Introduction
The National Center for Popular Music was inaugurated in the late 1990s and only operated for a year before closing in mid-2000. This was a contemporary music and culture museum that was based in Sheffield England. The museum enjoyed funding from the National Lottery contributions. The cost of the project was estimated at ₤15 million. The building design was done by Branson Coates Architects. This was after the architectural design competition that was managed by RIBA Competition. The building was made up of four giant stainless steel drums. The drums surrounded an atrium area and had an upper floor covered with a glazed roof (Royal Institute of British Architects 1993).
The design of the building, which has unusual features acquired a number of nicknames that are local like curling stones, drums and kettles as the drum tops that were to rotate in the wind no longer do so and they point in various directions due to the failure of the project. The Museum auditorium had a 3D surround sound in one of the drums called Soundscapes that was created by a musician based in Sheffield and Martyn Ware who was the producer. The producer later uses this technology to tour his project’ The Future Sound. There were also two other drums called Perspectives and Making Music. The former was for playing music for different purposes while the latter was in the hands. The last one was to be used to show music around the world and accommodate altering exhibitions, but this was never substantiated as the museum closed. Hartley (2004) expresses that the center became a venue for live music for a time from July 2001. Later it was taken over by Sheffield Hallam University in September 2003. They had bought it from Yorkshire Forward for 1.85 million in February 2003. To date, it is the university’s Student’s Union (Higher Education Quality Council 1993).
The problems that led to the failure of the center
The Center failed commercially as it was unable to attract the estimated number of visitors that was to generate the required cash flows to enable the museum to sustain its 79 workers. According to the BBC, the Centre was not attracting enough visitors as it was expected hence it was forced to be shut down in 2000 despite the relaunch that cost ₤2 million. Initially, it was hoped that, in that year, 400,000 visitors were to be attracted, but this did not happen after a period of seven months, 104,000 visitors had turned up probably due to initial curiosity. At this time, the building owners, Music Heritage Ltd, asked for the administration of day-to-day operations aid from Pricewaterhouse Coopers. According to the failures that were already being experienced, the company was to be liquidated in that month of November. During that month, the company had a debt of ₤ 1.1 million from creditors, but it was not liquidated. The estimates of visitors every year also decreased to 150,000. It was at this time in 2000 that Martin King who was the chief executive resigned. He took over from Stuart Rogers (Sturges, 2012).
Sturges (1999) expressed that, the building, ever since it opened in March 1999, it had bad press due to its failure in terms of content and artistic aspiration. Despite some restructuring, that was done on the design during the initial stages still redundancies were experienced. This is because the center had set for itself a difficult task of trying to classify and institutionalize a thing that was to be deviant. The music and the dance style that was supposed to entertain the visitors did not achieve much as expected as they did not perform to the visitors’ expectations. The Soundscape, which is a circular room with many speakers, was simply a waste of space in the building as it occupied a quarter of the space (Sturges, 2012).
The center also failed in terms of education where the music they used to play in Turning Points drum where popular music films could be watched were not that popular and the commentary aimed at people who had never heard music in their lives. There was a need to explain the music played by the Making Music area so as not to be viewed as noise. For one who was to experience the sound of a trumpet was to blow into it some air through a tube attached at the mouth of the trumpet. Lack of chronology which is a statement that is assumed to be against museum culture was also another factor that led to the failure of this project. This is explained by the scenario of a room entitled Thirty Voices That Changed Our World whereby one is asked to press his or her ear against a wall to listen to the Beach Boys, Pasty Cline, Linton Kwesi Johnson and Queen Latifah sounds being made with no explanation of who came where and when (Sturges, 1999).
According to the architect’s website, the building was not successful because the exhibition design employed was not good. This can be explained by the criticism as put across by the industry experts concerning the high-tech displays which could not reveal the distinction between the many types of popular music (Wainwright 2000). These experts express that even though the displays were driven by the museum’s creative director, they used an approach that was not conforming hence they ended up confusing the audience. Depending on these reasons the exhibitions were vague. There were only 104,000 visitors in the first six months, but because of the poor exhibitions, the building failed to attract the required number of visitors that the case of the business was based on. There was a change in the management whereby the displays were changed, and the admission prices decreased, but it was too late as the museum could not cover its losses (Stokes 2003).
The Building Materials
The building materials were four stainless steel drums that surrounded an atrium area that was made up of a glazed roof on the upper floor. These drums had been built in such a way that their tops could rotate in the wind, in a direction, according to the direction of the wind. The museum had a 3D round sound auditorium that was fixed in the Soundscapes. Two other drums were Perspective which was used to produce music for different purposes and Making Music for hands (Borman, 2001).
The final one that was supposed to hold changing exhibitions were used to show music globally, but this never happened as the museum was closed. The drums were not working according to blend the hands-on ethic of London’s Science Museum with a night clubs’ hectic atmosphere. The museum’s four stainless-steel drums were themed to explain the story of pop, the technology used in the music, with a shop, a bar and an exhibition hence the visitor’s expectations of being entertained were not met (Sturges, 2012).
These types of millennium projects are different from other more successful museums and galleries in terms of the main agenda that led to their opening. The National Centre for Popular Music was a millennium agenda hence the large funding from the National Lottery while, for the other most successful museums, they are launched purely for the entertainment of their visitors. For the later, later the main operating activity is always entertainment according to the content and the artistic aspiration as opposed to the National Centre for Popular Music, despite the restructuring that was done on the design during the initial stages still redundancies were experienced as not visitors were attracted (Palmer & Sheffield, 2003).
The implication to the architects
For architects, such like project mean a great gain for the winner and a great loss for the losers. This can be attributed to the large cost of setting up the project of ₤15 million and the funders of the project the National Lottery delivered through a single funding program grant for the arts. Such projects propose an urban-based program that is adaptable to different situations and events. Such interventions do not just work once in concerts and festivals, but they form part of the daily operations of the city of operation (Borman, 2001).
This project was one of the most important projects at that time and of greater magnitude to be developed by a Spanish team abroad with a budget of 100 million Euros hence it was of great importance to the architects that were chosen. For those architects who are not chosen, they are able to learn from their failure and try to improve on the quality of their service provision. Such projects can only be won by those architects who are experts and have the know-how of what is supposed to be done (Hartley, 2004).
Conclusion
The efforts to promote the National Centre for Popular music were by the Music Heritage Ltd. These efforts were meant to make visitors who loved music to be attracted to Britain. This was to give the local music a new touch and give Sheffield a new landmark. The things that could have been done differently were the main agenda of the museum. This was for the entertainment of the visit was to be maintained. The Soundscape, which is a circular room with many speakers, was simply a waste of space in the building as it occupied a quarter of the space. The final drum was to accommodate changing exhibitions other than being used to show music around the world, something that never happened because the museum was closed. The four circular galleries were to be lifted up to the first-floor level and allow visitors to be brought to the level of their choice by way of a wide central stair. The Centre management was also to avoid trying to classify and institutionalize something that was indifferent. The displays were shown where to be to the standards of the building despite the considerable praise in the press. Lastly, the darkened rooms where one can watch historic films on popular music in the Turning Points drums were to be developed so that the music being played was popular for people who were experts.
References
Borman, M 2001, The twilight of American culture, Norton, New York.
Hartley, P 2004, The Interview, Ashgate Publishing Company, New York.
Hatherley, O 2010, A Guide to the New Ruins of Great Britain, 1st Edition, Verso, London.
Higher Education Quality Council 1993, Sheffield Hallam University: Quality audit report, September 1993, The Council, Birmingham.
Palmer, J & Sheffield, JP 2003, Failed Centre set to shine again. Web.
Royal Institute of British Architects 1993, RIBA journal, RIBA Journals, London.
Stokes, P 2003, Student group takes over the pop museum. Web.
Sturgus, F 1999, This is pop! No, it isn’t. Web.
Wainwright, M 2000, Museum of pop loses its rescuer. Web.