Oh shít, not another eyesore.
BTW, Colonel NissEn is probably spinning etc.
I quite accept that we enthusiasts probably spend less than Joe Public, not least because we object to being taken to the cleaners on a regular basis, rather than once a year for a “special day out”.
Hendon started off entirely hangars. The additions I’ve seen (I haven’t visited for 3 years or so) are also basically hangars. Apart from being dark because they won’t turn the lights on, they’re perfectly suitable for displaying aircraft.
The AAM does not by any criteria display the contents well. It looks like the outline was drawn around the B.52 and everything else crammed in around (and over) it. The natural daylight is an excellent idea, but in my view, poorly executed for a building to keep large aircraft in. The glass wall was taken down and rebuilt, at a cost of £100,000 each time IIRC.
Cost less to build than an average home?
Six large detached houses have just been crammed onto a very small plot opposite my house. They are selling for around £200,000 each. Presumably the builder is making a substantial profit so why was 6 or 8(?) million needed for the AAM?
My mum (80 in May) is presumably a “general visitor”. She thought the AAM was awful.
“Sheds” are relatively cheap. Use the money saved to install state of the art insulation and humidity control.
Cosfords original design had the roof completely covered in solar panels, to produce more electricity than the museum used, so running costs could be minimal. It had a large, versatile, open area to give maximum flexibility with displays. Instead we have what to me is an eyesore with two triangles. There are strange angles in the building which I assume are more expensive to build, or is this a recently discovered stroke of genius that nobody else has seen before.
I hadn’t heard the term “willy waving” before but it fits the bill, whether it’s the architect or the people that finally decide.
Sign In
