So – I’d add the shuttle (you absolutely do not want to encourage more cars in this lovely and quiet residential area), the extra day, and the admission increase (and some signage by the local bus stop would be useful: there’s absolutely nothing, and it’s a short walk down a local street to the Barnes) – and leave it exactly where it is.

Frankly, I don’t understand the complaints from some of the above posters. Any “working class” citizens who wish to view the collection can afford it and can easily, cheaply, and quickly get there from downtown. All they need to do is make a reservation like anyone else. As to whether it belongs in Philadelphia: it’s already there, to all intents and purposes. It’s like arguing that the Brooklyn Museum of Art belongs in Manhattan because it’s 30 minutes by subway from the Met.

With that said, doesn’t Barnes have the right to do with his property as he wishes? His intentions were apparent in his will. It seems unlikely , those interests that disregard his expressed wishes are altruistic and motivated by the desire to share the art with all the world.

I am a professor of architecture with a research focus on relationships between design and context. In 2004-05 my architecture students examined the context of the Barnes Foundation – its physical place, as well as the social, cultural and historical dimensions central to its establishment and evolution. In the studio and research seminar, I asked students to specifically address the court’s mandate for replication – Is replication a valid, meaningful, or sufficient response to preserving cultural value, and if so, how? The hypothetical designs students generated reveal an approach to architecture as an evolving situation subject to economic, cultural and political conditions – and not simply the production of physical artifacts. The student proposals also demonstrated that the intended experience of a place, its qualities and history, are precious and fragile – and not best served by an inauthentic replica of the physical environment, especially if limited to the collection’s installation and rooms.

Regardless whether one argues for or against relocation, I applaud Tsien Williams Architects and the Olin Partnerships efforts to translate the spirit of place cultivated by Dr. Barnes to house his collection and mission. And, I laud the public’s fierce sense of ownership about a place it values.

I’m guessing to be rented out for high power cocktail parties. That seems to be a huge focus of modern design .
It seems to be about serving a certain social set
rather than the art.