New Transport Museum at Riverside

Moderators: John, Sharon, Fossil, Lucky Poet, crusty_bint, Jazza, dazza

Postby glasgowken » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:41 pm

Forgive me if i'm mistaken, you may have been genuinely wondering about my bakery choices (I actually bought one with sesame seeds today, very tasty :P ), but I assume you are inferring it's cheap to not love that thing being built on the riverside, or to disagree with the amount of cash going in to it ?
Yes I am a cheap bastard, I would rather see the cash spent wisely, than blown on one pointless grandiose building, which has a barely larger floor space than the current museum. I do think the exhibits are more important than the building.

I don't know why i'm continuing, the wee jobby Purcell isn't reading, and pondering his decisions, so it's all pointless hot air from me.
GK
User avatar
glasgowken
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4477
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby HollowHorn » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:46 pm

glasgowken wrote:it's all pointless hot air from me.

Image
User avatar
HollowHorn
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 8922
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 9:59 pm
Location: Paisley

Postby crusty_bint » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:48 pm

Tehe am sorry Ken, I jest, I jest. I’m just surprised at you of all folk regarding this project!

I don’t see the problem in spending possibly £100m on a new home for the much beloved Transport Collection. I’m sure the Great and Empire Exhibitions, which left us with the legacy of the Kelvin Hall and Kelvingrove, had its nay-sayers at the time, probably with disdainful remarks aplenty along the lines of “this money would be better spent alleviating the suffering of the poor and ridding this city of the scourge that is cholera”, and they were probably correct, but would anyone here rather the money was spent otherwise?

In regards to expanding into and redeveloping the entire Kelvin Hall complex for use as the Transport Museum, I doubt it would cost any less in the end. The site at present just isn’t practical and couldn’t suitably accommodate the collection without major restructuring of the site which would be tantamount to demolition and façade retention. Not that I think that’s a particularly bad idea as the rear and side elevations of the site have a really negative impact on the surrounding streetscapes as the building is like, as has been pointed out, some large manufactory, but I don’t think this could be done any cheaper than a new build. Add to the work involved the fact that the entire collection would have to be moved out and stored and paid for, then there would be the usual wranglings over listed building consent and the disturbance caused by the program of works itself and on top of that the sports facility would have to be relocated in a new facility. So there you have untold £millions having to be spent before you touched a brick in the Kelvin Hall complex.

I think its great that we have the aspiration (and for once; the money!) to add to the cultural and architectural legacy of Glasgow. This new museum will be a world class attraction, something that can’t be said for the Kelvin Hall, and will also act as the centre-piece for the redevelopment at this part of the Clyde.

I do have my reservations over this design now though and how Hadid’s reputation on her ability to deliver a project seems to have been called into question. I’m not a fan of Hoskins design though and do think the best scheme won the design competition. And I think its important to remember that it was a competition – entering these design competitions cost architectural practices money and so its just isn’t feasible to work up a detailed design and costing as theres no guarantee of winning the commission and this is why, in addition to rising material and labour costs, initial estimates rise.

I think you’re all being really harsh and just not giving the subject any rational thought. Every large-scale building project in history has overrun initial estimates, why on earth would anyone be surprised that this has.

Be happy it’s happening, support it, get involved at the earliest time and maybe, just maybe, you’ll all get what you want from it!

Go peacefully amongst the things…
here i go, it's coming for me through the trees
crusty_bint
-
-
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Alex Glass » Wed Jul 11, 2007 9:55 pm

glasgowken wrote:Forgive me if i'm mistaken, you may have been genuinely wondering about my bakery choices (I actually bought one with sesame seeds today, very tasty :P ), but I assume you are inferring it's cheap to not love that thing being built on the riverside, or to disagree with the amount of cash going in to it ?
Yes I am a cheap bastard, I would rather see the cash spent wisely, than blown on one pointless grandiose building, which has a barely larger floor space than the current museum. I do think the exhibits are more important than the building.

I don't know why i'm continuing, the wee jobby Purcell isn't reading, and pondering his decisions, so it's all pointless hot air from me.


Naw Ken! But I have been reading this topic with interest but wasn't going to join in on the debate.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Whilst I agree with Socceroo I still unserstand your point of view. I do firmly beleive that the Transport Museum should have it's own purpose built facility and not as has been previously the case it having to move about due to circumstances.

I hope when it is completed and you visit it you are pleased with what you see.

PS I am still working on your suggestion about a possible visit to the basement of the Transport Museum and will try and get a copy of the recent presentation that was given to the Executive Committee so that people can see the computer generated images of what is being planned.
User avatar
Alex Glass
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:36 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby glasgowken » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:00 pm

I hope so too Alex, but.....hmmm
A visit would be great, despite it being a bit of a shed, it's got a fond place in the city's history.

I honestly don't mind if the museum moves, as it's done in the recent past, it's just I feel this project is more about the building than what it's meant to house. Almost as if the exhibits are no more than decoration.
The small floor plan does worry me, I would actually have more faith if it was larger, at least there would be a chance of expanding the collection without moving other exhibits out, or cramming them in (such as happens now).

Anyway, i'll belt up about it now, i'm off to make a nice cuppa, and a sandwich :wink:
GK
User avatar
glasgowken
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4477
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby Mori » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:47 pm

Some other visuals of the TM

Image


Elaboration from the ZH Website of the TM

Image
User avatar
Mori
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 3434
Joined: Wed May 04, 2005 1:05 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Apollo » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:12 pm

While it would hardly be of the order of the trips to warm climates to look at useless train systems, the geniuses behind the new Transport Museum might have been better advised to jump on a (sorry) train and have a look at somewhere like Beaulieu, the National Motor Museum, which manages to survive without needing the attentions and big fat fees that this architect will have attracted by creating a "World Class Attraction. A modern shed with some decent decoration would have done quite nicely.

Let's be realistic here, I may love the collection, but I doubt there are that many folk that will be travelling the world to beat a path to the door of Glasgow Museum of Transport, especially when that path almost inevitably takes them past the door of Beaulieu. I've been, I've seen. I wouldn't visit Glasgow instead of Beaulieu if I was touring. Visitors are coming to see the exhibits, NOT THE MUSEUM.

By all means, move the collection out of the poky wee hole that it was awarded in the Kelvin Hall. I well remember being picked up off the floor after being told that the museum would not actually be in the Kelvin Hall proper, where I attended many a Custom Car show, but in what amount a room round the back.

But, to use an old business saying, when you're fighting off the alligators, remember the reason you're in the swamp is to drain it!.

I don't think anyone's suggesting the £100 million+ that this building will cost should have been spent elsewhere, rather that it could have been spent better.

At the end of the day, we'll have a new museum, one way or another, and we'll be wonder what all the fuss was about, because at the end of that day, we don't really have any say in what's done. Admittedly, I had more important things to worry about a few years ago, but the first I really knew about it was when I walked in to the museum, and the fait accomplit was plastered across the wall of the old street.

Whatever else, we still need to look after it.
User avatar
Apollo
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2283
Joined: Sun May 09, 2004 10:26 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby Peekay » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:27 pm

It's certainly a good site for it though. It opens up possibilities of all sorts of pretty ships being berthed as attractions too. Is this part of the masterplan does anyone know? It doesn't take a great leap of faith for the SMM to move there and that would give them more funding (Better site, more visitors). Perhaps then use Irvine/Braehead as workshops!

PK
User avatar
Peekay
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 12:55 pm

Postby crusty_bint » Thu Jul 12, 2007 12:08 am

Meant to say in my last post that I always like the idea put forward in thwe early days of the proposal, which would have had a full scale section of a Clyde built ship as part of the structure
Mori wrote:Image
here i go, it's coming for me through the trees
crusty_bint
-
-
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby glasgowken » Thu Jul 12, 2007 8:03 am

It looks like a lump of scrap aluminium :?

The original idea was for the museum to occupiy the entire Kelvin Hall, there was a plan for a street to be mocked up, with tram lines (not powered), and parked cars, buses, etc. Kelvin Street was the watered down version of that.

Then others (including the uni) stuck it's oar in and got the space divided to include the sports arena :roll: That decision crippled any attempts to increase the collection, although general lack of funds & disinterest from GCC also didn't help.
GK
User avatar
glasgowken
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 4477
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 12:59 am
Location: Glasgow

Postby crusty_bint » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:36 pm

Alex, is there any information you could give us as to the options being considered for the use of the Kelvin Hall and decanted Transport Museum and if there aren't any yet, is there any way the people of Glasgow could be invited to give their suggestions?
here i go, it's coming for me through the trees
crusty_bint
-
-
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby red_kola » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:47 pm

More to the point, will the rise in land value in Kelvingrove/Yorkhill offset the rise in the project cost of the Riverside Museum?

We all know the Kelvin Hall site has been earmarked for housing for well over 8 years now.
User avatar
red_kola
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 1350
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 11:05 am

Postby Alex Glass » Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:55 pm

Crusty

I will check and report back.

Good suggestion about asking the public what they think should happen to it. Although I am not sure how well this would go given the differing opinions as expressed by people on this forum.

Anyway I will find out for you.
User avatar
Alex Glass
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 2589
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 8:36 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby crusty_bint » Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:02 pm

::): Valid point.

It would be good if some information could be released though, I think it would be a worth while exercise - cheers! :D
here i go, it's coming for me through the trees
crusty_bint
-
-
 
Posts: 4425
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 3:52 pm
Location: Glasgow

Postby dave2 » Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:26 am

Given the NHS Greater Glasgow policy on 'prescribing exercise' and Glasgow's appalling health problems, it would be criminal to leave such a large area of the city without adequate sports facilities, should teh current ones be closed. I would argue that a swimming pool would greatly add to the amenity of the Kelvin Hall - and that the transport museum area should be used to install a 25m 6 lane swimming pool with associated changing facilities.

Trying to get a badminton / volleyball court down there is murder most evenings and during teh day it is busy with students and schools as well as the public.

However no doubt Tesco will offer a multi-gym under their flats health centre and next to the monolithic store round on Beith st and Kelvin ha;ll will be closed as the council chooses money and flats over health amenity and exercise. :roll:
User avatar
dave2
Third Stripe
Third Stripe
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:03 am
Location: Home, or Uni, or Work

PreviousNext

Return to Glasgow Chat (Coffee Lounge)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests