For one thing, museum professionals are usually that -
>professional - and tend to keep up with the literature (or at least
>Museum-L), very few architects do.

        Museum-L readers correct me if I'm wrong.  Isn't a great portion of
museum work done by persons who are not specifically trained as "museum
professionals," or even paid -- i.e., volunteers.  Every architect (at least
in the USA) goes through at least 5 years of schooling for the specialized
B.Arch, then must intern for 3 years, then must pass a difficult exam before
he or she may practice as an architect.
        How much literature is dedicated to museum architecture and how many
more museum professionals read it than architects (or vice versa)?  It is my
experience that much (not all, let's say the popular) museum professional
oriented literature tends to be shallow in its coverage of architecture.  It
cost this much, it was designed by so and so, and it features such and such,
with one lousy photo.  There is usually a lack of substantial analysis.
Architecture literature (again, not all, I'll stick to the popular) tends to
have far more substantial analysis and includes lavish illustration, but
admittedly from an architectural point-of-view.  To touch on the question of
who read what (and I'd like to hear the rest of the list's remarks on this)
architects read far more architecture, including museum architecture,
literature than museum professionals do.  It has been my experience that
architect do research on a project because they need to learn.  Clients
think they already know what they want and are not open to others ideas.  It
is also my experience, based on the numerous architects and museum
professionals I personally know, that while architects must research for
architectural projects, museum professionals are usually so overwhelmed with
the everyday business at hand that they read very little.

>I agree that architects tend to ignore staff as far as possible.
> Overcrowding in hard to access spaces seems to be the norm - as does
>separation from the museum proper.   Having visitor services lurking at the
>top of a couple of flights of killer stairs is not really conducive to
>observing visitor behaviour!  Nor does the separation of various departments
> - curatorial, education & visitor services, management & PR/Marketing,
>venue, etc. etc. - into separate locations, sometimes separate buildings,
>help to create a common culture or integrated museum community.  We need
>dialogue with each other (and possibly to lynch the architects!)

        Ms. Feltham,
        I think you are sorely mistaken in some of your comments and it
sounds as though you had a bad experience on one project, perhaps.  Violence
hardly seems a solution, or even humorous.  Next time, if you are so unhappy
with your architects (and are personally in a position of authority to do
anything about it) fire them...

>Heleanor Feltham
>"I'm mad, you're mad.  We wouldn't be here if we weren't"
>[log in to unmask]

        To the many -- May I suggest that [you] get an idea of what
architecture is and what architects do (beyond the one project you had a bad
time with).  You'll be doing everyone a favor.

        Respectfully,
        Timothy Kane
        [log in to unmask]