STUDIES ON MUSEUMS AND KINDRED INSTITUTIONS. 565 



The new buildiucr (Plate 39), by J. W. Simpson and E. 1. M. 

 Allen (of London), ))egun in 1893, is decidedly cunihrons" though 

 effective in its exterior. In the interior it is also ricld\' decorated, 

 but not too much for its purpose. It is of red sandstone in the 

 French Renaissance st\de, and is fireproof. The chief artistic decora- 

 tion is b}' G. Frampton. Sir Walter Armstrong, director of the 

 National Galler}^ in Dublin, sharply criticised* the selection of red sand- 

 stone instead of white, since the red stone, on account of the smoki- 

 ness of Glasgow, will soon become completely 1)lack. The architect 

 of the John Rj^lands Librar}^ in Manchester (see p. 5i8), on the con- 

 trary, maintains that the red sandstone withstands the effects of the 

 smoke better than the white stone. I believe that the difference, if 

 any, is scarcely perceptible. It would be a blessing if all of these cities 

 were less smoky. The l)uilding is approximatel v -192 feet long and 164 

 to 278 feet wide. It has a stateh^ main hall with galleries 137 feet long, 

 62 feet wide, and 88 feet high, of cream-colored sandstone; and two 

 lateral halls with skylight and galleries 110 by 65 feet. The six lateral 

 and intersecting halls of the ground floor are lighted from the side; 

 the six of the second story from skylights. The}^ are (approximately) 

 110 feet long and 30 feet wide; those of the second story occupied by 

 the art gallery, in the opinion of Sir Walter Armstrong (see above), 

 are too low. There are four corner pavilions in e;uch story, the upper 

 ones with skylights, making the ground plan quite diversified. Six 

 stairways lead to the second stor}-. Above the southern front hall 

 there is another large hall in the third stor3\ The lighting arrange- 

 ments are good, with brilliant electric illumination in the evenings. 

 The man}' towers, some of which are 186 feet high, are useless, and 

 constitute a very questionable ornamentation to the building, since it 

 lacks repose. The proceeds of the Glasgow Exhi))ition of 1888 (nearly 

 $250,000) was the basis of the funds from which t\w cost of the build- 

 ing was defrayed. To this were added voluntary donations (almost 

 $375,000), and this sum not being deemed sufficient, the city under- 

 took the construction of the l>uilding, which cost over $1,250,000. 

 The proceeds of the Exhibition of 1901 ($500,000) will be devoted to 

 the purchase of pictures. 



I would have little reason to dwell longer on this new nmseum, 

 which is only a more or less slight departure from the usual pattern, *" 



" l^late 39 was taken dnriiij; the Exposition, for which reason we see various kiosks, 

 paviUons, etc., which do not helong to it. 



I> Scots Pictorial, June 15, 1901, p. ISl. 



<^Sir Walter Armstrong characterizes the ground floor of the buildiui: "more suc- 

 cessful than anything else of the same kind in Europe." I grant that it i.s magnifi- 

 cent, but I doubt if it deserves so great a commendation. He remarks at- the i-lose 

 of his paper: The Glasgow Gallery is incontestal)ly the finest in Europe outside the 

 great capitals, and the director, J. Paton (the Museums Jounial, January, 1902, 

 p. 315), goes so far as to say: (ilasgow can boast of having the most handsome and 

 architecturally ornate museum building of any jjrovincial town in the United King- 

 dom if not in the whole world. 



