financial Statement
The contents of the statement were noted.
7.2/3 Acquisitions for Decision/Noting
The recommendations of the Collection Committee were noted and the relevant acquisitions approved.
9 FOR DISCUSSION
9.1 Tate Modern Displays Sponsorship
A note had been put to Trustees for comment on a proposed sponsorship of the Tate Modern Displays. The proposal reflected the culmination of some nine
months of negotiation, the context to which was Tate’s long-held ambition to develop a small number of major sponsorship partners with whom the museum
could work on a large scale and on a long-term basis both as a means of developing new ambitions and of achieving security for financial planning.
A number of comments were made by Trustees on the proposal and it was agreed that conversations should continue, taking these into account.
9.2 Tate Enterprises Ltd Board Membership and Operation
A note had been put to Trustees in advance of the Tate Enterprises Board meeting on 28 June 2005 proposing a number of changes to the membership and operation of the Tate
Enterprises Ltd Board.
The proposed changes were approved by Trustees and it was agreed that suggestions of potential candidates should be forwarded to Alex Beard. A further report would be made
to Trustees following the discussion at the Tate Enterprises Board meeting on 28 June.
10/11 GALLERY REPORTS AND OTHER MINUTES
The contents of the Reporting Pack were noted. There was one major issue which had arisen at the meeting of the Tate St Ives Advisory Council the previous week. It had be-
come clear that Tate would only be able to go ahead with Tate St Ives phase 2 on the scale envisaged in the event of sufficient public sector funding being made available. This
was an issue being pursued by the Tate team, with Cornwall County Council.
Trustees were urged to visit Summer of Love: Art of the Psychedelic Era if the opportunity arose that summer. The exhibition opened in Tate Liverpool on 27 May and would run
until 25 September.
Trustees congratulated Stephen Deuchar and Tate Britain on the success of Turner Whistler Monet, which had closed the previous week having achieved 383,000 visitors against
a target of 200,000.
Overall visitor numbers to Tate Britain for the year 2004/5 had exceeded 1.3 million.

So to summarise, this basically says due to planning application rules the application would have to be more thoroughly re-
drawn instead of just the basic outline. Already costs would most probably also increase due to trying to fit the design into the
overall scheme of the area as well as internal facilities being changed around. Tate is also trying to find more major sponsor-
ships so as to fund the project and its financial planning.
 These plan drawings are more finalised versions of what the building will look like and interior inhabitation is clearly de-
scribed. They show each of the 11 floor heights.

LEVEL 1 Ticketing, orientation and the cloakroom are located here. There will be two performance spaces of different sizes, one of
which can double up as a foyer. The art space has been created out of the foundations of the existing switch house.

LEVEL 2 There will be a meeting room, and a new art space for themed shows from the Tate collection .
LEVEL 3 A temporary exhibition space will accommodate large exhibitions or can be subdivided to take smaller ones. There is also an
adjacent shop, staff offices and a staff meeting place.

LEVEL 4 Will accommodate four new galleries for the Tate collection. Flexible floor heights will adapt to suit works of differing scales.
The areas between the boxes will be used to show contextual work and interpretative material. There are also offices and a terrace
overlooking the Turbine Hall.
LEVEL 5 A bridge connects the original and new buildings. Tate Exchange and Young Tate will be based here and there will be studio
spaces to display work originating from the various community programmes. These galleries can also be used to try out new ways of
curating exhibitions.

LEVEL 6 Tower Gallery will be used for cutting edge contemporary art, with a particular focus on innovation.
 LEVEL 7 Tate Lab is a new kind of resource centre for the exploration of contemporary visual culture. There will be a viewing zone to
provide access to the Tate collection of video art, performances and sound archive and an opportunity to meet staff and undertake a
range of activities from filming to web-casting. There will be incubation spaces to nurture artists and organisations, sharing knowledge
and ideas.

LEVEL 8 Tate Forum will provide the core of a new and ambitious adult learning programme. It also provides a flexible space with a Bar
to accommodate a range of different gatherings.
LEVEL 9 A new Members Room will be provided for Tate Members, to support the growing membership. The kitchen supports the res-
taurant on Level 10.

LEVEL 10 Tate Restaurant will have wonderful views across London.

 LEVEL 11 A public terrace at the top of the building the will be a magnet for visitors and a must-see destination for tourists.

North-south section through the building showing the new development on the left, the existing in the middle and the Tate chimney on
the right.
 With these plans and sections Herzog and De Meuron were able to send in the following planning application which I have
taken from the Southwark planning permission website. The application was successful;

Location: TATE MODERN BANKSIDE, SUMNER STREET, LONDON, SE1 9TG

Proposal: Erection of a 12-level (76.33 Above Ordinance Datum Level) 24385m² (gross external area) extension to Tate Modern to comprise Class
D1 (Non-residential Institution) use including display and exhibition spaces, performance spaces, education and learning facilities, together with an-
cillary offices, catering, retail and other facilities, landscaping, external lighting, servicing, vehicle and cycle parking and associated works including
works to the public highway and necessary demolition of outbuildings, annexes and structures.

Application type: Full Planning Permission

Status: Decided

Case officer: Adrian Dennis

Case officer contact details: 020 7525 5445 planning.applications@southwark.gov.uk

Statutory class: Other large scale developments

Applicant: The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery

Agent: Drivers Jonas, 85 King William Street, London, EC4N 7BL

Ward: Cathedrals

Community council: Borough and Bankside

Conservation area: Not in a conservation area

Listed building: Not a listed building

Easting/Northing: 531999/180455

Date received: 02/10/2006

Statutory start date: 03/10/2006

Statutory expiry date:23/01/2007

Consultation period starts: 03/10/2006

Consultation period ends: 11/11/2006

Press notice date: 19/10/2006

Site notice date: 17/10/2006

Environmental impact assessment status: Sch. 2-Required by Council

Neighbours and statutory consultations The consultation period for this application is not open. Please contact the case officer directly if you
have any questions.

Committee meeting date: 27/03/2007

Final decision level: Planning Committee

Decision made: 27/03/2007

Decision: Granted with Legal Agreement

Decision issued: 23/12/2008

Planning agreement: Obligation by legal agreement

Conditions or reasons: View conditions or reasons

Informative notes: There are no informative notes

Appeal received: This case has no appeals against it

 I have also included part of the Planning Report which would have been written following the
successful planning application. I left out most of it or shrank the font size as it becomes rather
repetitive in parts and I’m sure you would not be reading through this information anyway. It
covers all areas of the process regards all issues that may occur and again states the application
was successful. Interestingly as it will be a large iconic building in the heart of London, parts of
the report go into in-depth detail about how the architects can use their skill to create an artis-
tic building should they require as long as it’s to the highest standards and all support should be
given to them as necessary.
planning report PDU/1464/02
1 May 2007

Tate Modern extension, Bankside

In the London Borough of Southwark
Planning application no. 06-AP-1913
Strategic planning application stage II referral
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999; Town &
Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000
The proposal
Demolition of the western part of the section of the former Bankside power station that is
currently in use by EDF Energy, and construction of an extension of the Tate Modern with a
24,385 sq.m. gross external area building with a maximum height of 71 metres.
The applicant
The applicant is The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, and the architect is Herzog & De
Meuron.
Strategic issues
The applicant has responded positively to all issues raised at consultation stage, including energy, visual appearance, transport, accessibility, waste and water strategy. A
number of planning conditions and Section 106 obligations are attached to the application to ensure that the development, at detailed stage, will comply with strategic
planning policy. The exact type of textured glass has not yet been chosen but the Section 106 agreement contains specific facade design criteria, specifying the character
of the glass and the visual appearance.
Recommendation
That Southwark Council be advised that the Executive Director of Policy & Partnerships is content for it to determine the case itself, subject to any action that the Secre-
tary of State may take, and does not therefore wish to direct refusal.
Context
1 On 19 October 2006 Southwark Council consulted the Mayor of London on an application
for planning permission for the above uses at the above site. This was referred to the Mayor under
Category1B-1.b of the Schedule of the Order 2000: “Development (…) in Central London (other
than the City of London) and with a total floorspace of more than 20,000 sq.m.” and Category 1C-
1.c: “Development (of a) building (that is) more than 30 metres high and outside the City of
London”.
S:/Planning D ecisions/C as es/1464WS18 Stag e II report pag e 2

2 On 1 February 2007 the Director of Policy & Partnerships, acting under delegated
authority, considered planning report PDU/1464/01, and subsequently advised Southwark Council
that the proposal was acceptable in principle with regard to strategic planning policy in that an
extension to the Tate Modern will form an important contribution to London’s role as a World City.
The extension would provide an important increase in gallery floorspace and would enable the Tate
to provide a more diverse cultural offer. The absence of a clear choice of materials, however, was
noted and concerns were raised that the design may not be inline with policies 4B.1 and 4B.9 of
the London Plan.

APPENDIX 1 – STAGE I REPORT

S:/Planning decisions/Cases/1464WS07 Stage I report page 7

planning report PDU/1464/01

1 February 2007
Tate Modern extension, Bankside
In the London Borough of Southwark
Planning application no. 06-AP-1913
Strategic planning application stage 1 referral
Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended); Greater London Authority Act 1999; Town &
Country Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000
The proposal
Demolition of the western part of the section of the former Bankside powerstation that is
currently in use by EDF Energy, and construction of an extension of the Tate Modern with a
24,385 sq.m. gross external area building with a maximum height of 71 metres.
The applicant
The applicant is the Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery, and the architect is Herzog & De
Meuron.
Strategic issues
As the most visited modern art gallery in the world, the Tate Modern is clearly crucial to the
success for London as a World City. The extension would provide an important increase in
floorspace and would enable the Tate Modern to provide a more diverse cultural offer. The
principle of the extension, the amount of floorspace and the mix of uses are therefore supported
by London Plan policies. It is a prestigious project and the design should therefore be exemplary
in terms of design quality, sustainable development and accessibility and more information is
needed to demonstrate this ambition.
Recommendation
That Southwark Council be advised that the proposal is supported, subject to the demonstration
of the quality of the sustainability, inclusive design and the issues outlined in this report.
Context
1 On 19 October 2006 Southwark Council consulted the Mayor of London on a proposal to
develop the above site for the above uses. Under the provisions of the Town & Country
Planning (Mayor of London) Order 2000 the Mayor has the same opportunity as other statutory
consultees to comment on the proposal. The Mayor has delegated his powers in respect of this
application to the Director of Policy and Partnerships of the Greater London Authority under
Section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. This report sets out information for the
Director’s use in deciding what comments to make.
S:/Planning decisions/Cases/1464WS07 Stage I report page 19
Appendix 1 - Sustainable design for the Tate Modern extension
Baseline carbon dioxide emissions
The baseline has been based on historical benchmarks and it is not therefore clear how this
relates to 2006 Building Regulations. The building needs to be modelled using Building
Regulation compliant software such as SBEM and a revised baseline produced based on the
target emission rate derived from such an analysis.
Energy efficient design
A range of measures is proposed in order to produce an energy efficient design e.g. a high
performance facade, displacement ventilation and a lighting control system. The report states
that the thermal performance of the building envelope will be 28% better than that of a façade
meeting the requirements of building regulations 2002. Modelling demonstrating how demand
reduction measures will enable Building Regulation 2006 to be exceeded needs to be provided.
Heating and Cooling (including CHP/Trigeneration)
The use of waste heat (due to distribution losses) from the local electricity substation for space
heating is innovative and to welcomed, together with the proposal to supply heat to the existing
Tate Modern building. Further information, such as supply and demand profiles, is required in
order to demonstrate that there will be sufficient waste heat available to supply the various
loads.
Although the intention is to minimise cooling loads, there will still be a cooling requirement. The
possibility of using further heat from the substation to provide cooling, via absorption chillers, is
highlighted as providing the possibility for further carbon reductions. Insufficient information is
provided on the possibilities for absorption chilling using waste heat e.g. if the temperature of
the waste heat available is too low to produce domestic hot water, how will it be high enough to
effectively drive an absorption chiller?
The potential availability of local waste heat from the substation may, in this case, ultimately
limit the possibilities for CHP/CCHP. The feasibility of CHP/tri-generation, however, has not
been adequately investigated – the low demand for domestic hot water and prior selection of
other technologies are used to dismiss its applicability without due consideration. The
requirement for cooling, together with the need to maintain internal temperature conditions
even during non-occupied times, means the feasibility of tri-generation should be properly
investigated (even if it remains as a backup option to using the substation waste heat).
Renewable energy
The energy statement asserts that a 350kW biomass boiler will provide heat for domestic hot
water and preheat water for use in steam humidifiers, thereby providing a 10% renewables
concentration. The small renewable contribution from supplying the domestic hot water load,
together with provision of water preheating for the small humidification load, leave open the
possibility that the biomass boiler will be used to provide part of the space heating. The
applicant needs to confirm that the biomass boiler will not be used to displace waste heat
available from the substation as a way of artificially increasing the renewables contribution (this
would be a waste of natural resources).
There is technical potential for photovoltaics but its use has been dismissed on what appear to
be solely cost grounds. The potential for photovoltaics, both roof mounted and as a part of the
facade, should be reconsidered as a way on increasing the contribution from renewables towards
the targets in the draft alterations to the London Plan.

This report also goes into great detail regards environmental factors and issues. This is espe-
cially key as not only will the building be looked at as an example of great architecture and
therefore needed to be at the peak of all environmental aspects but also as it will be working
within the Bankside Urban Park scheme. This means it needs to set a very high standard in
terms of efficiency and being eco friendly.
However, as advanced into the project and even with the required planning permission the architects and Tate decided to
change the design at this stage and revise the given brief. The facade design was altered so as to reflect the old Bankside Power
Stations original material and structure. Internal layout was therefore again slightly altered and window positioning was re-
planned. This covered up the ‘box’ effect that was so prominent before.

These photos show a model representation of how the brick work would be deisgned so as to connect with the existing
building in a similar course layout. It slightly changes as it pogresses further into the new building to become more
contemporary. Having such a carefully planned pattern like this means each level of brick would need to be individually
thought out in its design.
 This photo shows a 1:1 test panel for the brick layout on the facade of the new building. It’s a clever way to create the con-
nection from the existing to the new using a material that is often just treated as a simple cladding.
The lighting also becomes a major factor in this new design as during the day the light is let in through the various sized
openings in the brick work and during the night the light is let out. This would create a unique effect as the light shines
through and lights up the night sky over the area.
 I found the covering letter for the new planning application, submitted in 2009, (see below) about its altered design but unfor-
tunately could not locate the new application itself;
I think there are several important things to note about this
letter, namely how much hassle would have been created by
altering the design at this stage. Letters, assessments, applica-
tions and approval letters would have had to be sent and
sorted through from various parties such as transport, energy,
sustainability, environmental management and waste strategy
teams.
 Most aspects to the original proposition were kept the same so many issues were not a problem as they would have already
got the permission from the previous application. In fact the only adjustmen

 Approximately 6m height reduction in the Tate 2

 Stepping in the west of the facade
 Marginal shift in the structural mass
 Innovative use of brick in the facade
 Incorporation of Hopton Street land within the western landscaping

This wasn’t really a huge change to the buildings original proposition but important none the less and so the application was
re-submitted.
It also says a full hard copy of the application would be available to the public in the Information room on Level 1 of the Tate
Modern but when I tried to obtain this I was told it had been taken away as it was no longer suitable for public viewing. When I
asked why I got the strange mumbled answer of “the master plan had to be altered to take in more of the surroundings, mak-
ing it too big to display”. I don’t see why this would affect it and surely a written document would still be available? However,
the display that was available for viewing was very informative with videos, drawings and models to give an engaging docu-
mentation on the project.
I also found the assessment done by URS, an environmental assessment company, which looks into many of the environmental
aspects that needed to be covered in the application;

Client:
The Board of Trustees of the Tate Gallery
Site:
London Borough of Southwark, London, UK.
Date:
April 2008 – January 2009
Status:
Planning Permission Granted March 2009
URS Services:
Environmental Impact Assessment
Environmental consultancy advice in support of the planning application
Sustainability Statement
Flood Risk Assessment
Ecological Appraisal and BREEAM Report
Wind assessment
Traffic assessment report
Air quality and noise assessments
Culture and social economics assessment

Project Description
URS undertook an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) for the expansion of the Tate Modern Art Gallery (known as Tate Modern 2). Designed
by leading Swiss architects Herzog and de Meuron, Tate Modern 2 includes a new 11-storey building providing some 24,000m of floor space, along
with a new public realm and landscaped garden. Tate Modern 2 is an iconic landmark building that will help maintain London as the leading cultural
and creative capital in Europe. The expansion is set to finish in 2012.
Scope of Works
URS undertook the EIA, including the following technical studies: ecology, air quality, sustainability statement, flood risk assessment, culture and
social-economics and traffic and transportation. An application for a previous design, for which URS also undertook the EIA, was submitted in Sep-
tember 2006 and a unanimous decision by the London Borough of Southwark Planning Committee on 27th March 2007 gave the go-ahead for the
major transformation of the Tate Modern. A revised brief led to the architects revising the building design during 2008 in consultation with the
Trustees of the Tate Gallery. The new Planning Application was submitted in January 2009. The development will be one of the most exciting new
cultural buildings in Europe in this decade.
The Gallery is located on the south bank of the River Thames, opposite St. Paul’s Cathedral and near the Globe Theatre. Due to its strategic location,
a Townscape and Visual Impact Assessment was undertaken to support the planning application.
Added Value
Due to the sensitive and high profile nature of this project, URS supported the planning team through consultation with a number of key statutory
and non-statutory consultees. We also provided environmental and sustainability advice throughout the planning process.
The development provides a carefully designed mix of public amenity areas and world-class gallery space, while minimising energy consumption
through the design of the building envelope and the ventilation strategy. The recovery of waste heat from the EDF Energy substation is a ground-
breaking solution to energy requirements. The total carbon saving is 44% and the total energy saving is 54% over the baseline scheme.

It seems that the new build will be incredibly eco friendly for today’s standards with great care being taken to ensure a highly
sustainable and environmentally sound construction. The last line of the assessment is worth taking note of ‘The recovery of
waste heat from the EDF Energy substation is a groundbreaking solution to energy requirements. The total carbon saving is 44%
and the total energy saving is 54% over the baseline scheme’. This really is a good achievement.
 Models on display at the Tate Modern, showing how the new building will sit with the existing one.

A larger scale model, showing the new design in more detail and how the floor levels will be incorporated into the existing building. It also shows the brick
pattern in detail on every course.

Conceptual drawings of the proposed building on site.

 But as thoroughly designed and planned with every possible account taken into consideration, as Herzog and De Meuron al-
ways do, there will always be a difference of opinion on how it should look. Many people are against this design and I collected
the following quotes from the architecture website of Dezeen’s blog post about the proposal.

“I`ve studied H&M works and went from being fascinated of their clean yet incredibly sofisticated work to a state of amaze-
ment (not in a positive way) caused by this ground breaking (this project literally breakes every composition principle and spits
on sensitivity)... thing. it looks as if the city of Tokio vomit in London!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

“it seems totally hypocritical that this 'radical' building gets planning permission while plans for - in my opinion much nicer - de-
velopments nearby (like the proposed Beetham tower) get into so much trouble.

I have no doubt though that tourists will flock to it, which i suppose is the point.”

“Personally, I am really upset with the architects' decision to provide what they think is current and desirable architecture,
rather than staying consistent with their core design values. This firm has always been known for clean lines and innovative ma-
terials... and I'm not seeing any of that here. I know that we all want to remain current and relevant, but I don't think this
means that we should leave all the lessons of the past behind us. I just don't understand why H&deM are forgetting all of the
clarity of their past work in favor of an attempt at something popular. I feel like they are trying to be something they just
aren't, and its evident in this disastrous project. All I can ask is why?”

These posts make it clear many people are against the new project design and they have well reasoned arguments. It does
seem like Herzog and De Meuron have moved away from some of their core values but then in every project they have had,
new devices and methods are bought in as technological advances are made. I don’t think it’s a new thing that they are moving
forward in their design work.
 I think the design they are proposing is innovative and the use of brick work is quite remarkable and unlike any already in exis-
tence that I have seen. It will be a great landmark for both Londoners and tourists, especially with the viewing balcony situated
on the top. Any contemporary design is going to bring an extent of controversy but as a modern art gallery perhaps this was
the plan anyway. As Herzog and De Meuron always do, great extents of research and study would have been taken to find the
best possible scheme in which to fulfil the brief. Of course it’s not the only scheme that could have sufficed but it does achieve
all targets set in an interesting way.
I really like the idea of having the building become part of a bigger scheme which works towards creating a ‘green’ urban park.
The way it will break new records of being eco friendly is remarkable and the fact it is a building for education and works so
well with the community cannot be a bad thing. Architecturally it is modern and uses new techniques and a contemporary de-
sign yet still relates to its existing surroundings and uses the common material of brick to integrate itself with the existing struc-
ture.
The only problem I have with it is how it will fit into its context as such a stand out building. Usually I don’t like this kind of
thing where the building is iconic for the sake of it but with the second proposal I think the design largely moved away from
this and fits in much better. However, the buildings around it are also
currently being built and I think this will greatly affect its finished ap-
pearance. On a recent visit to the Tate I noted that they were con-
structing large apartment blocks right next door. If this is part of the
Urban Park then I’m not so sure the desired effect will be achieved as
the buildings were large and glassy and looked just like the standard
modern block that has sprung up in recent years.
I think it will also somewhat conceal the Tate 2 as they are so close
and of a similar size. The contrasting building styles may work against
each other as well. But adversely there may be a good side to them be-
ing there as the tower of Tate 2 was made to respond to the tower of
the original Giles Scott building, so in a similar way it could respond to
the apartment blocks. Their glass facades may also be able to reflect
the brickwork and lighting and add another dimension to its qualities.

The construction of the neighbouring apartment blocks

 All in all I am very excited about this new development and I am eagerly awaiting its construction. I think it will look even bet-
ter after a few years when the building takes on a slightly worn look which will work even better with the existing power sta-
tions older appearance. Construction on the foundations has been made but finance to complete the project is still missing. So
far just one third of funds have been obtained through major sponsors. This may also prove to be a problem especially in the
worlds – and particularly England’s - current situation of money problems.

Josh Ovenden

ID: 09016263

Bibliography

I gained information for this writing from a number of sources;

‘Architecture’ by Jonathan Glancey, 2006 published by Dorling Kindersley

‘The complete work of Antoni Gaudi’ by EN English, 2010 published by Dosde arte
‘Gaudi’ by Juan-Eduardo Cirlot, 2010 published by Triangle Postals
‘Model home 2020’, 2010 published by Velux

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beijing_National_Stadium
www.davidchipperfield.co.uk
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/transformingtm/newmuseum.shtm
http://www.dezeen.com/2007/04/01/tate-modern-2-by-herzog-de-meuron/
www.southwark.gov.uk

The John Soane Museum2

The Tate Modern’s exhibition on the Tate Modern
 Whilst I was writing this essay I remembered that at college (in 2008, I would have been 17) for one of my art projects I had
actually designed a Tate Modern extension in case they would have needed more space to display their exhibits. I wanted to
make it relate to my home county of Devon as well so it took on a more coastal form that I felt could respond to the Thames
River at the same time.

A model of my design. This side would be parallel to the Thames.

A model of my design. The bridge would connect the two buildings. An ideas page from my sketchbook.