On my first trip to Cairo I had a hotel overlooking Tahrir Square. It was beautiful to see the museum square in the lit evening and the morning before all of Cairo's chaotic traffic starts to kick in. I was also the first to enter it and enjoy the museum while it's nice and quiet (it didn't get too crowded during the morning of my stay so maybe that's not an issue). The museum was on my must-do list when visiting Cairo following the Giza pyramids. I wasn't disappointed by the wealth of its Egyptology collection. The Gold Mask of Tutankhamun and many other artifacts from the valley of the kings, huge statues, mummies (I remember they cost extra to visit?), it could take hours to see it all. It doesn't replace a visit to Thebes, Memphis or any of the places it has items from and more or less enhances your visit just like any national museum would do.

So, why am I against it's inscription as a world heritage site? First off the architecture isn't as special in my eyes than what they want me to believe. It may be that, at the time, museums were using existing buildings rather than build one specifically as a museum, if that is even true, but even so that's not special enough. Secondly, the museum is to be superseded by the new Grand Egyptian Museum at Giza which makes the criteria of housing all these artifacts almost moot. It's almost crazy to establish a tentative inscription in the same year the museum is to be replaced. If you are in Cairo before this change it's highly recommended to visit the museum nonetheless.