Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Glasgow To Lose Burrell Collection
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Glasgow News Blog
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
GG
It was all supposed to be so different. When Stephen Purcell, the former leader of Glasgow City Council, created Glasgow Life on April Fool's Day in 2007*, he boasted that transferring the management of the city's cultural assets to a private company would benefit Glasgow. Since then, Glaswegians have experienced a reduction in opening hours at our museums and libraries, suffered rising prices at our leisure venues, and had to endure the introduction of entrance fees to exhibitions ... even when those exhibitions consisted mainly of works owned by us.

Last week, however, bosses at Glasgow Life went a step further in imperilling the proud reputation of our great city when they formally petitioned the Scottish government to overturn the unambiguous wishes of Sir William Burrell regarding his generously bequeathed collection. Councillor Archie Graham and Glasgow Life boss Bridget McConnell visited Holyrood to ask the Scottish government to sideline Sir William's deed of covenant that stated clearly that the Burrell Collection should not be broken up and sent abroad.

Missing the main point regarding breaking up the internationally-renowned collection, Graham and McConnell argued that Sir William could not possibly have foreseen the advent of air freight transporation. The two Glasgow Life bosses put forward the most tenuous of cases in spite of the fact that Sir William clearly re-stated and reinforced in a 1953 codicil the conditions of his bequest after he discovered that the council had sent two paintings from the collection to Switzerland – against his written will. In response to the council's (then corporation’s) flagrant disregard of Sir William's wishes, the highly-successful shipping magnate and entrepreneur wrote:

QUOTE
''The Memorandum of Agreement with the Corporation only gives permission to lend items from the collection to any public gallery in Great Britain. That stipulation was made to safeguard the items from damage. Had I known in time it would not have been allowed. It mustn't occur again.''

For its part, the council subsequently gave Sir William an unqualified assurance that ''in view of your strongly expressed attitude to lending you may be assured there will be no further loans overseas, and that requests for loans within Scotland and England will be closely scrutinized, but rarely granted.''

Now, however, using the pretext of the need for the Burrell Collection building in Pollok Park to undergo a ‘George Square-style revamp‘ – apparently there’s a leaky roof – Glasgow Life and council bosses claim that the 30-year-old building needs to be shut to the public for up to five years. During this time, Glasgow Life intends to tout the artefacts in the collection worldwide; thereafter, the company will transport priceless and vulnerable works of art to the highest bidders around the globe.

A growing list of international experts is now condemning Glasgow’s intentions, including Dr Nicholas Penny, the director of the National Gallery in London, who last week said that moving works of art had led to several major accidents, incidents and damage to works, many of which have not come to public attention. In response, Glasgow Life claimed that there had been no damage to any of the (non-Burrell) items shipped around the world in the last five years.

--
UPDATE 31/12/2014:
Youtube video remembering The Burrell Collection




GG.
Jupiter
What kind of people are we dealing with when they wish to break a contract ie the covenant made by the city and Sir William.Their arrogance is breathtaking.
If the building needs refurbishment by all means close it and get the work done but there should be no wriggle room when it comes to the collection.
I have to ask what legal power would the Scottish Govt have to make decisions of the type they are asking ?
I just remembered I visited the Burrell 97-98 when I was deployed on the M77 construction and I recall there were buckets placed about because of leaks.
I bought this piece as a momento.
fourbytwo
thumbup.gif ...."what kind of people are we dealing with...", surely by now you must know...
Gangsters, Thieves, Self-Opinionates, especially hand-picked so that they are more photo-genic than the old..."here for the people candidates".
Forming Council groups for personal profit as 'at arms length' but run as a Council Quango and without any access by 'Joe Public'
Allowed to give themselves large private salaries, and become 'self-important' posers, using every service the Council can provide, and of course if challenged on any matter, both personal and financial, use the full force of the Council's Legal Department to defend their actions....!
DOES THAT LET YOU KNOW WHAT PEOPLE YOU ARE DEALING WITH.....?
Betsy2009
When I was working in Kent I totally refurbished a building, with most staff still on site. The building was pretty much gutted on the inside and done anew, including all the plumbing, electrics (lots for the PCs, etc.), removing asbestos and so on. It was achieved by moving staff out of one section to another, doing the work then moving them back. The poor staff were moved quite a few times (you can imagine the headache that gave me!) but the point is that surely the collection could be stored safely or the work done in stages. The entire building (200 staff) was completed in under a year. Why do they need 5 years? It would be quicker to build a new one. Other than making money out of this, I don't understand their reasoning.
carmella
A Covenant should be upheld, what on earth are these people thinking about.

It is a true saying that 'money talks'. I've just heard about this and I'm disgusted.

The building housing the Burrell collection is supposed to be upgraded - mind you I didn't see anything wrong with it as it was, repairs are one thing entirely and obviously have to be carried on as and when required to safeguard this massive collection.

I often muse at the energy this man had in his willingness to collect, so much so, that a lot of it has still never been seen, and there is a constant recirculation of the stored items with the ones exhibited so that eventually we will see all of it.

Just amazing, and that's what I always tell people who have still not experienced the delights of this great collection.

I most certainly have voted in the 'no' camp, as it looks as if we all have.
Heather
I'm disgusted by this decision.

The Collection does not belong to the Council, it was gifted to the people of Glasgow.

After the mess the Council made of George Square, what faith could we have in them making a decent revamp of the building the Burrell Collection is in.

If the Council go ahead with this decision, will the full Collection ever be returned to Glasgow.

If the Countries the Collection go to pay for the loan, what do the Council intend to spend the money on, more overseas trips for themselves.

Why should it take five years to modernise the Building, especially when the Council have their own work force.
*Sandy Brown*
Come on folks, give the Scottish MPs some credibility - didn't they do a great deal with Donald Trump and a billion dollar deal for Aberdeen?
Sorry, my medication must be wearing off!
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE (Betsy2009 @ 15th Sep 2013, 03:10pm) *
Why do they need 5 years? ...
QUOTE
Other than making money out of this
... I don't understand their reasoning.

You've answered your own question Betsy.
To claim that the projected task will require 5 years gives Glasgow Life the excuse they need to make a bit of pocket-lining money under the guise of protecting the collection better by renting it out while the work is being carried out.
... in other words, a scam cool.gif .

QUOTE
Stained glass

The museum is home to one of the greatest assemblies of medieval stained glass in the world. There are more than 700 stained glass panels from across Europe in the collection, including many examples of Gothic, Renaissance and Romanesque styles.

In 2013 a project was commenced to conserve and research the museum's collection of stained glass from the Carmelite church at Boppard-am-Rhein, Germany. The 34 panels that make up the Burrell collection of Boppard windows have a combined surface area of 14 square metres.

I'd hate to be responsible for transporting that collection to a town on the Rhein.
Harrymc
What part of Sir William Burrell's instructions do these idiots not understand?
If there is such great interest in the collection then the rest of the world should visit Glasgow where there surely must be a building capable of housing the collection while the "leaky roof "is fixed.
It must be some size of a roof to take 5 years to repair it.Who has surveyed it and come to that conclusion?
It would also be interesting to know why the roof was ever allowed to deteriorate to such condition that a major operation is now required to restore it.
Who was asleep on the job???
frame
The Burrell Collection. I'm very ashamed to have to admit I've never seen it. From time to time down through the years I've heard it spoken of or discussed in some parts of the media.
Because of that I knew it was a huge collection of European and Asian artworks and artifacts collected by Sir Wiliam Burrell and bequeathed to the City of Glasgow..
I imagine that by giving his treasures to his city of birth, Sir William was holding the councilors of Glasgow to a sacred trust that they, and subsequent councilors, would hold the faith and under no circumstances, ever let the collection or any part of it leave Scotland.
Little did he know that less than 70 years later, two dimwits would come up with an idea to close the museum down and rent out the collection. Is that down to stupidity or just plain arrogance?
I hope the Scottish government refuse this request by Graham and McConnell and I hope they do it in a very harsh way
norrie123
Perhaps they are hoping to rise the cost of the refurb by lending the works of art to other museums, thats not to say they would get the total cost that way
Where would they get the money for a refurb, Scottish Government or Westminster?

Put it all into storage, along with the other works of art from the collection
I have only been once to The Burrell and wasnt impressed, mind you it was a long time ago, perhaps I should go soon



Bye for now, norrie
myagnes
Why not let the World see the Burrell Collection, one year when my Wife and I were home on holidays, we saw the Dead Sea scrolls at the Art Galleries, I say lend them out, LET GLASGOW FLOURISH
Jupiter
myagnes,the way I see it no one has the authority to lend them out.They were accepted for the people of Glasgow with certain conditions attached.Time doesnt erode these conditions.
twig64
Maybe the bill for the Commonwealth Games has come in. Time to get the family silver out!!
john.mcn
C'mon guys Bridget McConnell is paid a 6 figure salary so she must know what she's talking about.... ahem...
twig64
QUOTE (john.mcn @ 15th Sep 2013, 05:11pm) *
C'mon guys Bridget McConnell is paid a 6 figure salary so she must know what she's talking about.... ahem...

Don`t worry though. She`ll be replaced by someone equally talented when she quits after the Games......ahem..........Susan Deighan. ohmy.gif
chas1937
I stay next too Pollok Park and was at the opening of the Burrell when the Queen officially opened it.

If they could shut Kelvingrove Art Gallery and refurbished that then why need too shut for 5 years and move everything to who the hell knows where. Whole thing stinks of corruption and there will certainly be backhanders so folk can get items on loan albeit it's against Sir Williams will.

They are perfectly able to store everything in Glasgow and that's where it should stay. When you come too think of it the whole collection wasn't even supposed to have been placed anywhere near a certain amount of miles off Glasgow. If my memory is correct it was stored just of the Auchenhowie Rd near Milngavie
Jazzsaxman
My Son showed me something funny the other week when he typed in directions to Mordor using Google Maps. The answer Google maps gave was that one simply does not walk in to Mordor. Despite that it placed a pin on the map showing that Mordor was somewhere in Glasgow. I'm guessing the council headquarters and if that be the case then we know who Sauron is and who the Orcs are. Especially when they come up with this sort of nonsense. It just shows what happened when uneducated dimwits are put in charge of things. This is as bad as the idea to move the statues from George Square.
Albanach
It is downright dishonesty and betrayal of trust to accept a gift and with it the conditions made by the donor and then to renege on them when the donor is no longer with us. The people of Glasgow are the beneficiaries, not the politicians currently occupying the City Chambers and it seems that the people of Glasgow want their representative to respect William Burrell's wishes.

I wonder how future prospective donors will view the willingness of Glasgow's 'leaders' to disregard Wiilaim Burrell's conditions when making their bequests? We should be grateful that the Council's predecessors didn't have similar ideas when Kelvingrove Art Gallery was up for renovation!
DavidT
I was also at the opening of the Burrell. It means a lot to tourism in the south of Glasgow. It also means a lot to a lot of locals. Don't farm it out. Don't let it be split up, sent overseas, pilfered, siphoned, ruined or lost. I personally love the Burrell. I love the situation of it.
Some pics from a couple of years ago...
http://dtpicture.blogspot.co.uk/2011/11/bu...v-2011.html?m=1
Talisman
QUOTE (Harrymc @ 15th Sep 2013, 04:39pm) *
What part of Sir William Burrell's instructions do these idiots not understand?
If there is such great interest in the collection then the rest of the world should visit Glasgow where there surely must be a building capable of housing the collection while the "leaky roof "is fixed.
It must be some size of a roof to take 5 years to repair it.Who has surveyed it and come to that conclusion?
It would also be interesting to know why the roof was ever allowed to deteriorate to such condition that a major operation is now required to restore it.
Who was asleep on the job???

Please allow me to take you to task here for calling those responsible "IDIOTS". Idiots they are obviously not as they have succeeded where others have failed in robbing Glasgow of it's most prized cultural asset. There is no doubt also in my mind that there will be an element of private augmentation of funds finding their way into the pockets of these "Tribunes of the People". I well remember when the the tender was alloted to international competiotion to design appropriate housing for "Glasgowns own Collection", the council in its laboured wisdom decide to go ahead and have it's own miserable architectural failures design the building. The result was a "classical" pastiche of a pseudo Hellenic Pantheon wedding cake, ridiculed throughout the world as a bad joke in very poor taste. Who votes for these venal self serving mendicants anyway?
Mary
If they break up the famous collection then who is to say that they will ever put it back together again. This is a quite disgraceful turn of events even for a city where the thoughts of people are treated like dirt. Why is there no outcry in the media or from other politicians?
tarzan
Is anyone surprised? Does anyone think that Bridget McConnell, Purcell etc. have any interest in Glasgow?
Jupiter
I was wondering if Burrell has any descendants still living.It would be interesting if there were as Im sure their voice would lend a lot of weight when it comes to condemning these proposals.
I dont know anything of the original donation process but Im sure that Glasgow and its people were given the collection in perpetuity and that the Corporation as it was then were the guardians.Is there a fall back clause in the arrangement if it was said that in future years the corporation couldnt afford to house it they would rent it out.I dont think so.
I think Burrell will be Birrlinn at this stooshie.
*LizN*
I totally agree with Frame's comments in his last paragraph - I hope the Scottish Government come down hard on these people who want to break (or sideline) a covenant made IN GOOD FAITH many years ago. Whenever anything which government and/or councils used to own/run is privatised, then we all pay the expensive price for this, it's happened all over the world; just look at our utilities, public transport etc.

These private owners are only in it to top up their fat bank accounts and self-interest, not for the good of Glasgow, or anyone else. The Burrell Collection should stay in Glasgow, and if anyone wants Glasgow to prosper, then people can/will visit and bring their money to Glasgow.
Scots Kiwi Lass
On my last trip to my home town (2011), I was privileged to visit the Burrell Collection. It was an amazing experience and I could have done with another 2 or 3 visits. Just awesome!

Please, Glaswegians, don't let these priceless treasures out of the city. There is something very wrong with this proposal and I can only hope that common sense prevails and the building repairs are carried out systematically without any of the collection being removed. WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY.
Harrymc
QUOTE (Talisman @ 15th Sep 2013, 11:41pm) *
Please allow me to take you to task here for calling those responsible "IDIOTS". Idiots they are obviously not as they have succeeded where others have failed in robbing Glasgow of it's most prized cultural asset. There is no doubt also in my mind that there will be an element of private augmentation of funds finding their way into the pockets of these "Tribunes of the People". I well remember when the the tender was alloted to international competiotion to design appropriate housing for "Glasgowns own Collection", the council in its laboured wisdom decide to go ahead and have it's own miserable architectural failures design the building. The result was a "classical" pastiche of a pseudo Hellenic Pantheon wedding cake, ridiculed throughout the world as a bad joke in very poor taste. Who votes for these venal self serving mendicants anyway?

Harrymc
Thank you for your enlightened reply to my post.I was obviously being unkind to real IDIOTS by coferring such status upon these self serving .......(insert your own term here).
I am more than happy to accept your comment.
carmella
QUOTE (john.mcn @ 15th Sep 2013, 06:11pm) *
C'mon guys Bridget McConnell is paid a 6 figure salary so she must know what she's talking about.... ahem...

I had no idea this woman was so highly paid - well has she been sitting on the job or what, I wonder?

Large salaries don't equate to brains of course, or attention to detail!
Landales
I understand Glasgow needs money but I don't condone breaking covenants/contracts. I understand that if we loan some abroad then others may think I hope to see the rest of the collection so come over here as a tourist and get fleeced doing so.

I also have a problem with the fact they said it would take 5 years for refurbishment... Why? Did they get a quote from land services or is it because they're letting apprentices practice on the building of it?
DavidT
QUOTE (Mary @ 16th Sep 2013, 03:12am) *
If they break up the famous collection then who is to say that they will ever put it back together again. This is a quite disgraceful turn of events even for a city where the thoughts of people are treated like dirt. Why is there no outcry in the media or from other politicians?

I have to agree Mary. Didn't something like this happen to Mclellan's much smaller collection? Some of it is in Kelvingrove, some in the trades house, some in storage. I don't know if that accounts for the whole lot.
serabash
Maybe if we sack Bridget McConnell and her cronies we can save enough to cover the costs of keeping the collection together.
JAGZ1876
Enough public pressure may force them to have an about turn just like they did with the George Square debacle.
GG
QUOTE (twig64 @ 15th Sep 2013, 06:10pm) *
Maybe the bill for the Commonwealth Games has come in. Time to get the family silver out!!

laugh.gif I think there is certainly a risk that we will be paying for the Commonwealth Games for years to come – either directly or indirectly! However, Glasgow Life is actually looking for more money to revamp the Burrell building over a 4-5 year period. Incredibly, Councillor Archie Graham claims that it will cost 45 million to revamp the building ... that's more than double what it cost to build it in the first place!

GG.
GG
QUOTE (Jupiter @ 15th Sep 2013, 03:29pm) *
What kind of people are we dealing with when they wish to break a contract ie the covenant made by the city and Sir William.Their arrogance is breathtaking.
If the building needs refurbishment by all means close it and get the work done but there should be no wriggle room when it comes to the collection.
I have to ask what legal power would the Scottish Govt have to make decisions of the type they are asking ?
I just remembered I visited the Burrell 97-98 when I was deployed on the M77 construction and I recall there were buckets placed about because of leaks.
I bought this piece as a momento.

Nice piece, Jupiter. I hope it's not an original! wink.gif

The Scottish government has the legal authority to remove the restrictions on travel imposed in Sir 
William’s 1944 will and 1953 codicil. It requires formal legislation, which is to be considered by a committee of four MSPs, and that's currently taking place at Holyrood under the title 'Burrell Collection (Lending and Borrowing) Scotland Bill'. A preliminary decision on whether the Bill will be passed is not likely to be taken until November this year, with a final decision likely in January of next year. An initial report on the proceeding so far can be found as a PDF document here.

According to Councillor Graham, Glasgow City Council has already committed to contributing 15 million, and they hope to get a further 15 million from the National Lottery Fund ... but the real doubtful figure is that Glasgow Life think they will get the same amount, 15 million, in profits from commercial sponsors! I've no doubt whatsoever that the commercial sponsorship would not end if the Burrell Collection ever returned to Pollok Park, more likely it would be the thin end of the wedge, and that is something, I believe, that really should be put to the people of Glasgow ... or we might get a big McDonalds sign over the entrance to the Burrell in future! smile.gif

GG.
Jupiter
Thanks GG ,you have explained the powers the government possess ,I only hope that measures other than those proposed can be adopted.
norrie123
If Glasgow cant afford this collection it should be returned, if possible to any descendants of Burrell, yes I know, it will never happen 45 million to revamp the building, why not use the Kelvin Hall, as far as I am aware they are empty just now?
Bye for now, norrie
GG
Thanks Jupiter. I should have mentioned that the current parliamentary proceedings are an extension of a bitter and costly legal battle that the council had with the Burrell trustees and family in 1997. On that occasion, the council got a far from convincing victory from four Westminster parliamentary commissioners in their fight to overturn Sir William's wishes. The next stage was supposed to be what is known as an order confirmation bill from Westminster, presumably to put the decision into a legal framework, but I suppose that fell by the wayside with the formation of the Scottish parliament.

Anyway, notable from that 1997 decision was the reaction of the Burrell family. Following the decision, Ruth Mackenzie, then 87, Sir William's niece and oldest living relative and one of the few people still alive at that time who knew the shipping magnate well, said:
QUOTE
"This decision is completely contrary to what was in the will. And we all feel that it is wrong to break the will and split the collection.

It is going to set a very bad precedent for other collections and people who want to donate works of art. Ethically it is just wrong and Sir William would be truly horrified. I feel very let down by Glasgow council who have broken their word: what could be worse than that."

During the proceedings, Ms Mackenzie had made this heartfelt plea:
QUOTE
"It's a matter of honour, a question of if you honour your commitment or not. The council gave its word that it would honour his wishes but it has now done its best to overturn them.

I used to visit Uncle William at Hutton Castle with my mother. She was his youngest and favourite sister. They built up quite a bit of the collection together while travelling on the continent, they used to hunt as a pair.

He would be furious if he knew what the council is doing. I don't think he would have given it to Glasgow if he knew this would happen, he would have given it to someone he could have trusted, perhaps Edinburgh as the capital, I think.

He would have thought the money spent on this hearing [from the Burrell trust] would have been better spent adding to the collection."

GG.
Jupiter
That statement in my opinion should be all that is required to put the brakes on the proposals.This is the complete answer to the point I made in an earlier post re family wishes.GG thanks for taking the time to look into this.
Dylan
I took my children regularly when they were young.

A National Treasure with treasures !

Five years for required building work.?

Who are they trying to kid. Surely this could be easily exposed !!
Billbhein
Why not compromise; Close down the City Chambers for five years and send the occupants to the four corners of the earth on loan. Hopefully most of them would be lost to the city forever, as would the Burrell Collection if these people get their own way.

Billbhein
GG
QUOTE (Talisman @ 16th Sep 2013, 12:41am) *
Please allow me to take you to task here for calling those responsible "IDIOTS". Idiots they are obviously not as they have succeeded where others have failed in robbing Glasgow of it's most prized cultural asset. ...

I would have to agree with you, Talisman and HarryMc. We are not dealing with idiots here – although we may be angry with their decisions – these people are far from idiots; on the contrary, they are calculating, patient and intelligent, knowing how to influence the levers of power while, at the same time, muting the opposition. Worrying times for Glasgow.

GG.
carmella
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.
Doug1
I dont personally care what they do with the building but the Burrell collection must surely be kept intact, is that not what Sir William wanted. Had space been available I would have loved to see it either in or adjacent to the Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum where it would have been accessed by far more visitors in a more central city location.
GG
Regarding the very real dangers the Burrell Collection will face during any transportation process – including the “put in condition” procedure prior to moving objects – anyone with an interest should read the following informative ArtWatch article:

Protecting the Burrell Collection ~ A Blast against Risk-Deniers
http://artwatchuk.wordpress.com/2013/09/06/6-september-2013

The article concludes with this highly-pertinent warning:
QUOTE
[...] Burrell be warned. Awful as recent “developments” at the Phillips have been, the United States has witnessed an even greater betrayal of a bequest: the wresting of the entire contents of the Barnes Collection from its, also bequested, delightful purpose-built original home and grounds, in order to place it in a worse than awful modernist pile a few miles away, hard by a noisy polluting freeway in the centre of Philadelphia. The denouement of the Barnes Bequest hike began (as is proposed at the Burrell) with a vast international travelling exhibition. At the Barnes, as now at the Burrell, the jaunt was premised on the morally-coercive “conservation” justification of putting the building itself “into condition” on behalf of the great collection of works. Humbug has rarely appeared so rank. The specially commissioned “site specific” Matisse mural was detached from the walls of the museum, packed on a flat-bed, open truck – against all reassuring conservation-compatible promises – and carried at an angle (see photographs, right) to Washington. Nick Tinari, who is to submit testimony to the Burrell Inquiry, has informed ArtWatch “I can state unequivocally that damage was done on the tour to the Matisse mural, the Seurat Models and a Picasso. I have documentation for all three.” Tinari further points out that, as with the intended Burrell tour, the Barnes tour – which netted $7m – breached the benefactor’s express prohibition on foreign loans. Far from serving to make the collection safe, that earlier exercise paved the way to a full takeover. More generally, it served as a template for trustees everywhere who might wish to harvest cash value that is otherwise locked into permanently housed works of art.

Clearly, Dr Penny’s intervention addresses much more than the welfare of the Burrell Collection, precious and vulnerable though it is. It is greatly to Penny’s credit that he should have spoken in such frank (and brave) terms. It is also greatly to the credit of the Scottish Parliament that it should be engaging in such an open exercise before another art world horse may be induced to bolt.

My personal opinion is that the breaking up of the collection is not simply an event, rather, it is the start of a wider process – similar to that which transformed the Barnes Collection – which will fundamentally alter the Burrell Collection in ways we cannot yet envisage.

GG.
Betsy2009
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?
carmella
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.
ashfield
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.
RonD
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.
Jupiter
Ron as I mentioned in an earlier post I was in the place 97-98 and leaks and water ingress were an issue.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.