Another "Landmark" building for RAFM Hendon

Howard, might be sooner than you think! I now live in Norwich which is slightly less of a horrific journey…

Sound’s good – although having done the ‘Uni-investigation run’ from Nottingham to UEA in the summer I’m not so sure how easy the journey is – plus there’s some ‘classic-British’ architecture on the UEA site as well!! 😮

I’m with Planemike re the CWH building – an excellent set-up all round and really friendly staff / volunteers!! 🙂

I never mentioned T2’s Moggy…but now you mention it – a T2 would at least be sort of in keeping with the site – when they originally modified the museum Hangars – what were they on ??they screwed up some lovely old Hangars (externally) …even when I was a teenager I considered the museum building very ugly.
I think one can design a ‘classic’ building that is fit for purpose and that will still look good 50 years later,most ‘Fashionable’/Landmark buildings do not age well,the eyesore at Cosford being the worst example that I can think of…it is extremely ugly and not fit for purpose!
As has been said on here before how it ever got through planning and fire regs is scandalous :rolleyes: !!

Baz……….

Agree with you. By contrast take a look at the Canadian Warplane Heritage building/hangar at Hamilton, Ontario. Beautiful building, practical on many levels and full of beautiful aeroplanes. Be interesting to know how it compared costwise to the monstrosity at Cosford.

Planemike

Howard, might be sooner than you think! I now live in Norwich which is slightly less of a horrific journey…

Interestingly, most of my enthusiasm for audioguides and the value of the diorama as an immersive experience comes from several visits to the recently-completed SS Great Britain project in Bristol, which won nearly £9 million from the HLF for a difficult and demanding preservation job which, in my opinion combined hi-tec modern engineering and more traditional museum display approach superbly without feeling the need to create a “landmark” of any kind beyond what was already there.

Next time you’re tempted to photograph aircraft in NAM’s ‘HLF funded shed’ – I might give you some feedback on that project! 😉

But this is still there…..

http://www.battleofbritainbeacon.org/

Well done Andy.
Interestingly, I cannot find any mention of the beacon on the current RAFM website, and a quick search for “Beacon” on the website’s search function shows that the press release video “Behind the Beacon” from a year or two ago can now be found in something called the “Media Vault”.
Intriguing…

And we are still none the wiser, it seems, as to whether the project is dead in the water…or still a ‘live’ project as far as RAFM are concerned.

I will e-mail and ask them.

The bit I found most worrying was as follows:-
“Meanwhile it is understood Wilkinson Eyre has separately been asked to look at a masterplan for the wider Hendon site.”

I hadn’t visited Cosford for many years but made a visit in February and was amazed at how cramped the new “landmark” building was. It seemed impossible to get a proper view of any of the exhibits.
I’m with the functionality brigade. Let’s have a very big shed and get as much under cover as possible and, as others have said, use dioramas to convey an impression of what it must have been like to be on an airfield during the Battle of Britain. This would be far more educational and, with the right sound effects and presentation, far more entertaining for the non-enthusiast visitor than a landmark building where the architecture often seems to take precedence over the suitability of the building for the presentation and preservation of the items displayed within.

The HLF have rejected the landmark building proposed, how is something that will be less of a contributor to heritage help? It is even more unlikely to win HLF funding, so where are you proposing the funding will come from?

Moggy

True the HLF rejected the scheme, but do we know on what grounds the decision was made? Perhaps they too would have preferred a submission which gave a little more thought to the sensible preservation of the objects within, and a little less thought to the desire to create spectacle for its own sake.
What is to say that a slightly more architecturally modest building “will be less of a contributor to heritage” than the scheme proposed? On the list of roles for a museum, preserving artefacts in a sensible manner has to come pretty high on the list. Of course there has to be a balance, and as I said there is plenty of scope for designing an architecturally “interesting” building with good displays without resorting to the lengths of the Beacon.

At any rate, I was not trying to presume that I have a failsafe plan for designing and funding a solution (my training is in biology not architecture!) Of course funding is difficult to come by, and I appreciate that there is pressure to come up with “landmark” schemes which will grab the attention of bodies such as the HLF.
Instead, as a keen museum goer and one of the “younger generation” museums make such a fuss of trying to attract I was merely making a few observations on what might be a more sensible scheme in an ideal world.

Interestingly, most of my enthusiasm for audioguides and the value of the diorama as an immersive experience comes from several visits to the recently-completed SS Great Britain project in Bristol, which won nearly £9 million from the HLF for a difficult and demanding preservation job which, in my opinion combined hi-tec modern engineering and more traditional museum display approach superbly without feeling the need to create a “landmark” of any kind beyond what was already there.

I’m sure the powers-that-be would have been flinging money at the thought of a giant T2 housing as many aircraft as possible.

:rolleyes:

Moggy

I never mentioned T2’s Moggy…but now you mention it – a T2 would at least be sort of in keeping with the site – when they originally modified the museum Hangars – what were they on ??they screwed up some lovely old Hangars (externally) …even when I was a teenager I considered the museum building very ugly.
I think one can design a ‘classic’ building that is fit for purpose and that will still look good 50 years later,most ‘Fashionable’/Landmark buildings do not age well,the eyesore at Cosford being the worst example that I can think of…it is extremely ugly and not fit for purpose!
As has been said on here before how it ever got through planning and fire regs is scandalous :rolleyes: !!

On a much lighter note – long before

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ariel_Square_Four

I fully agree with the call for practical useful buildings rather than “landmark” vanity projects designed to win awards.

What I am puzzled by is the statement that the archtectural consultants are apparently still committed to working with the RAFM to see this project through to fruition. Is that just wishful thinking on their part, or are the RAFM really still pushing this forward? If so, it conflicts with what a trusted informant was recently told by a reliable RAFM source who apparently stated that the project was dead.

So, is it dead? Or still a live project?

Without funding, I’d say it’s as dead as a Norwegian Blue Parrot, so unless thgey are working to identify alternate funding streams or re-submit the Heritage application it must be dead. Mind you, both could be correct – the press release is from May, so they could have killed it since then.

I had to laugh at:

Jim Eyre, co-founder of Wilkinson Eyre Architects, said: ‘We are incredibly disappointed with the decision but are committed to working with the RAF Museum to help them realise this great project.’

And no doubt realise their big cheque.

Personally, I have nothing against landmark or modern buildings, I just don’t think they make very good aircraft museums!!

What I am puzzled by is the statement that the archtectural consultants are apparently still committed to working with the RAFM to see this project through to fruition. Is that just wishful thinking on their part, or are the RAFM really still pushing this forward? If so, it conflicts with what a trusted informant was recently told by a reliable RAFM source who apparently stated that the project was dead.

So, is it dead? Or still a live project?

believe me its from experience, I was not trying to be unkind, my life has been constantly messed up by them [ not any more thankfully] and I wouldn’t name and shame [not on here], and I have worked with enough to be general and pretty accurate.
Sorry.

I really do hope the RAFM see sense, and adopt a more modest scheme which would produce a better, more long-lasting result.

I am not clear what purpose you think this would serve.

The HLF have rejected the landmark building proposed, how is something that will be less of a contributor to heritage help? It is even more unlikely to win HLF funding, so where are you proposing the funding will come from?

Moggy

Being descended from two generations of architects, I was going to point out much the same thing but decided not to… 😎

They’re mostly skint,disorganised always scrabbling around for work and when they do get it they run around like headless chickens leaving everything to the last minute cocking it all up.
With the current economic climate they’re going bust at an alarming rate so they are in ‘desperation mode’ and talk every ‘possible’ job up.

Graham, as an architect I find your remarks extremely offensive if, as it appears, they are general in their nature. If they were not intended to be general, and your point was to criticise those architects you have personally worked with, perhaps you would care to name and shame them rather than tar us all (the vast majority of us work very hard to maintain the highest levels of professionalism as set by the Architects Registration Board) with the same brush?

I’ve just posted this in the 109e thread, and realise I probably should have put it here.

I definitely agree with the pressing need to update and improve the Battle of Britain Hall, and I don’t even object to it being a fairly “striking” building. But one which is at least vaguely in proportion to the rest of the site, and which keeps the aircraft accessible and on the ground would be vastly preferrable. A really lovely and fitting building could be constructed on the existing footprint, showing the aircraft to great effect without resorting to stringing them up, one atop the other like a child’s ceiling mobile.

If anything, I think the period diorama idea the exhibition currently follows is the right one, however it could be done in a far more convincing, less dated and more realistic fashion. A really good diorama should show off the pilots of both sides, but also include the role of the ground crew, Observer Corps, radar operators, command structure, etc.

Imagine… The Hurricane and Spitfire next to each other at dispersal, with groundcrew figures hurrying around preparing for the next sortie, pilots waiting nervously in deckchairs, the adjutant leaning out of the window, shouting “A Flight Scramble!”. Next along, the Defiant undergoing maintenance, perhaps showing off some of MAPS’s superb workmanship “under the skin” with a few engine panels off and the turret guns being removed for cleaning. Nearby, the 3.7-inch AA battery is manned by watchful eyes, scanning for the enemy raiders…

A quality, sympathetic, well-lit modern display showing the RAFM’s whole range of Battle of Britain artefacts in context to one another (uniforms, small artefacts, ground equipment, aircraft) would vastly improve the whole experience without resorting to gimickry and architectural folly, and better immerse the visitor in the atmosphere of the time and place they are learning about.

I am also a huge supporter of the walkie-talkie like audioguides which are now a feature of many modern museums. Allowing you to engage with the exhibits using more than one sense, they free you from constantly reading signs. Thus you can actually really look at the objects on display, get far more information about them than you would want to read from a sign, don’t have to crane your necks over other visitors (or squint at poorly lit, small print text!) Really good audio information systems allow the visitor to tailor their information intake to their personal interests, and provide entertainment for all ages. There must be hours of audio recordings from the Battle and its veterans languishing in the RAFMs archives: they could rotate these through the devices to give a constantly changing set of first-hand experiences of what it was actually like to fly and fight.

Adopting the audioguide system would make the looped cinematic presentation largely superfluous, or perhaps shift it to an introductory role at the entrance to the exhibition, where it would not disturb people in the main hall trying to look at the exhibits. That, in turn would free up more space for exhibits/ more interesting diorama arrangements.

Sorry for the lengthy stream of consciousness, more like my 10p worth! I really do hope the RAFM see sense, and adopt a more modest scheme which would produce a better, more long-lasting result.

Thje sad fact is that in order to gain lottery funding, the building it’s self had to be landmark and architecturally dsitinctive. Comapre the initial design for Cosford with what was eventually built.

There is also, within commisioning bodies, a tendency to seek kudos for the building as well – witness the Glasgow Riverside Museum for another example of a building where they would have been better served with a bog shed, but the politicians and directors preen themselves over having a building designed by an interantionally renowned artist.

Indeed, and that’s the root of the problem, the building itself often takes precedence over whatever it is required to protect/exhibit, especially when an architect (or Politician/ Museum Director etc) wants to leave his/her mark for posterity (or vanity?) 😡

Why not build a simple clear-span Duxford-style superhangar, and spend the cash saved on the structure itself on some ground-breaking displays inside? I doubt many people go to Cosford to look at the Cold-War building per se, I imagine most go to see what is inside it, as they do at Duxford.

One thing that does concern me with hanging the exhibits in what is essentially a vertical layout rather than a traditional “single storey” horizontal layout is the fire risk. Should fire break out, a vertically set display space may well act like a chimney and serve to encourage the conflagration by leading to a very strong “flue” effect – fine if its only fibreglass replicas hanging there, but not a risk I’d want to see taken with “genuine” last-example airframes – however effective the fire control/containment/ extinguishing system may be claimed to be.

Also, a vertical column of suspended airframes will make rearrangement and cleaning/refurbishment of airframes a major problem – even though the Duxford American Air Force Museum was designed to facilitate airframe movement, the current costs of dissassembling/reassembling the glazed facade is proving unacceptable, so airframes are being shoehorned out after dis-assembly. The proposed designs for Hendon seem to suggest that once in, and airframe is destined to be entombed forever…

If the aim of the new building is to remind people of the BofB/Blitz period, and Duxford Superhangar is felt to be unattractive or irrelevant why not “reconstruct” something that looks like a typical WW2 vintage RAF airfield hangar (or two). As has been said, the old T2 hangars (or a modern facsimile) would be relatively simple and cheap to build, and effective at housing aircraft. Internally galleries and mezzanine floors etc could be provided to break up the “shed” feeling.

Maybe use a few waving “blitz searchlight beams” to provide a night-time “focus”.

Paul F

The idea of more covered areas at any museum in which to accomodate more exhibits must surely, always be a laudable thing, given the harshness of the UK climate.
There are some excellent architects around. There is also, unfortunately, a tendency, especially amongst certain architects to want to come-up with something ‘unusual’ or, heaven forfend ‘original’. ……….This cannot be said for the gimmicky new hangar at Cosford, which I found dark and cluttered inside, and an eyesore outside.

Thje sad fact is that in order to gain lottery funding, the building it’s self had to be landmark and architecturally distinctive. Comapre the initial design for Cosford with what was eventually built.

There is also, within commisioning bodies, a tendency to seek kudos for the building as well – witness the Glasgow Riverside Museum for another example of a building where they would have been better served with a big shed, but the politicians and directors preen themselves over having a building designed by an internationally renowned artist.