By: jeepman
- 16th May 2010 at 13:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Jeepman -whilst the American article is very interesting -a reveal of the cost of expanding the existing Superhangar might well shock ! It's far cheaper to demolish and build a new structure than it is to re-engineer a building and commision new structure that needs to match what is already there!
I think thats exactly what he is saying, David, and he then goes on to compare it with the Superhangar/Airspace which was significantly increased in size.
I think my whole argument over this idea is the extent to which the function is overtaken by the architectural flight of fancy. The sad fact is that it is probably impossible to raise £80m for a more sympathetic building.
Recall that the designers at Cosford delivered a building where there is a danger of knocking yourself senseless on the structure as soon as you walk through the main entrance. In addition you cannot stand back and get a single clear view of any or all of the three V-Bombers. All you see is a bit at anyone time. In addition you actually almost miss the Canberra and Meteor they are so far out of sight.
If this makes me one of Moggy's "chorus of gainsayers with mealy-mouthed criticism" so be it. Most of the critisism hasn't been mealy-mouthed though - it has been quite the opposite. Perhaps we should call it the Marmite Tower................
By: mike currill
- 16th May 2010 at 13:31Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only just read this thread and agree with all the negative comments on it. So a lot of the locals are against it? That shoould come as no surprise to anyone with more than one brain cell. They have my support as well.
By: Creaking Door
- 16th May 2010 at 15:44Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...any attempt to do anything stunning or world-beating is met by a chorus of gainsayers with mealy-mouthed criticism. We have become a sad little third-world country with small ideas and even smaller ambitions...
Yes, I certainly agree with you on that point and your comments about Hendon not being given a ‘pot of money’ are well founded.
Architecture, especially ‘landmark’ architecture, is happily one area where Britain still has an excellent international reputation, look at the Millau Viaduct for example; any British involvement in such a high-profile French project (that would never get the go-ahead in Britain) speaks volumes I think!
I am sure that the architecture of the Battle-of-Britain Beacon is equally spectacular but, as any architect will tell you, the environment you place it in is as important as the building itself and the impact of the Beacon will be greatly diminished by being placed in built-up Hendon (and all of the graphics are careful to omit most existing structures). Also I think this is one of the great problems with Hendon being the ‘spiritual’ home of the RAF and the site for a museum; few international tourists know where it is and for a while Hendon was branded as RAF Museum London.
My other major objection to the Beacon (like the title of the BBMF) is that it only honors the Battle-of-Britain period and not the RAF as a whole; is this some revisionist reinterpretation of our history in that the only period where Britain was definitely the ‘good guys’ and therefore the only period that is to be celebrated!
By: 25deg south
- 16th May 2010 at 17:46Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Hendon being the ‘spiritual’ home of the RAF"
An interesting point of view.
I spent many happy times in the late 60's and early 70's as a young Junior Officer in the
"No. 1 Officers' Mess of the Royal Air Force"
It was demolished without ceremony not so very long ago and , no, it wasn't at Hendon.
By: Moggy C
- 16th May 2010 at 21:45Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Museum buildings must be 'fit for purpose'...it seems to be a continuance of the 'landmark buildings' at cosford and duxford...absolutely useless for displaying aircraft !!
Maybe not that brilliant at displaying aircraft, but with the suspended airframes viewable from almost every angle probably better than anything we have at present.
But it isn't an 'aircraft museum' It is a museum of the RAF. A very different thing.
By: buccaneernut
- 16th May 2010 at 21:58Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone know where this £80m is coming from? If i have missed it on an earlier post then i apologise.
The BOB memorial by the thames and Capel Le Ferne are fitting memorials, and they was made up of charitable donations i believe, there was no large scale funding such as this. I believe that memorial on the thames and also the one at Capel le ferne sum up everything and make one contemplate what people fought and died for. This memorial is a waste of money and the money could be better spent instead of this modern art.
As stated somewhere else, this money could be spent on improving buildings on the site and really improve Hendon and be a focul point for the RAF. As stated it is the RAF Museum.
By: bazv
- 16th May 2010 at 22:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe not that brilliant at displaying aircraft, but with the suspended airframes viewable from almost every angle probably better than anything we have at present.
But it isn't an 'aircraft museum' It is a museum of the RAF. A very different thing.
Moggy
We must live in a parallel universe Moggy ...the last time I visited Hendon I could have sworn it was absolutely full of old aircraft :D
I know we cannot see all of the exhibits ,because some bu99er keeps turning the lights off :D
I am not a great fan of suspending a/c,but you still need large open areas to do that and our recent 'Landmark' museum buildings simply do not have enough !
One of our fellow forumites described the monstrosity at Cosford as looking like a 'Fallen down Hangar'...I certainly would not argue with that LOL
By: TempestV
- 17th May 2010 at 11:25Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Saving money
In these times of trying to save money and fill the £100+ Billion black hole in UK Gov. finances, let alone the hidden debt on the public's credit cards, etc. why does every new architectural statement building cost £40M here, £80M there???
It just smacks of vulgar over indulgence.
We live in the UK. Its classed as a wet environment. Ideally you keep aircraft indoors. Does it really cost that amount to build a new T2 hangar (or similar) that could comfortably contain loads of airframes and an educational centre.
However something like this is funded, either through the Lottery, fundraising, or loans, ultimately its our money they are spending.
By: Creaking Door
- 17th May 2010 at 12:33Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
...this is funded, either through the Lottery, fundraising, or loans, ultimately its our money they are spending.
According to the Telegraph the money is to be ‘secured through private funding and there are several interested parties’.
Isn’t £80 million quite a lot of money to be raised in this way; and what’s in it for these interested parties? Surely they’ll want something back for such a large ‘donation’?
By: David Burke
- 17th May 2010 at 12:35Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
David - there is now a perception in this country that no matter what design put forward for an aircraft museum -it needs to be either 'groundbreaking' or
'interpretative' - possibly the same principles used by some of the 1960's shopping centre designers which are now being reviewed and in some cases knocked down!
I am very much of the mind that people principally go to aircraft museums to see the aircraft and not the buildings ! To me a design which pretty much encompasses the shape and structure of a hangar is not necessarily a bad thing when housing an aircraft . Maybe if the positioning of it was in central London it might raise a few eyebrows but in general the types of building which suit aircraft (hangars) are often in keeping with their location - Newark's Lottery Assisted hangar being a prime example of a development adjacent to an airfield site.
By: pogno
- 17th May 2010 at 12:39Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My personal preference for the display of aircraft is for them to be parked in a hangar with enough space to walk around them, as if they were just there waiting to be wheeled out and flown.
This proposal for Hendon does not appeal to me although I imagine the younger visitor might appreciate it more. Personally I find it rather vulgar.
At some stage a planning application will have to be made at when comments from the general public will be sought, then is the time to support or oppose the scheme.
I can think of many more worthy causes where the money and resources would be better spent.
By: TempestV
- 17th May 2010 at 12:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
... but in general the types of building which suit aircraft (hangars) are often in keeping with their location - Newark's Lottery Assisted hangar being a prime example of a development adjacent to an airfield site.
Yeah, absolutely, and although this cost £XXX I bet it didn't cost £80M, and is perfectly fit for its purpose.
By: pagen01
- 17th May 2010 at 13:11Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Under the current facade there are two wonderful c.1920s double GS 'Belfast Truss' sheds, surely in this day and age when properties are generally reverting back to old appearences (witness the Restoration Man and many other old buildings programmes on TV) these should have their modern facades removed, and returned to their former glory.
A moderm twist could be the addition of a large clear suspended roof arrangement, which could be designed to co-exist with these hangars and the other historic buildings on site, such as the Grahame White hangar and the watch office. It shouldn't be forgotten that this is an aviation site that goes back to the late 1800s, never mind the idea of hanging up rare Battle of Britain era aircraft.
You don't need glass towers to win awards, look at our sports stadiums, the Eden Project, and other modern designs, all ground breaking, but practical with it.
Encompass the old and classic with the bold and new, and awards can still be won, if that's what they are after.
The USAF museum at Duxford is a good example, it isn't intrusive, not towering, most aircraft are on the ground, and it is beautifully light and well laid out inside.
Can you imagine what this tower will look like after a few years of completion, when there are no funds to clean the glass, paint the frames and dust off the aircraft!
By: dant
- 17th May 2010 at 13:37Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As the three pages on this thread attest it doesn't take much to see that the vision hasn't been clearly thought through.
The figures simply don't stack up when you take into account other recent museum projects such as Duxford Airspace (£25m), Cosford Cold War (£12.5m) and even the IWM North which was budgeted at £40m but cut back to £28.5m after they couldn't secure lottery money.
They will have a very tough time trying to secure the finance and in these prudent, risk adverse times as funding would typically come from a variety of sources such as the European Regional Development Fund, Regional Development Agency, HLF, Local council, the RAF Museum Trust, public & private donation.
As reported it's a consultation exercise and really just headline grabbing to gauge public opinion. It's obvious that it's never going to happen at least in this form.
I don't have a problem with £60m shaved off the budget ;)
Posts: 1,988
By: jeepman - 16th May 2010 at 13:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I think thats exactly what he is saying, David, and he then goes on to compare it with the Superhangar/Airspace which was significantly increased in size.
I think my whole argument over this idea is the extent to which the function is overtaken by the architectural flight of fancy. The sad fact is that it is probably impossible to raise £80m for a more sympathetic building.
Recall that the designers at Cosford delivered a building where there is a danger of knocking yourself senseless on the structure as soon as you walk through the main entrance. In addition you cannot stand back and get a single clear view of any or all of the three V-Bombers. All you see is a bit at anyone time. In addition you actually almost miss the Canberra and Meteor they are so far out of sight.
If this makes me one of Moggy's "chorus of gainsayers with mealy-mouthed criticism" so be it. Most of the critisism hasn't been mealy-mouthed though - it has been quite the opposite. Perhaps we should call it the Marmite Tower................
Posts: 8,505
By: mike currill - 16th May 2010 at 13:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Only just read this thread and agree with all the negative comments on it. So a lot of the locals are against it? That shoould come as no surprise to anyone with more than one brain cell. They have my support as well.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 16th May 2010 at 15:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yes, I certainly agree with you on that point and your comments about Hendon not being given a ‘pot of money’ are well founded.
Architecture, especially ‘landmark’ architecture, is happily one area where Britain still has an excellent international reputation, look at the Millau Viaduct for example; any British involvement in such a high-profile French project (that would never get the go-ahead in Britain) speaks volumes I think!
I am sure that the architecture of the Battle-of-Britain Beacon is equally spectacular but, as any architect will tell you, the environment you place it in is as important as the building itself and the impact of the Beacon will be greatly diminished by being placed in built-up Hendon (and all of the graphics are careful to omit most existing structures). Also I think this is one of the great problems with Hendon being the ‘spiritual’ home of the RAF and the site for a museum; few international tourists know where it is and for a while Hendon was branded as RAF Museum London.
My other major objection to the Beacon (like the title of the BBMF) is that it only honors the Battle-of-Britain period and not the RAF as a whole; is this some revisionist reinterpretation of our history in that the only period where Britain was definitely the ‘good guys’ and therefore the only period that is to be celebrated!
Posts: 660
By: 25deg south - 16th May 2010 at 17:46 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"Hendon being the ‘spiritual’ home of the RAF"
An interesting point of view.
I spent many happy times in the late 60's and early 70's as a young Junior Officer in the
"No. 1 Officers' Mess of the Royal Air Force"
It was demolished without ceremony not so very long ago and , no, it wasn't at Hendon.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 16th May 2010 at 19:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I’m sure I’ve heard Hendon (amongst other places) described as such...
...well, if not the ‘spiritual home’, Hendon certainly was (and possibly remains) the ‘public relations’ home of the RAF.
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 16th May 2010 at 21:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Maybe not that brilliant at displaying aircraft, but with the suspended airframes viewable from almost every angle probably better than anything we have at present.
But it isn't an 'aircraft museum' It is a museum of the RAF. A very different thing.
Moggy
Posts: 55
By: buccaneernut - 16th May 2010 at 21:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does anyone know where this £80m is coming from? If i have missed it on an earlier post then i apologise.
The BOB memorial by the thames and Capel Le Ferne are fitting memorials, and they was made up of charitable donations i believe, there was no large scale funding such as this. I believe that memorial on the thames and also the one at Capel le ferne sum up everything and make one contemplate what people fought and died for. This memorial is a waste of money and the money could be better spent instead of this modern art.
As stated somewhere else, this money could be spent on improving buildings on the site and really improve Hendon and be a focul point for the RAF. As stated it is the RAF Museum.
Posts: 6,044
By: bazv - 16th May 2010 at 22:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We must live in a parallel universe Moggy ...the last time I visited Hendon I could have sworn it was absolutely full of old aircraft :D
I know we cannot see all of the exhibits ,because some bu99er keeps turning the lights off :D
I am not a great fan of suspending a/c,but you still need large open areas to do that and our recent 'Landmark' museum buildings simply do not have enough !
One of our fellow forumites described the monstrosity at Cosford as looking like a 'Fallen down Hangar'...I certainly would not argue with that LOL
Posts: 16,832
By: Moggy C - 16th May 2010 at 22:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
*yawn*
Amazing, nobody has ever mentioned that before.
Moggy
By: Anonymous - 16th May 2010 at 22:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Isn't that the whole point?
Its a beacon!
OED: Beacon: Fire or light set up in a high or prominent position.....
Once they light up that baby there will be enough Lumens, I should reckon, to light up all of Hendon and Colindale, let alone the museum.
No need to complain about the lighting ever again.
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 16th May 2010 at 22:50 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Someone is missing from this thread - anyone seen JDK recently?!
Posts: 1,494
By: TempestV - 17th May 2010 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Saving money
In these times of trying to save money and fill the £100+ Billion black hole in UK Gov. finances, let alone the hidden debt on the public's credit cards, etc. why does every new architectural statement building cost £40M here, £80M there???
It just smacks of vulgar over indulgence.
We live in the UK. Its classed as a wet environment. Ideally you keep aircraft indoors. Does it really cost that amount to build a new T2 hangar (or similar) that could comfortably contain loads of airframes and an educational centre.
However something like this is funded, either through the Lottery, fundraising, or loans, ultimately its our money they are spending.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 17th May 2010 at 12:33 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
According to the Telegraph the money is to be ‘secured through private funding and there are several interested parties’.
Isn’t £80 million quite a lot of money to be raised in this way; and what’s in it for these interested parties? Surely they’ll want something back for such a large ‘donation’?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/7723210/Giant-380ft-beacon-planned-to-commemorate-Battle-of-Britain.html
Posts: 9,780
By: David Burke - 17th May 2010 at 12:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
David - there is now a perception in this country that no matter what design put forward for an aircraft museum -it needs to be either 'groundbreaking' or
'interpretative' - possibly the same principles used by some of the 1960's shopping centre designers which are now being reviewed and in some cases knocked down!
I am very much of the mind that people principally go to aircraft museums to see the aircraft and not the buildings ! To me a design which pretty much encompasses the shape and structure of a hangar is not necessarily a bad thing when housing an aircraft . Maybe if the positioning of it was in central London it might raise a few eyebrows but in general the types of building which suit aircraft (hangars) are often in keeping with their location - Newark's Lottery Assisted hangar being a prime example of a development adjacent to an airfield site.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 17th May 2010 at 12:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The architects are Feilden Clegg Bradley Studios, who designed the 'Divided World' hangar at Cosford, by the way.
Posts: 1,219
By: pogno - 17th May 2010 at 12:39 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
My personal preference for the display of aircraft is for them to be parked in a hangar with enough space to walk around them, as if they were just there waiting to be wheeled out and flown.
This proposal for Hendon does not appeal to me although I imagine the younger visitor might appreciate it more. Personally I find it rather vulgar.
At some stage a planning application will have to be made at when comments from the general public will be sought, then is the time to support or oppose the scheme.
I can think of many more worthy causes where the money and resources would be better spent.
Richard
Posts: 1,494
By: TempestV - 17th May 2010 at 12:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah, absolutely, and although this cost £XXX I bet it didn't cost £80M, and is perfectly fit for its purpose.
Posts: 9,739
By: Creaking Door - 17th May 2010 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
But it isn't likely to win any design awards either! :diablo:
Posts: 10,647
By: pagen01 - 17th May 2010 at 13:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Under the current facade there are two wonderful c.1920s double GS 'Belfast Truss' sheds, surely in this day and age when properties are generally reverting back to old appearences (witness the Restoration Man and many other old buildings programmes on TV) these should have their modern facades removed, and returned to their former glory.
A moderm twist could be the addition of a large clear suspended roof arrangement, which could be designed to co-exist with these hangars and the other historic buildings on site, such as the Grahame White hangar and the watch office. It shouldn't be forgotten that this is an aviation site that goes back to the late 1800s, never mind the idea of hanging up rare Battle of Britain era aircraft.
You don't need glass towers to win awards, look at our sports stadiums, the Eden Project, and other modern designs, all ground breaking, but practical with it.
Encompass the old and classic with the bold and new, and awards can still be won, if that's what they are after.
The USAF museum at Duxford is a good example, it isn't intrusive, not towering, most aircraft are on the ground, and it is beautifully light and well laid out inside.
Can you imagine what this tower will look like after a few years of completion, when there are no funds to clean the glass, paint the frames and dust off the aircraft!
Posts: 35
By: dant - 17th May 2010 at 13:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
As the three pages on this thread attest it doesn't take much to see that the vision hasn't been clearly thought through.
The figures simply don't stack up when you take into account other recent museum projects such as Duxford Airspace (£25m), Cosford Cold War (£12.5m) and even the IWM North which was budgeted at £40m but cut back to £28.5m after they couldn't secure lottery money.
They will have a very tough time trying to secure the finance and in these prudent, risk adverse times as funding would typically come from a variety of sources such as the European Regional Development Fund, Regional Development Agency, HLF, Local council, the RAF Museum Trust, public & private donation.
As reported it's a consultation exercise and really just headline grabbing to gauge public opinion. It's obvious that it's never going to happen at least in this form.
I don't have a problem with £60m shaved off the budget ;)