Glasgow Guide Home

Whats On Glasgow Guide
  Glasgow What's On


    Glasgow Reviews


    Glasgow Gallery


      Glasgow Links
Discuss | Guestbook | Postcard | News | Weather | Feedback | Search | About | What's New
Glasgow Guide Discussion Boards

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )                >> View Today's Topics <<

34 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Glasgow To Lose Burrell Collection, Sir William Burrell's wishes to be discarded
Betsy2009
post 16th Sep 2013, 11:06pm
Post #46

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 3,292
Joined: 21st Jun 2013
Member No.: 25,701
Perhaps it's because all the builders are so busy building small council houses that they won't be able to start the job for 4 years?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
carmella
post 16th Sep 2013, 11:34pm
Post #47


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 5,404
Joined: 28th Jul 2003
From: South Ayrshire
Member No.: 58
I agree with what GG has said, and also the building itself whilst it was specifically built to house the collection. I often wondered at the wisdom of where the building is - it's handy if you're coming into Glasgow from the south of course, but had it been nearer the art gallery and museum, I do think more people would have had access.


--------------------
It is possible to fail in many ways...while to succeed is possible only in one way.
- Aristotle
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ashfield
post 17th Sep 2013, 07:27am
Post #48


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 8,516
Joined: 3rd Mar 2009
From: Brigadoon
Member No.: 6,611
Carmella, I think there was a condition that the collection had to be housed away from the city centre (15 miles?). The current location was a compromise as I remember it.

I am totally in agreement with previous posts, it's an outrage that there is any thought of lending the collection. What they should be doing is finding a solution that allows it to remain on public view.


--------------------
If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans (Woody Allen)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RonD
post 17th Sep 2013, 12:56pm
Post #49


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 6,147
Joined: 2nd Jan 2006
From: Northeast of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Member No.: 2,783
Is it jut me or am I missing something. The beginning of this thread was 2003 ...ten years ago and we are still discussing it. The five years to remodel or refurbish the building has gone by twice and going by inflation it could have been done for less than 45 million and our discussion would be moot. Also it should not be shipped abroad as requested by the benefactor or his wishes manipulated by some city MBA to line the council coffers. They wanted the Commonwealth games please lets hope they had a solid plan for financing beyond this "maybe if" concept.


--------------------
Bad luck, emotional blackmail, soppy sentiments, no matter what ! The chain letter stops here!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jupiter
post 17th Sep 2013, 01:02pm
Post #50

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 4,104
Joined: 27th Oct 2009
From: Home in the`burbs.
Member No.: 7,675
Ron as I mentioned in an earlier post I was in the place 97-98 and leaks and water ingress were an issue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rab
post 17th Sep 2013, 01:07pm
Post #51


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 11,356
Joined: 17th Aug 2012
From: STILL opposite the Golf Club!.
Member No.: 13,266
QUOTE (RonD @ 17th Sep 2013, 01:54pm) *
Is it jut me or am I missing something. The beginning of this thread was 2003 ...ten years ago and we are still discussing it. The five years to remodel or refurbish the building has gone by twice and going by inflation it could have been done for less than 45 million and our discussion would be moot. Also it should not be shipped abroad as requested by the benefactor or his wishes manipulated by some city MBA to line the council coffers. They wanted the Commonwealth games please lets hope they had a solid plan for financing beyond this "maybe if" concept.

Ron according to the thread start it reads 15th Sept. 2013!


--------------------
Back to using my original name... Rab
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
norrie123
post 17th Sep 2013, 01:39pm
Post #52


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 4,905
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
From: rutherglen
Member No.: 2,552
Hi Rab, I didn't want to be the one who brought this up but I to was under the impression that this idea has been on the go for years and am sure it was on this site

Bye for now, norrie.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ashfield
post 17th Sep 2013, 03:20pm
Post #53


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 8,516
Joined: 3rd Mar 2009
From: Brigadoon
Member No.: 6,611
QUOTE (RonD @ 17th Sep 2013, 01:54pm) *
Is it jut me or am I missing something. The beginning of this thread was 2003 ...ten years ago

Ron, have another look. I think you have been looking at the time of day that the first post was made.


--------------------
If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans (Woody Allen)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Scotsman
post 17th Sep 2013, 04:49pm
Post #54


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 1,279
Joined: 22nd Jan 2007
From: Edinburgh Road
Member No.: 4,353
I can remember the leaking roof and buckets on the floor when I last visited and that must have been before 2000. Why has nothing been done about it until now and why is it going to take a fantastic sum like 45M to do it.... like other people I would like some answers if its going to be my money that is going to fund this!!

There are cutbacks year after year but now they say they can find 45M. rolleyes.gif Something is not right about this and why is it only now that we have heard about it?? Why was there no consultation.... in this modern age it would have been easy for the council to ask for opinions on the web. Maybe they might not like what they would hear so they decided not to do it??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ashfield
post 17th Sep 2013, 05:00pm
Post #55


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 8,516
Joined: 3rd Mar 2009
From: Brigadoon
Member No.: 6,611
QUOTE (Scotsman @ 17th Sep 2013, 05:47pm) *
There are cutbacks year after year but now they say they can find 45M. rolleyes.gif

Perhaps the rental on the Burrell collection works out about 9m a year eyebrow.gif


--------------------
If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans (Woody Allen)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
norrie123
post 17th Sep 2013, 06:44pm
Post #56


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 4,905
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
From: rutherglen
Member No.: 2,552
Hi Ashfield, I didn't realise Glasgow had to rent the Burrell Museum, thats a hefty rental
If its rented, why should Glasgow repair it
Does Glasgow own Kelvin Hall?

Bye for now, norrie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ashfield
post 17th Sep 2013, 07:13pm
Post #57


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 8,516
Joined: 3rd Mar 2009
From: Brigadoon
Member No.: 6,611
Sorry Norrie, I meant the income from other museums for hiring the exhibits.


--------------------
If you want to make God laugh, tell him about your plans (Woody Allen)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GG
post 17th Sep 2013, 08:15pm
Post #58


Administrator
Group Icon
Posts: 9,121
Joined: 25th Jul 2003
From: Glasgow
Member No.: 1
QUOTE (carmella @ 16th Sep 2013, 10:06pm) *
I am actually surprised that they are being allowed to feed the media and the public these stories - I think this is rubbish about the roof repairs and the 45 million how can they possibly justify this, has anyone taken them to task, or is it just the case that because they are who they are, they get carte blanche to do whatever they want, and justify it by whatever means they want.

I think that this is such a serious matter i.e. the roof and the cost involved, that it should be referred to a higher authority, and asked why the roof was not maintained properly all these years. I recall when the building was built, and it was state of the art, custom built to house the collection which was the same size then as it is now, so why all of a sudden is it deemed insufficient and in need of a further 45 million???

My mind is having a hard time accepting what we've been told to be honest.

You're not the only one, Carmella! Both your points – the delay in fixing the roof and the 45 million price tag for revamping – raised eyebrows with members of the Scottish Parliament committee during the initial hearing last week.

Here's the exchange between Gordon MacDonald, Bridget McConnell and Archie Graham. There may be a bit of politicking going on in the background: MacDonald is an SNP MSP; Graham is a Labour councillor and husband of the current Scottish Labour leader; McConnell is the wife of a former Scottish Labour leader. Even so, and politics aside, I think the council and Glasgow Life have raised more questions than they have provided answers. The full document is available here.

QUOTE
Gordon MacDonald: Over the past 30 years, if my understanding is correct, there has been a problem with the roof. Mark O’Neill, head of arts and museums, said in the 2007-08 Glasgow museums annual accreditation report: “the Burrell Collection’s roof ... has leaked almost since it was built”.

You say that you have spent 400 million over the past 20 years investing in museums in the Glasgow area. Why have you not resolved the problem with the Burrell collection roof, given that it has been a problem almost since the day it opened?

Bridget McConnell: There are two reasons. First, we have to make priorities, and I shall come back to that in a moment. We had similar, if not worse, conditions at Kelvingrove and in the Kelvin hall, where the museum of transport was housed and its collections were regularly flooded. When we had to make priority decisions, as long as we were able to fix problems and protect items at the time, that is what we did.

The other reason is that it is dramatically complex. I am not a technician or an architect, so I do not understand the reasons, but I know that we have recently had experts in from Belgium and from all over the world whose view is that the travel of water in the roof is remarkable, and it seems that their solution is to take the roof off and do it again.

The very first thing that I said was about the importance of culture for the city. You know about the process of grant-aided settlement, where there is an assumption about how much an area needs to fund a museums service. In our grant-aided settlement from Government to the city, we get approximately 18 per head of population to spend on museums. The city actually spends, and has been spending, 27 per head, and that has to come from its overall grant and from council tax. It is a double-edged sword; those who are not interested in culture could say that that is not a great thing, and those who are could say that it is. The city’s assessment, with a wide range of views within the council, is that culture and museums are important for the economic and social vitality of the city, not to mention its obligations to those who have left collections to it and to preserve collections for humanity.

I hope that I am answering your question. What I am saying is that we have had to make priorities and that we already spend more money than we could reasonably be expected to spend. The roof at Kelvingrove and the damage to the collections in the basement of the Kelvin hall transport museum were right at the top of the risk assessment.

There is another thing that the city’s audit committee asked me to mention if I had the opportunity. We have a detailed risk programme, and those other museums would have been right at the top in other years. At the moment, the Burrell museum is our number 1 risk. It has come up behind the other ones, but it is the number 1 risk at the moment.

Gordon MacDonald: I understand that there are competing priorities, but 400 million is a substantial sum to invest in museums—

Bridget McConnell: Sorry, but that was for culture, so it includes music and concert halls.

Gordon MacDonald: Okay, but your venue development strategy document, which was produced in July 2001, said that the Burrell collection was “in urgent need of attention.” It continued: “The cost of replacing these roof areas is estimated at 1.75 million.”

When included with upgrade to plant, retail areas and display and exhibition areas, the cost was “likely to be in the region of 4 to 5 million.” That sum was included in the capital investment priorities covering 2001 to 2005 for the year 2004-05, so why did that not go ahead?

Bridget McConnell: Those were the city’s capital priorities, so that sat alongside capital priorities such as building care homes and dealing with schools with leaking roofs and other problems. There was some investment to ensure that the collections were protected as far as possible, but there were competing priorities. Within the capital investment budgets that we are talking about, the city had to make decisions in the context of considering how much to spend on roads, education, social work and culture. The issue was not just priority within the culture budget but priority within the overall capital programme, and that remains the case. The council has a capital programme. As members will imagine, there is a wish list of probably billions of pounds of measures, but the council has to make decisions on what it can afford and what is a priority at the time.

Gordon MacDonald: I understand that there are competing priorities. You say that there is a wish list. The gallery is due to close from 2016 to
2020. The refurbishment is on the wish list, but how much of it is a priority, bearing in mind that previous plans did not come to fruition? How much is it expected to cost to refurbish the gallery during 2016 to 2020 and what will that involve? Is it just a matter of fixing the roof and tidying up the displays, or is it a lot more substantial than that?

Archie Graham: I will talk about the priority issue and then Bridget McConnell can come back in. We have a notional figure of 45 million to do the job properly. We hope that we might be able to persuade the lottery to provide 15 million of that. The council intends to put 15 million into the pot, and we hope to raise the other 15 million through sponsorship and fundraising. We would normally establish a trust, as we did with the Riverside museum and the Kelvingrove museum and art gallery to raise funds.

We are talking about raising a third of the money from the lottery, a third from the council and a third from fundraising. It is clear that we cannot continue with a sticking-plaster approach. Although we have spent 3 million on the building, staff are going around with buckets because of water ingress. In my opinion, the roof is clearly a case of bad design. We need to do the job properly. It is a major priority for the council to invest in and we are committed to providing that
15 million.

GG.


--------------------
Help: Register :: Login :: Forgot password? :: gg@glasgowguide.co.uk
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Betsy2009
post 17th Sep 2013, 08:30pm
Post #59

Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 3,292
Joined: 21st Jun 2013
Member No.: 25,701
I wonder how much was paid to the architect who designed it. Surely he would also be responsible if the building leaked so early after completion? It's also true that if problems are left they will cost more to repair. What is wrong with them??????
When will councils be elected on the grounds of common sense?
Give an old fashioned housewife the budget and you'll see a huge improvement in managing the money.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
norrie123
post 17th Sep 2013, 08:43pm
Post #60


Mega City Key Holder
******
Posts: 4,905
Joined: 29th Oct 2005
From: rutherglen
Member No.: 2,552
Hi ashfield, my mistake

Bye for now, norrie
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

34 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Fast ReplyReply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th Feb 2020

All material in the site Glasgow Guide is copyright of the Glasgow Guide Organisation. This material is for your own private use only, and no part of the site may be reproduced, amended, modified, copied, or transmitted to third parties, by any means whatsoever without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. All rights reserved.

Glasgow Hotels: book cheap hotels in Glasgow online now.