Here’s a thought – If a museum is located on one side of an airfield, and there are WW2 building remains (blast shelters, etc) on the other side, would it be better to dismantle the buildings from their original location where they are overgrown and out of public view, and re-build them inside the boundaries of a museum; or better to leave them where they are for the correct histrorical context?
Several museums have moved small buildings, such as airfield defence structures, etc, especially where the original site is to be re-developed. Assuming that there is no threat to the buildings other than general deterioration, which is best?:confused: (Don’t include anything bigger than a small hangar in your thoughts….)
By: Peter - 18th March 2008 at 18:30
It would be a big and expensive job to move some of the buildings but I think we are almost at the Last Chance so to speak to recover or record some of the historic buildings that are being vandalised or destroyed for development.
By: Arabella-Cox - 18th March 2008 at 18:11
If the building is being cared for, and is safe in its current location, I’d be tempted to leave it in place.
If however the building was deteriorating, I’d probably record the building as much as possible ( location, condition etc ), and move it to where it can be restored/conserved.
Steve
Sign In
March 18, 2008 at 5:59 pm