Mike wrote:
The problem with the AAM is that, in spite of all the architectural awards it has won, it has some serious design flaws and it is not fit for purpose. Firstly, it has no doors. This is the third time since it opened that they have had to remove the entire glass frontage, using cranes, in order to move the exhibits. This time they will be disposing of some altogether (F-100 and T-33) and a couple will be removed and not replaced (TBM, B-25) but may well still stay part of the Duxford collection, just no longer in the AAM. Secondly, the concrete, as has been mentioned, is giving off corrosive dust which is damaging the exhibits, hence the need to pull everything out and do some remedial work on the structure and the aircraft. That's the reason they need to have a constant flow of funds. A shame they didn't do a better job of specifying the basic building requirements in the first place.

As the client, did anyone at the time at the IWM actually have an understanding of what was required to be able to spec what was needed...?
Unlikely.
I suspect all they wanted was to 'win' an award, which would bring in publicity for the IWM, which would be the only reason to have appointed Fosters as architects. Clearly VFM wasn't a requirement. Having worked on projects they have been architects for, they aren't all they are hyped up to be, and I wouldn't have let them anywhere near the project in the first place.
The same can be said for a few other 'big name' architects where style over substance is the priority.