In my experience the case for most provincial developments seems to revolve around trying to boost the local economy, often based on spurious projections of extra tourist foot-fall. Clearly, any development, whether in a new or restored setting, needs to have a credible commercial case, but I prefer the core justification to be about exposing people to long-hidden treasures or relocation of collections from an expensive London (or Edinburgh) site to an equally viable alternative in the styx.
I'm neutral on whether to build new or restore; the important thing is a valid, well thought-through plan. (The worst case edifice I know of was the Birmingham City Library, built at great expense in 1974 only to be demolished in 2013, once its £188.8M replacement was complete or perhaps the Burrell Collection in Glasgow, opened in 1983, only to be closed in 2016 because of leaking roofs. (I visited just prior to closure and was appalled to see the extent of roped-off exhibition space because of water ingress.) Now the building is being renewed (£66M), part-managed by a committee who presided over the original scheme.
 Reply | with quote | Posted by tomatoman
20th February 2018ce
13:52 |
|
Head To Head 
Should Britain stop building museums? (tjj)