|
 Museums on Ice Panelists: Willard Holmes, Reed Kroloff, Peter B. Lewis, and Andrea Rich Moderated by Joseph C. Thompson The following white paper is drawn from the remarks of the panelists and moderator for this session, along with the questions and responses from members of the audience. This document is intended to reflect the variety of viewpoints offered during the discussion, and to frame broadly the issues discussed; it should not be taken as a formal statement of opinion by the panelists. The building boom seen in the museum field in the last two decades draws attention to a number of issues that can help guide other institutions, and their communities, as they plan their own growth. But at the core of trends in museum expansions are two simple questions: Why do some museum expansions succeed while others do not? And what motivates these expansions in the first place? The Case for Growth Museums have many specific reasons for planning expansions. Typically, such projects may begin from some straightforward premises:
Moving Forward—Or Not Too often, museum expansions appear viable in the short term, when the interest in new architecture, the thrill of construction, national attention, and the celebrations over the completion of a project are all top-of-mind. Sustainability is key, however; if projects are not sustainable (or cannot be shown to be sustainable), then the underlying motivation to expand may have merit but the plan may not. Therefore, decisions about whether or not to proceed with planned growth need equally careful examination. Sometimes the rationale presented is ancillary to mission, and these demand careful scrutiny: that museums must expand in order to survive; that museums must build in order to raise endowment; that museums must expand in order to help their community compete with other cities; or that investing in a cultural institution will revitalize a flagging local economy. Ideally, construction costs should be funded before ground is broken (though often a "leap of faith" is necessary if significant funds have already been raised); beginning a project without being able to complete it can strain not only the institution but its stakeholders and community, and damage a museum's reputation. Other institutional costs should also be reviewed carefully. How will the institution sustain its new, improved, and larger self? Areas to consider include:
Beauty Isn't Everything Perhaps the biggest area of risk for museums is in the attraction to new architecture—designs that can seduce the institution's leadership, its stakeholders, and the public, even in the absence of a sustainable long-term plan. Architecture is a double-edged sword. Expensive, risky, and reliant on the taste of the beholder, it can also be a powerful vehicle for making the case for growth, proving that services to the public are at the forefront of any development, and that the benefits to the community will be widespread. Museums that have been successful with their physical expansions are typically those that have used architecture to their advantage—but within the context of a plan that has been rigorously reviewed for all of the pitfalls and opportunities discussed above. Likewise, the process of reviewing a design can lead to significant and beneficial changes, as a result of input from the audiences who will use the space most frequently. The process of writing an architectural program can cause fundamental rethinking of institutional structures, which can lead to real, and beneficial, changes in staffing, management practices, and program scope. The vision of architects and exhibition designers can set the stage for how a museum will evolve, but that evolution will only take place if the institution serves its community successfully. Often, this is a case that must be made publicly, by proving that such planning has taken place, and that a museum is looking beyond the excitement of a name-brand architect or a bold design that refashions an entire institution. After all, a new building is only that—a shell. It cannot replace the qualitative thinking of the curators and educators who must program the space, or substitute effectively for a weakness in an institution's mission and ability to serve the public. For citation, please reference: http://www.berkshireconference.org/content/2004-museums.cfm
|
