Opinion article

Museum of Scotland
Of the many attractions Edinburgh has to offer, the Museum of Scotland, located on
Chambers Street, by the intersection with the George IV Bridge, in the central part of the city, is
well worth a visit. This museum houses the great artifacts of Scotland: its invention, its
implements and its art. The Museum of Scotland building is part of the National Museum of
Scotland along with the Royal Scottish Museum with collections covering science and
technology, natural history and world cultures.
The article “Museum of Scotland”, by Fred Koetter, states that we can’t refer to the
building as an individual object, but as a part of a bigger reality (“It doesn’t simply say ‘Museum
of Scotland”. It must also say, “Museum of Edinburgh”, “Museum of that Street Corner”,
“Museum of that Building” and so on”). It also refers to the type of relation that the entire
ensemble develops with the city, in which there needs to be a greater reciprocity and
communication between the internal world of the museum and the external world of the city.
I completely agree with the idea that the Museum of Scotland is part of a complex
collection and that it should express not only the character of the building, but also the city’s
zeitgeist and rich history. According to its own definition, a museum is designed to store and
exhibit object of historical, scientific or cultural interest. In my opinion this definition is not
complete. A museum should not only do that, but also it should express the specific atmosphere
of the entire series of places that it has an influence on. In this case, the city is considered to be
the most significant part of the collection of artifacts, that the museum houses.
It seems to me that the real question we should ask ourselves is how to incorporate the old
with the new, without jeopardizing the integrity of the whole ensemble and the atmosphere of
that place? Like the author said, the existing museum building, with a Victorian Romanesque
Revival façade, also participated in this question. The building acts like a protective outside layer
that holds the inside world of the museum. The building looks like a stone fortress with a grand
central hall of a cast iron construction supporting interior floor and roof construction. Being a
strong element, with such a powerful significance it suggested an inversion.
I believe that in order to allow a greater reciprocity and communication between the
internal world of the museum and the external world of the city, the best solution was the one
that the architects chose. They proposed a literal externalization of the museum’s new additions,
by taking out the building stone case and revealing its space. By doing that, not only a better
communication with the street is ensured, but also a better participation with the life of the city
itself. Now the space of the museum could be bound to the street and the immediate
surroundings. The building is planned around a large ramp rising through the building to the
glazed enclosure on top, where the entire city reveals itself.
To sum up, the effect that the museum has on the larger scale of the collection is a
significant one. This may ensure a greater communication and participation to the city’s life not
only for now, but also in the future. However, we should not forget that in order to make a
remarkable construction we don’t need to be remarkable at a pure formal level (“…this is not a
question of making a conspicuous building, but of somehow making the reverse of that.”). After
all, isn’t that the reason architecture was developed in the first place- so that it responds not only
to a punctual scale, but also to a larger one?

Visan Ana-Maria
Grupa 21 B
Facultatea de Arhitectura