Ignoring all the sleep-inducing stuff about moving from London, this thread raises two vital points (and I'll add a third) that seem call for policy decisions or statements. If the society has already given these matters mature thought and published its findings, I apologise, but I think I'll go on a bit on the assumption that there are still decisions to be taken.

There is the question of whether CSH is suitable for the many purposes it now serves, and

Whatever the answer may be to (1), what should be done to provide the library with the additional space that it clearly needs.

As to (1), I take it for granted (as some may not) that leaving the present building is not a realistic option. The possession of a big, sturdy building on a first-rate site in a high rental area in the capital is something that no newly-founded society could hope for today. This is the society's greatest (only?) capital asset and disposing of it would make no more sense now than it did in those awful days when there was a serious proposal to sell it off to 'solve' (ha!) the society's desperate financial position . Unbelievably unwise. If that had been done the society would not exist today. The building was part of the solution, not the problem.

The fact nevertheless remains that CSH, for all its apparent generous size, is splitting at the seams. There is no doubt that, when it was first built, provision for dance was seen as the overriding priority. The most that song would ever need (and that only occasionally) would be a little recital room with a piano. It should be remembered, too, that housing the CS and other donated collections was unlikely to be seen then as a major problem. A not uncommon belief eighty years ago was that practically all the collecting that could be done had already been done.

If a society committee were to be considering the building of an HQ today, the brief to the architect would undoubtedly be quite different from what it was in the thirties. But we are where we are. What is needed now is a new kind of brief to a different kind of architect - one skilled in dealing with existing buildings, rather than creating new ones.

I feel sure that, if the society had the wherewithal (and, of course, the will) it would be possible to rejig CSH into a better shape for present requirements, but it would call for a professional, comprehensive design approach, examining every possibility for every space (including the roof) and not an amateurish 'let's colonise this broom cupboard' attitude.   The brief for any such project will be complicated by the fact that the largest single space is going to be jealously guarded for dance and also, in its present state, it represents a source of regular income for the society.

Coming now to (2), it seems to me that, however cunningly the spaces might be re-allocated, the library not only needs better provision now, it is also going to go on growing in the future. It is essential that it should do so but, even with vastly extended digitisation of material over coming years and a measure of judicious outhousing, the library will be the one occupant of CSH that will continue to push against the walls.

The shape of the site and the original design of the building may make extension difficult, but that is a course that has to be considered and, in this connection, let's dispose of the hoary old myth that listing freezes a building forever in it present state. It doesn't. But it does mean that alterations and extensions have to be designed with great sensitivity. I can't for example, see consent being given to a steel and glass building obscuring the main elevations or a lumpy extension above the parapet or internal alterations that leave no space for the mural, but conservation problems like that are there to be solved by professional knowhow. A gift of additional space like, say, one of the big Regents Park Road houses, would help a lot. Crazy idea? Does the society really have no wealthy members able to bequeath a valuable property? No? Oh.

The trouble with embarking on this kind of consideration, of course, is that it does assume that money will be forthcoming for some kind of Great Project. The cash certainly can't come from membership subs and sure as hell it won't come from government agencies. But something of the kind must happen eventually if CSH is not to slide into being nothing better than a crumbling memorial to CS and an inadequate tent over the VWML.

And that 'crumbling' brings me to the third point.

(3) Returning to the House after a break of decades, I was sad to see how much it had deteriorated over the years. Maybe this is a superficial impression and maybe the society spends regularly on maintenance, but I'd like to be reassured about that. No matter how much one has to put up with in the way of lack of resources for capital improvements, existing capital assets must be safeguarded by steady, consistent maintenance. The society is more exciting and effective today than it has been for many, many years. The tired look of the house misrepresents its importance and its achievements.

Now somebody in the society please tell me how wrong I am.