Save this beautiful ruin
The two reactor buildings, as seen across Llyn Trawsfynydd
SOMETIME towards the end of 2010, huge lorries carrying sections of giant cranes will slowly snake their way through the Snowdonia landscape. Past forests of oak, birch and hazel and in the shadow of the Moelwyn Mountains, they will eventually reach a large man-made lake in Gwynedd.
There, the cranes will be assembled and wheeled towards two 55-metre-high concrete structures, poised to perform brutal surgery on their subject. Piece by piece they will tear off the square panels of this giant sculpture, before cutters and drills bear down, grinding the towers to half their height.
It will take eight years to finish but when completed one of the country’s most controversial yet beautiful buildings, designed by arguably Britain’s greatest post-war Modernist, will resemble little more than a stubby industrial shed.
An architectural gem of the 20th Century will be lost forever. This is the scandal of Trawsfynydd Magnox.
Trawsfynydd sits in the heart of Snowdonia National Park. It was one of the World’s first inland nuclear power stations to be built, operating for 23 years until it was decommissioned in 1991. Set against a lake and mountains, the juxtaposition between the natural landscape and this bold and uncompromising structure is striking. The building represents the high water mark of Britain’s white heat technological boom. Designed in the decade of Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace Programme, it is optimistic, triumphant, intimidating and utterly original. It is a monument to the pioneering men who split atoms for a new future.
What makes Trawsfynydd even more special is that was designed by Sir Basil Spence. Born in 1907, Spence took the principles of the Modernist movement – pioneered on the Continent by Le Corbusier – and gave them a unique British flavour.
An original Basil Spence sketch of Trawsfynydd © Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (Sir Basil Spence Archive) http://www.rcahms.gov.uk/
Known for his rigorous attention to detail, Spence designed the grand Sea and Ships Pavilion for the 1951 Festival of Britain. But his most celebrated building is Coventry Cathedral. Commissioned after winning an architectural competition to replace Coventry’s bombed Anglican Cathedral, Spence’s masterpiece was completed in 1962 and is today protected as a Grade I listed building.
Spence died in 1976 and only now is his contribution to British architecture being properly recognised. “Sir Basil Spence retains a place in history as one of 20th Century Britain’s most influential, yet overlooked architects,” remarked Mark Jones, director of the Victoria and Albert Museum, at a recent exhibition of his work.
Trawsfynydd should sit alongside Coventry Cathedral as one of Spence’s greatest works. The problem is that it is tainted by what is contained within. Not only is the site contaminated with radioactive material, but the very fact that it houses two worn out nuclear reactors contaminates the public’s attitude towards the structure, making it one of Wales’ most unloved buildings.
Whatever happens from here, two large buildings must remain on the site until at least 2098, the earliest point at which it will be safe to dismantle Trawsfynydd’s Magnox reactors. But the decision to reduce it in height is not on safety grounds but an apparent attempt to improve its appearance. The work is “designed to reduce significantly their visual impact on the National Park,” according to a spokesman for the Park planning authority.
But before the cranes arrive on site to start tearing at Spence’s design, we should take a final careful look at this building and ask ourselves whether in five, 10, 15, 20 years’ time we would regret this act of architectural vandalism, because a small opportunity exists to save it.
Trafwsfynydd, by John Davies
There are some clues to Trawsfynydd’s potential longevity. First, it is immensely photogenic: The 1995 picture by the renowned landscape photographer John Davies is one of the best examples, capturing the majesty of the building set against its landscape. Trawsfynydd even looks good in the colourful the stock shots supplied by the site manager, Magnox North.
People are beginning to appreciate Modernist architecture. Trellick Tower in west London, designed by the Hungarian Brutalist, Ernö Goldfinger, was once a dilapidated and crime-ridden housing estate. Today, it is a fashionable place to live and is a regular feature in design magazines and colour supplements.
The loss of Modernist icons is also becoming a cause for regret. In 2001 protestors staged nightly vigils at the Dunlop Semtex factory in Brynmawr in an attempt to save it from demolition. Despite being cited as one of the inspirations for the Sydney Opera House and praised by architectural greats including Frank Lloyd Wright, the protests failed to save it from the bulldozers.
Others agree that Trawsfynydd is worth preserving. One supporter is the 20th Century Society, which campaigns for the preservation of Britain’s modern architectural heritage.
“Trawsfynydd is a fabulously sculptural structure, designed by one of the 20th Century’s greatest architects,” says Jon Wright, an architectural expert for the society. “It was never going to be possible for something so enormous to blend into the fantastic natural landscape in which it sits. So the decision was made to construct something that aimed to be sublimely beautiful.”
As well being architecturally important, he says that Trawsfynydd is also historically significant. “In the same way that our understanding of the 19th Century would be incomplete if all the mills had been demolished, we will lose something if we completely destroy all the evidence of our nuclear history,” says Wright.
So how to save Trawsfynydd? The answer is relatively simple: get it listed, which would force a re-think of the decision to chop it in half.
Cadw is Wales’ historic buildings authority. It considers all proposals for listings from the public. You can make a proposal by email, phone or letter. The authority will consider buildings for listing that are of “exceptional historic or architectural value”.
So contact Cadw and make the case for this Welsh masterpiece of architectural and historical importance to be saved. There isn’t much time left.
When designing Trawsfynydd, Sir Basil knew that the building would have a limited life as a working power station. He therefore set himself a guiding question for the design: “Will it make a beautiful ruin?”
Unless we act now, we’ll never know the answer.
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flickr
Oh, I wish they will leave the building alone. I love it, such an unexpected sight in the natural landscape.
It has inspired my art work, and lifted my soul while driving past Trawsfynydd.
xs
This building is nothing more than a structural Tryweryn. Ask why the English government put it at Trawsfynydd? Sure the site was geologically appropriate but it was built here far from any English city and population as an “out of sight out of mind” act. It bought much needed work to the area as well, dozens of my family members work there. When the plant closed some branches of my family had no other option than to re-locate to Skegness and Dungeoness to get work. Now their children have lost their Welsh identity and don’t speak any Welsh despite the family coming from the very Welsh Meirionydd.
To me Trawsfynydd was that Uncle who drops by once in a few years with sweet presents but then jets off again letting you to fend to yourself. Not only that but the sweet presents he gave you turn out after a bit to be radioactive! You can’t play with the present anymore and you can’t throw it out with the trash either!
When I see this building I don’t see a building and its pomp post-war architect. I see the trodden people of Meirionydd and my lost members of family far away in Dungeoness.
And thats always the problem with Cadw. They preserve that past with no respect to the people of the present. I’m a Pastor and Cadw are a major problem to the Christian church in Wales today – they restrict us from renovating or selling off our Chapel and Churches to we can make more effective use of our resources for much needed mission. If they really think the buildings should be listed then they should buy them off us so we can move on.
So please remember, people are always more important than bricks and mortar…and reactors.
Lovely argument; wrong building. Mr Hirst is absolutely right to excoriate those who think that preservation begins and ends with castles and churches but the Trawsfynydd site isn’t the totem that will win the argument. Its not the best example of Basil Spence’s work and anyone who thinks it is needs to open their eyes and then get on a train to Coventry. What I do thoroughly welcome, though, is the start of a much needed debate about what our Welsh heritage that Cadw would do well to listen to. More power to your written elbow, sir.
If you want it take and put it on Windermere.Its hideous not an icon.I agree what it represents is imposition of rubbish that England doesn’t want on Wales
Why waste the infrastucture? We are now told that we need more nuclear/atomic energy production, why not put a few more modern reactors at the Traws site? There is nothing else in that area apart from a few moaning nationalists who still live in the dim and distant past whether it be pre Roman or post Scouser. I would like ask anyone who moved to places like Skegness, or anywhere else with an open minded population, whether they miss Traws, or Wales for that matter. Three of my five children have moved away from this rapidly declining madhouse, the other two will no doubt also vacate the decrepit premises as soon as they can. If I could afford to leave I would follow them but it doesn’t look very likely.
As far as CADW is concerned I wish they would take off their blinkers, come to think of it these same blinkers are worn by planners, county councillors, WAG and anyone else with a bit of power.
Wales could be such a vibrant country, the only people preventing it are the ….. Welsh.
Looks like an eyesore to me. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
I agree with Mr Hirst. He has a keen eye for spotting quality and beauty. Keep up you campaign Hirst!
Mr Owen,
They don’t site them inland anymore, becuase if there is a big ‘spillage’, the sea is a useful dump. I do tend to get the feeling that people who want to keep these buildings do not live anywhere near them. Has anyone bothered asking the people who actually grew up with the structure and who still live there?
It is a very interesting point to make and like many, I frequently drive past it but I have to say that from the road where 99% of people see it, it’s not a pretty site. It might not just be a question of making it smaller but also of ensuring it stays watertight until the reactors can be dismantled.
Whatever comes of this debate, it may at least ask questions of the visual impact of the concrete coffin to replace it.
“Has anyone bothered asking the people who actually grew up with the structure and who still live there?”
To my mind, this goes to the heart of the discussion. On the one hand it seems almost axiomatic that those who live near Trawsfynydd should have the final say over its future (though whether this is achieved by investing decision-making powers in the Snowdonia National Park Authority is, I suspect, a separate article altogether). On the other, one has to ask whether the fate of a building of great and national importance should be left to a local planning authority.
Genuinely, I don’t have a simple answer to that one. As I recall, there was a similar debate a few years ago when the government introduced new planning legislation to ensure that developments of strategic importance were decided more directly at a national (i.e UK) level.
New to this blog as I am, I’ll add my tuppence worth. I live pretty close to it, and know many people who grew up in its vicinity. They hate it as a structure and what it represents, or what they think it represents. On the former point I am not necessarily in accord with them; on the latter I probably am.
I personally am not in favour of the destruction of modernist architecture, and believe we should keep more of it. Wales has lost a number of distinguished modernist industrial buildings (the Dunlop factory is exactly the case in point) because the conservationism seems angled towards regognisably ‘heritage’ architecture. Not sure what the answer is regarding a bloody great nuclear power station that was itself imposed on a quite beautiful piece of countryside, but it’s certainly complex, and the argument above is an intelligent contribution to a very thorny question.
As for Evan Owen’s claim that the problem with Wales is the Welsh, and that “There is nothing else in that area apart from a few moaning nationalists who still live in the dim and distant past” , this is a typically dim and stupid response from a well-known paranoid Welsh-hater. If three of his five children left Wales, it was probably in order to get away from him.
Serious buddhist meditators can reach a stage that’s called ‘the One Taste’, whereby everything becomes mildly – and equally – beautiful, from the view at the top of Tryfan to a pile of steaming dog poo. Maybe, to those who have reached that enlightened place, Trawsfynydd is beautiful. To most of the rest of us it’s an ugly blight on the landscape and the sooner it’s gone the better.
Thanks Alun. I can assure you that there was no Buddhist mediation involved when writing the article.
To a pick up thread few people have raised… there are obviously strong feelings about the site, its nuclear past, its nuclear legacy and how the decision was made to place the station in the heart of Snowdonia.
But one of the points I was making in the article was that we shouldn’t mix up our feelings about the site with the building.
Buildings will need to be on the site until the end of this century, whether we like it or not. I think what’s on the site right now is pretty special – and so do a few other people who have contributed to this debate. I just want to make sure that we don’t bulldoze the buildings and then later regret it.
The buildings have become a hate symbol for the mistakes of the past; the decision to chop them up feels to me like society is reeking revenge. Will we really feel sated once the bulldozers have finished their work?
Da Iawn, Clayton!
Gah, bulldoze it, and send off the radioactive remains to whichever idiot commisioned it. Then we can build some aesthetically pleasing, environmentally friendly and far more useful turbines.
I fish Traws from a boat about once a year and occasionally get my line broken by some ‘monster from the deep’. I often wonder if there are radioactive mutant trout lurking in the the depths of Traws.
We could have our very own ‘Llyn Traws Monster’. The Welsh Tourist Board should note and take action to promote the LTM across the globe.
Many people will come from afar to catch the LTM(s) thus benefiting the local economy.
The horrendous gloomy structure should remain to give a suitable creepy ambience to the whole LTM experience. Brrrrr!
Would appreciate the opportunity to put some solid facts in here please!
Rhys Llwyd is correct to say that Trawsfynydd has employed many people. It still does, around 530 with around 220 living within 15 miles of the site. The vast majority od the rest live within the ‘LL’ postcode area.
Staff also transferred elsewhere in 1993 – you can add Hinkley in Somerset, Oldbury near Bristol, Sizewell in Suffolk. However, ask these people, many who are now nearing retirement age, how many will move home to retire. Not many, as there is nothing here for them and no future for their families, which is why they opted, yes, opted to move away in the first place. The people of Meirionnydd ARE trodden, by relying on the slate industry for too long, important though that is. We will see large redundancies at Trawsfynydd once more in a few years time, and having seen no new industries being attracted to the area since ’93, the youngsters who now work there will move away once more, and who can blame them? Yes, quite right, remember the people, THEY NEED WORK TO STAY IN OUR COMMUNITY!
“Has anyone bothered asking the people who actually grew up with the structure and who still live there?”
Ian/Adam – in fact, there was a much publicised Public Enquiry as to what the future buildings would look like; you could have taken part in that, as could anyone else who is willing to moan about not having a say. The output of that was what went into the Planning Application to the Snowdonia National Park Authority. Indeed, three years ago a Public Consultation was conducted on behalf of the Site Owners, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, as to what local people would wish to see there when it is all cleared away. Advertised in the local papers, posters in all the local libraries, local councils informed…FOUR members of the public turned up for the launch event. You can lead a horde to water…
It will not be a concrete coffin, had you visited the Magnox Stand stand at the Bala National Eisteddfod you would have seen scale models of how it looks now, and how it will look in around eight years time. Computerised architects’ impressions are regularly shown in the Press and Media – the last time being only a fortnight ago.
Interestingly, I was told the vast majority of local people who visited the Eisteddfod stand were horrified that the intention is to reduce them in height and reclad them! A typical comment was “It’s a part of our heritage, just like the slate tips are.”
I hope this contributes to the debate!
Oh, nearly forgot!
Al
No Wind Turbines in the National Park – that’s their policy, and also their policy to oppose and object to any which are visible from the Park Boundary (document available on their website)
Cambria Politico
The monsters may have been caught!
Not huge due to radioactivity, but to the once warm waters of the lake.
Click on this link, then scroll down to the bottom picture af a 20lb pike. You can clisk on the picture to enlarge it.
Al, you’ll be lucky. Trawsfynydd was commissioned by the Ministry of Power in 1958 when John Redcliffe-Maud was its minister. He died in 1982, nine years before the station began decommissioning.
Clive – love the idea of a Llyn Traws Monster – somewhere between Blinky, the three-eyed fish from The Simpsons, and a certain Western Mail newsroom creation (no names) called “Teggie”…
“Ian/Adam – in fact, there was a much publicised Public Enquiry as to what the future buildings would look like; you could have taken part in that, as could anyone else who is willing to moan about not having a say.”
Not guilty. All I was suggesting was there can be a tension in these situations between allowing local people to determine their built environment and the need to protect a building of wider significance.
“I hope this contributes to the debate!”
Very much so. Thanks for taking part.
Wow, a really interesting topic I knew nothing about prior to this article. For once I have nothing to add!
My ignorance aside, glad to see wh adding such topics to it’s bow.
So you can’t erect a turbine, that has temporary and limited environmental impact, but can put up a power-station that will be radioactive and poisonous for ten thousand years?
If we can’t cart the glowing remains off to the guy that comissioned it, then we should send it to whatever future politician who has the bright idea of building a nuclear powerstation in a National park. Won’t happen?
Al, I can assure you that nothing glows at Trawsfynydd and there will be nothing left on the site by the end of the century, let alone anything radioactive or poisonous. And I doubt whether a replacement will be built there either, making sure the 600 or so jobs it would bring for the next 60 or so years (let alone the thousands in building it over seven or so years) will go elsewhere.
Wil,
A new station would employ a lot less than the current numbers de-comissioning the current one. As I stated previously, they are only planning coastal sites now.
Ian,
You are partially correct, a new one would employ around 450 – 500 staff (which isn’t significantly less) that would be increased by around 300 contractors for outages. 450 long-term jobs in an area with little chance of gainful employment in the area, along with other opportunities in the local supply chain should not be turned away without good reason. This is why the politicians on Anglesey are so keen to keep the industry in the economy.
The reason they are planning coastal sites only is quite simple – it will be far easier to put them on existing nuclear licenced sites. As they are all on the coast – except for Trawsfynydd – this explains the approach.
You may be interested to know that BBC Wales this evening broadcast a short package about Trawsfynydd and the debate about its future – sparked by WalesHome. So, remember where you read about it first.
The package included a statement from Cadw which said that it had not received any requests for the building to be considered for listing. This is not true. I emailed Cadw my case early on Sunday morning. I hope that the other supporters of the building will follow suit.
Why not keep it? I’m sure that the revolting Welsh of the time were less than pleased when Edward 1 built his ring of castles around North Wales. Ditto Llyn Celyn. Though these structures remind us that we are an oppressed people, they are nonetheless part of our collective heritage – they remind us of who we are. Local people should be the final arbiters of what happens to these structures – and yes, I do know a few who’d like to demolish Caernarfon Castle. Heritage is always a fraught subject, the medieval castles remind us that we are a conquered people, Llyn Celyn reminds us that there is a huge democratic deficit, (ditto wind turbines). Some years ago Ceredigion council cleaned up some old metal working sites remaining from the 18th and 19th centuries. Work needed to be done, as there was considerable toxic waste coming from the old workings. It was decided to obliterate several of the sites, prompting one writer to comment that it was wilful destruction of a people’s heritage. As a child I remember traveling from Anglesey to West Wales to see my grandparents, and though I did not understand what it meant at the time, I now know that I was travelling through one vast site of post-industrial dereliction, first the abandoned, and nearly abandoned slate quarries, and then the abandoned silver-lead mines of Mid Wales. Much of these have now been cleaned up and now serve as tourist attractions, but, and perhaps I’m weird, I found all that dereliction – beautiful! I was also fascinated by Trawsfynydd in the early 60s – then it was one vast construction site, with lots of real Dinky toys!
Paddy
You may be guilty of defamation while hiding behind a pseudonym, that is cowardly.
I don’t hate the Welsh, I am Welsh, I have a Welsh language ‘O’ Level, all my kids were educated through the medium of Welsh. There, how many times have I mentioned Welsh in that sentence?
Evan
I’ve let the above comment through in the name of allowing a right of reply. I strongly urge all involved in this discussion to refrain from posting ad hominem abuse. We won’t let approve that sort of thing for appearance on this site.
Thanks
BBC News Online has also cottoned on to the story. Read it here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8307030.stm
The Building is featured in this book.
New Forms: The Last 10 Years in Architecture (World Architecture)
http://openlibrary.org/b/OL118403M/New_forms
and now this.
http://davidbarrie.typepad.com/david_barrie/2008/02/will-it-make-a.html
Some more media coverage of Trawsfynydd – this time a good balanced piece on in Wales on Sunday:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/10/18/campaigners-want-nuclear-station-listed-91466-24954822/
I wonder if Sean Connery would like to voice his support for the building?
In reponse to Patrick Mcguinness comments about my father being a paranoid Welsh-hater and that my sister, brother and myself left Wales in order to get away from him is so far from the truth. I am Welsh through and through and I am very proud of it. I was educated in Wales through the medium of Welsh and moved away for one reason only and that is the lack of career opportunities within the area.
Bethan
I have added a new page on my blogsite about Trawsfynydd. On it I will keep readers up-to-date with any developments regarding the building and the proposal to have it listed.
http://claytonhirst.wordpress.com/trawsfynydd/
Da iawn chdi am ymateb Bethan
We will, apparently, learn next week whether Cadw will consider the building for listing. An official told me today that they would be sending emails to those people who had recently contacted them, with their decision. Don’t hold your breath.
Good news for the supporters of Trawsfynydd; Cadw has confirmed that it is now formally considering the building for listing. I have posted a news story on my blog: http://claytonhirst.wordpress.com/trawsfynydd/
More Trawsfynydd news. Abstract artist, Sonja Benskin Mesher, to open solo exhibition of paintings of the power station, inspired by the campaign: http://claytonhirst.wordpress.com/trawsfynydd/
Couple of updates: Cadw has confirmed that it will conduct a site visit of Trawsfynydd in the New Year so it can decide whether there is a case to list. Also, here is an article I wrote from the Guardian on the subject:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2009/dec/21/snowdonia-nuclear-power-station-wales-architecture
Remember where you read about it first.
Another news update. Cadw inspectors to visit Trawsfynydd early next month to consider listing proposal: http://claytonhirst.wordpress.com/trawsfynydd/
Interesting news for Trawsfynydd watchers. The body responsible for funding the demolition work has quietly shelved the plans because of the squeeze on public spending. Still no word from Cadw on the listing application, however, nearly two months after its self-imposed deadline. Read about it here: http://claytonhirst.wordpress.com/trawsfynydd/
Er, I am based on Trawsfynydd site at the moment and I have to say they are rather ugly buildings. It is interesting reading this article as I know full well the decomissioning project will go ahead. The reactors are not being demolished as such, but reduced. This is something that has to happen as the structural integrity is comprimised. The concrete has a limited lifespan and the buildings are rapidly deteriorating. Despite what critics may say… these ugly buildings will fall !
I found this page via the BBC news website. It is a great shame to reduce its size. These pictures make a great contracts between nature and modern builds.
In terms of the environment when something has ben build we should not knock it down due to cost and creating additional pollution. The environment should embrace this builds and blend with it.
I would love to place a copy on my site http://www.ecopicofthday.com