ONE of the former keepers of the Burrell Collection has raised concerns of the £66m revamp of the world-famous Glasgow museum.
Richard Marks, keeper of the collection and assistant director of Glasgow Museums between 1979 and 1985, now professor at the Department of the History of Art at the University of Cambridge, raised a series of concerns about the redevelopment in the Architects' Journal.
His comments follow that of John Meunier, one of the architects behind the building, who said the redesign should not "mess around" with the original.
The building, which opened in Glasgow's Pollok Park in 1983, was designed by Mr Meunier, Barry Gasson and Brit Andresen.
The £66m restoration, led by architects John McAslan + Partners, will expand the building's available floor space, allowing 90% of the museum's 9,000-item collection to be displayed.
It will also introduce a new entrance to replace the current one, and open up the basement to the public.
Professor Marks said that although the revamp proposals "do not look as drastic as I feared", he is concerned that the "proposed new south entrance disrupts the integrity of the overall design."
He added: "Moreover it removes the only area where the large stained glass panels can be displayed in toto (there was no area designated for these panels originally, but one settled on by Barry and I for this reason).
"As far as I can see the new entrance involves the destruction of the reconstituted Hutton Castle Dining Room: not only would it ruin the symmetry of the trio of Hutton rooms, but also abrogate Burrell’s stipulation that all three should be incorporated with their fittings and furnishings - unless of course the Trustees regrettably have agreed to the proposal."
He adds: "As for the existing entrance arm, I disagree that it is unwelcoming; if there are problems with the internal flow surely the solution is an internal reorganisation of some of the furnishings?
"Fundamentally the problem from the point of view of visitor numbers is the location in Pollok Park – and that will not I suspect go away by tinkering with the exterior."
Professor Alan Dunlop, the Scottish architect and academic, said: "I understood that John Meunier and Brit Andresen, were being consulted throughout, so thought both must have agreed to the changes.
"I considered that strange, for what was being proposed looked crass to me and unequivocally against the ideas behind the original design.
"Apparently, however the architects and Glasgow Life were ignoring his comments and recommendations.
"I contacted John Meunier and a few colleagues, all respected architects and academics to obtained their views.
"All felt the same.
"We want this properly debated before real damage is done to a A-Listed building of true international stature."
Previously it had emerged that Paddy Pugh, director of conservation and planning at McAslan, had responded to Mr Meunier's comments.
He said: "We have the utmost respect for the building and have, as you know, taken a great deal of care to understand its design intent and significance.
"There is no doubt in our minds that The Burrell fully deserves its recognition and status as a Category A listed building."
He said the "visitor and curatorial expectations of public cultural buildings" had changed significantly over the almost 40 years since the building was designed.
He added: "Glasgow Life and The Burrell Renaissance, as custodians for both the building and the Collection, are absolutely convinced that changes to the gallery and display of objects are required in order to reverse that decline.
"Beyond repairing/replacing the roofs, facades and building services, the principle architectural changes are designed to improve access into and around the building."
A spokeswoman for Glasgow Life, said: “Glasgow Life and John McAslan + Partners met with Richard Marks in February this year to consider the Burrell Collection and some of the challenges faced as part of the project. We are also engaging with John Meunier and hope to meet with him next week to discuss his views.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here