Kev, common sense has very little place in the process of applying for money to build new museum space. Unfortunately function loses out to a fashion statement every time, as other museums have found out. I may be wrong, but isn’t the hangar at Newark the only lottery funded new aviation museum space (Airspace being an extension of an existing structure) that’s managed to secure funds for a building that wasn’t an architectural statement?

Not quite hitting the target there….the scale of the application (in £ terms) does play a major part in the criteria used. So the criteria for the AAM were different than for Newark…. to say nothing of the time difference between them.

You may also take into account the need the IWM had of raising matching funding from private/ corporate donors for this memorial to the US airmen. People like Georgia Frontiere would have been less impressed with a ‘hanger’…and that the USAF Museum would not have allocated an SR to the IWM had its home been the Super Hanger…

Certainly the fund raising that was done was because a private individual (Georgia) thought the building was a ‘fitting tribute’ to those who gave their lives. Without this the IWM would not have been able to build anything for the American collection, at least not for the moment.

On the one hand I can appreciate that the people assessing funding applications aren’t necessarily au fait with the future demands of aviation museum space and they have a desire to create “landmarks” with the money they hand out. However, I feel that the balance of style over function tipped so very far towards style with the new building at Cosford and with the AAM at Duxford. Both are striking buildings but neither provides any real flexibility for change – just look at the expense of installing the Liberator.

Based on the AAM the evaluation used the brief developed by the IWM…allied to achieving the museuographical/ curatorial standards expected of a national collection as well as financial criteria and yes the ‘publicity’ value as part of its evaluation. They were the ones who let the IWM ‘set’ the standard for the type of space that aviation museum could create…no AAM = no Cosford, no Milestones of Flight (no loss there), no glass wall to the BoB..no Newark funding…

The point you make about style over function is interesting. But it is heavily biased by what you think is ‘function’; which is/ was clearly not the view of the IWM. First off its a memorial, not just an aircraft museum..it had to create a new and unique visual link between the exhibition space and the active airfield, allowing active aircraft to be seen from the greatest possible number of places within the collection. That set a few key parameters for the basic concept, functions that no previous display space need to take into account.

Its form is simply the tighest possible skin that can enclose the volume required by the airframes that the iWM wanted to include in the AAM. A ‘box’ would have created space that was simply not required…it was therefore ‘wasted’ space. The material was the lowest cost (both capital and operational) envelope to keep the water out and the climate in for medium term preservation…(the lack of heating/ cooling/ humidity control initially was due to shortfalls in the initial fund raising). A steel hanger, like the Superhanger would have been more expensive.

The AAM’s form, material etc is a very rational, logical and sensible solution to the challenge set by the IWM.. it is however not necessarily the ‘obvious one’ but that does not diminish its ‘sensible and functional’ nature.

Remember also that none of the individual airframes in the AAM are of unique historical interest (save the SR which is a record setter)…they are representative ones…This permits a different approach to the preservation/ conservation issue. Thus the large south facing glass wall and associated UV is not as relevant,, a repaint is not ‘damaging’… temperature fluctuations are less damaging.. certainly if the designed cooling is installed it would be greatly diminished.. although the dehumdification has helped this as well.

As for the cost of dismantling the glass wall; the need (i.e. how often did they envisage changing the display) to allow such large movements was established by the IWM, and the comparison between the capital cost of creating an opening large enough for something like the Liberator (note also that the SR was installed, others rehung, a new entrance door installed, an additional door in the glass wall, an second handrail installed to meet the new DDA legislation (not required when Building control signed the building off), refinishing the ramp, repainting the floor and walls was done at the same time….) versus dismantling the wall within the first 5 years and again 10 years later favoured the solution that was actually designed and built.

As for change/ flexibility.. I guess that being able to bring in and rehang airframes such as the T33 or in the future the F105 through the doors is not enough?

It would be interesting to see which other large airframes the IWM could reasonably and rationally acquire that would fit into the AAM collection… (the F-14 was not acquired because it was not really relevant to the US Forces in the UK…).. an F-16.. fits…A-10..got one, F-111, got one, F-15.. got one and deliberately not installed as it serves a greater purpose whilst outside.. F-5…fits, C-130? KC-135? Neither of which were discussed as potential exhibits…a B-47 would be nice.. but are there any around to acquire…no need for a P-47, P-51, C-47. So I think the IWM got it about right…a churn after 5 years years and perhaps one in another 10…if needed.

I’m not sure that this situation is likely to change anytime soon. I know of at least one very well thought-out application that was refused on the basis that it simply catered for the needs of the museum and integrated well with its existing buildings without making any bold “architectural statements”. It’s a case of falling into line or doing without the lottery handouts under the current regime.

There you are quite correct. The Lottery is for ‘exceptional’ development…and sadly it depends on what else is in the running at the time. The AAM was alone in asking for funding at the time….now the competition is far greater simply because more people/ organisations are applying for funding. Being good is no longer enough.

But going back to the thread title…the role of the Director of the Museum in establishing the overall tone and vision for the collection is crucial… Duxford would not be where it is without Ted Inman’s passion of the museum…it would be different….perhaps better for some, worse for others…nor would Cosford have the Cold War building without Dr Fopp….other areas may not have been ‘let go’ as much, but again can everyone be pleased all the time?