The last museum I planned to include in my survey of art museums since the Second World War (actually since the foundation of the Museum of Modern Art) was the new MOMA, as redesigned by Diller Scofidio + Renfrew, which re-opened in late 2019.  I planned to visit it in April 2020 and had made all the necessary arrangements, but then COVID came.  I’ve not been to New York since.

I was looking up comments on it – there are remarkably few that I have been able to find, apart from the usual bland puffs which appear when a new museum opens – when I came across by the purest accident a review of my book which I had forgotten.

I am putting it on to my blog as a way of thanking the author, but it comes with a request: what has been the response to the new version of MOMA ? 

https://connectwith.art/art/books/book-review-the-art-museum-in-modern-times/

I was very glad to have been able to hear the talk by Dan Pearson (landscape) and Mary Duggan (architect) on their joint plans for Lambeth Green next to the Garden Museum.  I was involved in the second stage of the architectural selection.  Two things struck me: how much the plans had evolved since the competition through discussion and collaboration, so that the scheme feels more organic and less purely architectural, a symbiosis of walls and planting and garden sheds/pavilions; the second was how large the space now seems between the church and the roundabout and how much will be achieved by a thoughtful intervention into an otherwise somewhat arid area of tower blocks, the road, and the fortified, medieval entrance gate of Lambeth Palace.

https://gardenmuseum.org.uk/events/talk-dan-pearson-mary-duggan-on-lambeth-green/

The current planning system, and particularly the protection of historic buildings, seems to be a shambles.

After a lengthy public debate as to whether or not it was sensible for Marks & Spencer to pull down their landmark building and replace it with an extremely indifferent office block, it went to a lengthy planning enquiry and Michael Gove as Secretary of State – very unusually – refused permission.  But now Marks & Spencer have got the High Court to overturn the Secretary of State’s decision.  What an incredible mess !  And what a waste of public money.

Does the Secretary of State not have proper legal advice ?

The real estate sector may breathe a sigh of relief.  But it reduces efforts to encourage re-use of buildings to rubble as M&S pour the most grotesque and ugly scorn on issues of public opinion and climate change.

https://www.dezeen.com/2024/03/01/marks-spencer-oxford-street-demolition/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Dezeen&utm_content=Daily%20Dezeen+CID_f48041dcea57c75e00c1ae99f324f7cd&utm_source=Dezeen%20Mail&utm_term=Marks%20%20Spencer%20wins%20rights%20to%20demolish%20Oxford%20Street%20flagship