The question of Mackintosh Building rebuild custodianship has moved from architectural debate into political territory, after the Glasgow School of Art (GSA) confirmed that a full faithful reinstatement of the Category A-listed landmark would cost £265 million (four times previous estimates) and cannot be delivered by the school alone.
According to the Glasgow School of Art Media Centre, the GSA confirmed in July 2026 that it has settled its insurance claim in respect of the fire which occurred at the Mackintosh Building in June 2018. The settlement, however, will not stretch to a full reinstatement. Insurance payments will cover the ‘full stabilisation’ of the remaining structure (the first tangible step forward) but fall well short of the sums required to rebuild the 1909 Charles Rennie Mackintosh-designed building.
A multi-scenario strategic outline business case (SOBC) drawn up by architects Purcell and Reiach and Hall laid out the scale of the problem. The school insists that a faithful reinstatement remains its long-term goal, and that it is open to a partnership approach to reach it. In the meantime, the burned-out shell will be stabilised.
Politicians and heritage bodies enter the Mackintosh Building rebuild custodianship question
Glasgow Labour MSP Paul Sweeney has argued in the AJ that a restoration corporation development company or joint venture should be set up to deliver a rebuild, calling on both Holyrood and Westminster to ‘put their arms’ around the art school. ‘I would be looking for the Scottish and UK governments to very quickly step up and underwrite that [joint venture],’ he wrote.
Both governments appear to be listening. Speaking on LBC following the GSA’s announcement, first minister John Swinney said: ‘The Scottish government will engage constructively on how a partnership can be constructed.’ The UK government has told the AJ it will talk to the GSA and the Scottish government. Historic Environment Scotland is ‘already engaging with Glasgow School of Art on the next stages of the project’, a spokesperson told the AJ.
The heritage sector has moved further still. The Charles Rennie Mackintosh Society has argued that ‘the GSA no longer has the credibility to spearhead a world-class reconstruction project’ and is calling for an independent special purpose vehicle to remove the school as the building’s custodian. Under the society’s proposed ‘new model of custodianship’, a body incorporating ‘heritage building experts and major project specialists’ would take responsibility for reconstruction, hold fundraising powers, and hand the Mac back to the public once complete.
The Victorian Society described the GSA’s announcement as ‘not the end of the story but a call to action’, and framed it as ‘the catalyst for a national (even international) partnership to secure the faithful reinstatement of one of the defining works of modern architecture’. Heritage groups are understood to be preparing a major joint statement on their intentions in the coming weeks.
The call for an independent body is not new. Tom Inns, the GSA’s former head who resigned in late 2018, had previously proposed an independent restoration trust and has recently repeated that call in a LinkedIn post.
Architects set out the civic and technical case for rebuilding
Iain King, now an associate at WSP, served as project architect for Page\Park Architects’ restoration following the earlier 2014 fire and worked on the building for more than a decade. Writing on LinkedIn, he argued that ‘the greatest challenge was never simply technical’ but concerned what kind of ownership or purpose the building should have. He described the SOBC as acknowledging ‘both the project’s ambition and the considerable gap between aspiration and available resources’, and reframed the situation: ‘Rather than viewing this solely as a funding challenge, it should be recognised as an opportunity to redefine the project’s civic purpose.’
King added that the central question is ‘whether we have the collective ambition to recognise reconstruction as an investment in our cultural future’. Page\Park director Eilidh Henderson told the AJ that her practice is ready to ‘actively participate in positive discussions about the building’s future, providing technical expertise and support’. Henderson said any newly formed entity would need to ‘make the argument for how public investment in the project can advance the city as a whole, strengthen our economy and improve the lives of everyday people.’
Ann Priest, chair of the school’s board of governors, told the AJ the GSA does not believe it would necessarily have to give up ownership of the building to secure a full rebuild. But the school has acknowledged that while the Mac is ‘part of our DNA … it doesn’t define us’. Priest described a future in which the building sits ‘at the centre of a regeneration project for this area of Glasgow, based around the creative and cultural industries’.
Eight years after the 2018 fire, the 2026 SOBC may be remembered less for the £265 million figure it confirmed than for shifting the terms of debate: Mackintosh Building rebuild custodianship is now a question for governments, heritage bodies and civic institutions, not for one art school’s balance sheet alone. Heritage groups’ joint statement, expected in the coming weeks, will be the next test of whether that coalition can move from intent to structure.
