The Museum and its Street Scene Options

[Simon Kirby]

The Museum is nearly finished.


The new glass bit looks good to me, but the clutter and tat in the street scene really detract - I'm not talking about the temporary barriers, I'm talking about the bollards, signs, and posts - I count 10 pieces of street furniture right outside the museum, and there is sheds loads more around the place. I know it's a provocative thing to post on here, but I really don't like all that noise and for me it makes the new museum and the town generally look cheap and scruffy.

[x2lls]

The Museum is nearly finished.


The new glass bit looks good to me, but the clutter and tat in the street scene really detract - I'm not talking about the temporary barriers, I'm talking about the bollards, signs, and posts - I count 10 pieces of street furniture right outside the museum, and there is sheds loads more around the place. I know it's a provocative thing to post on here, but I really don't like all that noise and for me it makes the new museum and the town generally look cheap and scruffy.

All that stuff has been around for yonks, so why is it a problem now?
My concern is what goes back in. The previous displays were well laid out, and it wasn't just what was visible.
I wanted some old photographs of my house/road about five years ago. The lady at the desk was very helpful. She disappeared for about fifteen minutes and came back with just what I wanted. Will that still be achievable when the place is reopened?

[Sherlock]

The Museum is nearly finished.


The new glass bit looks good to me

Agree re. the new glass bit (and the clutter). Here's the ghastly infill the former replaced.

Attached File(s)

 museum.JPG ( 17.65K ) Number of downloads: 36

 

[Simon Kirby]

All that stuff has been around for yonks, so why is it a problem now?

When the old infill was so horrid it didn't much matter if the street looked scruffy too, but with a very presentable in-filll setting off the decent traditional building the crapulence of the street scene now dominates.

[On the edge]

Agreed, I think the architects have done a pretty good job. In my view, it looks right and good. Also agree that it would make things even better if the street furniture could be eliminated; who knows, if we really get the bit between our teeth and tidy up the area all round there, the removal of signs might be a pleasant consequence!

[Dodgys smarter b...]

The new glass bit looks good to me, but the clutter and tat in the street scene really detract - I'm not talking about the temporary barriers, I'm talking about the bollards, signs, and posts

So the signs CAN be seen then? Those people who ran over / into the bollards were often to claim they "never saw them".

The new 'bit' is not exactly sympathetic to it's surroundings, rather than joining the existing buildings together, it actually looks more like it's holding them apart. We all know that good architecture is when 'form follows function', sadly this just looks like a glorified car show-room. It's lazy, unimaginative, and pedestrian.

I'm sure there are some who will like it, but then there are those who buy 'One Direction' C.D's, that doesn't make 'One Direction' good musicians though does it ?

This is just cheap tat. Having an almost completely glass wall means you don't have to design anything to go there does it? It is sadly indicative of the decline in architectural thought processes and understanding that is beginning to blight just about everywhere in our town centers.

Which individual came up with this? They should be named. Thus people who like it can write and show support and those who think this is not a good addition to the architectural heritage of Newbury can throw buns at them in supermarkets.

[On the edge]

Well, I for one think it's a vast improvement for the dreadful 1930s pastiche that was there before. Who ever designed that clearly had no architectural understanding, let alone any grip on heritage whatsoever. I think we are rather fortunate that a decent design was employed rather than simply opting for the usual populist 'stick a brick' approach. It might also be inexpensive, is that bad? Good design should be economic, otherwise it's simply a matter of throwing money. I do agree that we should know the Architects name; someone who could be lauded for doing a good job.

[Biker1]

So the signs CAN be seen then? Those people who ran over / into the bollards were often to claim they "never saw them".

Nice one!

[user23]

The Museum is nearly finished. The new glass bit looks good to me, but the clutter and tat in the street scene really detract - I'm not talking about the temporary barriers, I'm talking about the bollards, signs, and posts - I count 10 pieces of street furniture right outside the museum, and there is sheds loads more around the place. I know it's a provocative thing to post on here, but I really don't like all that noise and for me it makes the new museum and the town generally look cheap and scruffy.

In one thread you're saying the law should be adhered to without fail regarding signage, in another you're saying there's too much signage, presumably to comply with the law.

You can't have it both ways!

[Andy Capp]

In one thread you're saying the law should be adhered to without fail regarding signage, in another you're saying there's too much signage, presumably to comply with the law. You can't have it both ways!

[blackdog]

The new connection between the Granary and the Cloth Hall is, I'm sure, functionally far better than its 1930s predecessor.

I can't say I prefer it - the 1930s design was indifferent, but so is the 2010s replacement. I particularly regret that it is hiding more of the Cloth Hall - covering the 2nd Story. With all this glass couldn't they have left more of the Cloth Hall on view through it? Or left some space between the Cloth Hall and the new bit - with few feet of corridor connecting the two?

At the other end the cedar cladding is a solution that demonstrates just how few ideas the architect had - if in doubt use cladding. It looks like an after-thought - which I suspect is just what it was.

However, it's done now, they aren't going to knock it down again for a few years - anyone want to bet it doesn't last as long as its predecessor? The issue now is what we will find inside when it opens.

[Biker1]

In one thread you're saying the law should be adhered to without fail regarding signage, in another you're saying there's too much signage, presumably to comply with the law.

You can't have it both ways!

Another nice one!

[Simon Kirby]

The issue now is what we will find inside when it opens.

A pet-peeve this: in the old museum the woodwork that was on show was damaged by drawing pin holes - not wood word, I can tell the difference, this was from people pinning notices and such. I really hope they have repaired that damage, and the new occupants have more respect for the building.

As for the exhibits, yes, it would be nice if it was interesting as a museum.

As a comparison, you might like to visit Abingdon museum - absolutely first-rate renovation of an old interesting building, well presented exhibits, and really terrific staff. That would be the standard to aim for.

[Simon Kirby]

In one thread you're saying the law should be adhered to without fail regarding signage, in another you're saying there's too much signage, presumably to comply with the law.

You can't have it both ways!

A false paradox. If the street clutter is necessary for the traffic enforcement to comply with the law then there is always the option of changing the traffic enforcement. I would start from the position that the setting of an interesting piece of architectural and social heritage should not be polluted with street clutter.

[Weavers Walk]

Two 17th Century buildings? I know, let's join them together using several sheets of floor to ceiling plate glass.

Yeah, that'll fit right in and look sympathetic to its surroundings.

Seems some people are easily satisfied.

[On the edge]

Two 17th Century buildings? I know, let's join them together using several sheets of floor to ceiling plate glass.

Yeah, that'll fit right in and look sympathetic to its surroundings.

Seems some people are easily satisfied.

Oh dear! What did you expect? Seems some people have no imagination.

[Simon Kirby]

Two 17th Century buildings? I know, let's join them together using several sheets of floor to ceiling plate glass.

Yeah, that'll fit right in and look sympathetic to its surroundings.

Seems some people are easily satisfied.

I don't know about easily satisfied, but I do think glass is a good way of joining two old buildings. Using some other traditional building material would inevitably invite a comparison of the the addition with the wings, and then you'd either need to make the addition less impressive in which case it wouldn't do the wings justice, or you make the addition more impressive and then it would dominate. Building it in some vernacular faux-jacobean style would just be camp and naff, and pretty much any other style would just be incongruous. To be honest the addition needs to be modern, and as a modern material glass is good here because it doesn't look cheap and doesn't draw attention to itself. I can't defend the cedar cladding though, that just seems completely daft.

[Simon Kirby]

Something like this perhaps?

[user23]

A false paradox. If the street clutter is necessary for the traffic enforcement to comply with the law then there is always the option of changing the traffic enforcement. I would start from the position that the setting of an interesting piece of architectural and social heritage should not be polluted with street clutter.

Basing a traffic enforcement policy on whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not doesn't seem a sensible course of action.

You'd end up with conversations like "Well we could make this junction No Entry to make it safer, but the red sign clashes with the green of the building behind".

As I said, you can't have it both ways. You'll probably try and argue you can though.

[Simon Kirby]

Basing a traffic enforcement policy on whether it's aesthetically pleasing or not doesn't seem a sensible course of action.

You'd end up with conversations like "Well we could make this junction No Entry to make it safer, but the red sign clashes with the green of the building behind".

As I said, you can't have it both ways. You'll probably try and argue you can though.

Any thought on the museum and its street scene?