Jo Howell, a photographic artist and a coordinator of a newly launched campaign to save the centre, said: “This is an architectural gem and one of the few cultural venues in Sunderland with national prestige.”
So, what is this gem?
Fast forward 25 years and the riverside centre is set to be shut down and mothballed after an external report, seen by the Observer, identified long-term structural defects, including roof leaks, corrosion and broken glazing. The study by GSSArchitecture warned that work was required to prevent further corrosion and “partial collapse” of rusted steelwork.
Sunderland University, which owns the building, announced in January that it wanted to move it, as it considered fixing the defects unaffordable. But it now faces a campaign to save the centre, and calls for an inquiry.
Julia Potts, a Liberal Democrat councillor on the city council, said: “People across Sunderland cannot believe that there are tens of millions of pounds of structural problems in a building so new.”
Niall Hodson, leader of the Lib Dem group on the council, said: “This is an iconic and significant asset which has been supported by public money, and it’s terrible to be losing it.”
Ah, it’s a piece of shit. So, of course, all must be taxed to preserve it, eh?
Architecture should be more like medicine – where mistakes get buried.
One thing that obviously won’t be happening is a deeper look into any connections between the council that awarded the contract, and the cowboys that built the building.
Reminds me of a roundabout constructed last year on a mainish road locally that had to be built, knocked down, built knocked down and – guess? – yep, built and planted with a rainforest’s wealth of vegetation until it satisfied the local council.
They’d obviously read, learnt and inwardly digested the lessons of the SNP and the porridge wog’s ferries…
BiW
In 1994 Tyne and Wear Development Corporation held an open design competition.
And it was a plan submitted by Soho–based Gollifer architects that won.
Construction, overseen by Kvaerner Ltd, – commenced in January 1997.
A lot of blame to be shared around but who cares? It’s only taxpayer money after all.
” In shocking news, it’s been found that a sh*tty-looking and sh*tilly-built building is sh*t…”
“Architecture should be more like medicine – where mistakes get buried.”
Someone once said that lawyers get to blame the judge, doctors to bury their mistakes, architects to grow vines up them, but engineers have to accept responsibility.
By the by, a pal rang the centre yesterday and asked how long they’d stay open for. “Oh, another two or three years, probably.”
The owner wants to move it, not destroy it. Should the degree of outrage not depend on the new location?
“When the National Glass Centre in Sunderland was opened by Prince Charles in October 1998, it was hoped that the £17m glass and steel building would help revitalise the city’s waterfront and serve as an enduring monument to its industrial heritage.”
This is 100% Authentic Underpants Gnomes thinking, isn’t it? Like did anyone ever say “OK, what’s the working on that?”. Even if we go with the idea that the museum is successful, brings in lots of visitors, what’s it going to support except a gift shop and a cafe? People aren’t going to put their engineering or software business somewhere because it has a successful museum.
“GSSArchitecture … did not recommend the lowest cost option of more than doubling the maintenance budget”
This is always the problem with these things. There is never any planning or money for actually looking after the damn thing. See every example of council property ever.
I do apologise but, having lived there for many years, I have problems accepting “cultural venues” and “Sunderland” in the same sentence.
jgh,
“This is always the problem with these things. There is never any planning or money for actually looking after the damn thing. See every example of council property ever.”
Because of how councils get budgets, rather than being able to borrow. Because politicians are only there for a short time.
Private companies think in terms of a building operating for 20 years, and it’s value over time. Which not only means they think about maintenance, but also that they think about reducing maintenance. Like you spend a bit more upfront on better flooring or carpets, they last 7 years instead of 5. And when the biggest cost of replacing it is labour, you want to reduce that.
Hey, Siri, give me an example of a an Urban dictionary midwit:
I found this for you:
“ Julia Potts, a Liberal Democrat councillor on the city council, said: “People across Sunderland cannot believe that there are tens of millions of pounds of structural problems in a building so new.””
I visited the museum shortly after it was opened. The best bit was being able to walk on the glass roof and getting that thrill of looking down about 30 feet with no apparent means of support. Architectural gem?, my garden shed is more of an architectural gem, at least it does not leak.
Doesn’t the Sears Tower in Chicago have a glass viewing platform 100 floors up?
If you want to see an example of a good glass museum, visit the Corning museum in up-state New York. The Sunderland museum doesn’t rate well in comparison.
Re. Penseivat’s comment: “I do apologise but, having lived there for many years, I have problems accepting “cultural venues” and “Sunderland” in the same sentence.”
I lived there too and have to concur.
Sunk costs is no longer a concept taught in the very best schools.