I look forward to seeing it in the flesh, but is this yet another building which, I fear, will distract from it's contents and purpose to display some of the wonderful objects the V&A have in store. The building should be good, but the contents are the star. From the plan there is very little display space and the spaces created are quite an awkward shape to display items. There are also so many buildings at risk, why are they not being considered e.g. the planned museum of London move.
In January 2015, Dr Barbara Lane and Dr Charlotte Roben of ARUP, in an article in the AJ pointed out the importance of integrating fire engineering design into building envelopes. This also illustrates one of the fundemental problems with building regulations, which then refer to approved documents, which then in turn refer to British and European standards (which are so expensive many architects can not afford them) and are difficult to understand. Successive governments have believed that all they needed to do was create a pdf document with columns in portrait format to be read on a landscape orientated monitor. If we want to build to a higher standard, then the information should be available and easy to understand. The confusion over whether a type of cladding is combustible or non-combustible should not clear.
Sadly this is very significant and is a very obvious reminder that the public generally do not understand the role of the architect and what the architect can contribute to a building project. I enjoy visiting the end of year student exhibitions and can appreciate what is being shown, but for many members of the public what is being exhibited is only applicable to flagship projects and often does not reflect the technical expertise they have.
With land in the capital being so expensive this is a very small amount for a wealthy city.
The circulation in the new extension does not work - there are always long waits for the lifts. It is an over complicated building providing little new space, what a lost opportunity.