By Martha Morris
This article was published in Museum News July/August 2004.
A recent Google search resulted in 1,710,000 entries for “new museum construction”—signs of a trend that offers wide-ranging possibilities for museums and their communities. New construction creates dramatic new spaces for programs, collections, and exhibitions. Boards and community leaders embrace new buildings as a means of meeting mission, increasing support, and improving the local and regional economy. These projects are highly visible to the public and probably represent the largest investment of funds, time, and energy a museum can make.
Does it pay off?
Which factors drive success or failure?
The public is watching closely, scrutinizing projects that have succeeded as well as those that have faltered. In the past couple of years, museum building projects have been cancelled or scaled back, victims of the post-Sept. 11 tourism slump and the recent economic recession. Plans to expand New York’s Whitney Museum of American Art and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, for example, have been shelved or dramatically cut back in scope. Though it opened less than three years ago, the new Bellevue Art Museum in Washington closed its doors in the fall of 2003. Washington, D.C.’s new City Museum, a $25-million project, has struggled with low attendance since opening in May 2003. These events are sobering and raise many questions about the feasibility of museum building ambitions.On the other hand, several museum building programs are underway, ranging from major new facilities to dramatic expansions and dramatic renovations. A number of museums—from D.C.’s Spy Museum to Philadelphia’s Constitution Center to San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum—have recently opened or reopened to record attendance. Art museums seem to be the fastest-growing segment, participating in what the October 2001 issue of Art News characterized as a multibillion-dollar building boom that reflects the need to reinvent the museum as a center of populist activity. But all museums are affected by this boom. As reported in AAM’s 2003 Museum Financial Information, 13.2 percent of the 806 museums surveyed are constructing new buildings while 12 percent are expanding and 28 percent are renovating facilities; most of the expansion projects are in children’s museums, zoos, nature centers, and science museums.
“Architecture and design today are as significant to a large number of museum visitors as collections and exhibitions were in the past,” says Neil Kotler, who writes and lectures on museum marketing. “Many visitors crave unusual experiences, and remarkable architecture.”
But how can museums ensure that they have the resources to build these new facilities?
Economic Realities
Museums are facing the impact of dramatic cuts in government funding and a slowdown in contributions. A November 2003 Chronicle of Philanthropy study revealed that charitable giving declined in 2002 for the first time in 12 years. Many charities are revising their strategies now to brace for a continuing downturn. State funding also has dried up, anywhere from 10 to 60 percent, according to a July/August 2003 Museum News cover story. Despite signs of economic improvement, it will take several years before state coffers see significant increases.
Still, a 2002 survey of the Association of Art Museum Directors noted that despite setbacks, a majority of art museums are going forward with their building projects, while others planned to change the timeframe or the scope. For example, the July 2003 issue of Art Newspaper reported that the Los Angeles County Museum of Art’s ambitious $300-million, 700,000-square-foot expansion, designed by Rem Koolhaas, was scrapped last spring due to a slowdown in fund raising and a failed local bond initiative. But thanks to detailed early strategic and program planning and the generosity of trustee-philanthropist Eli Broad, the museum now will go forward with a phased program, beginning with a new 70,000-square-foot wing.
In the Washington, D.C., area, 20 new museum building projects are about to open or are in the planning stages. These projects—which include the Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI), which opens in September, and its American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery, scheduled to open July 4, 2006—are expected to cost more than $2 billion, yet there has been a noticeable drop in fund-raising success, says the Washington Post (July 10, 2003). The Corcoran Gallery of Art is slated for the first Frank Gehry building in the city, one that should be a major attraction. Yet, as reported in the December 2003 Washingtonian magazine, fund raising has been frustratingly slow. Some projects have moved ahead even without full funding in hand. When the Smithsonian’s National Air and Space Museum opened its stunning new and largely privately funded Udvar-Hazy Center in Dulles, Va., in December 2003, it still lacked about a third of the $311-million budget. Museum staff hope that future fund raising will be more successful as people respond to the excitement surrounding this long-awaited new facility.
In reality it is difficult to drop a project in which you’ve invested considerable time and money and that has generated the support of community members, donors, legislators, staff, and other stakeholders over a number of years. For example, construction of Cleveland’s $85-million Crawford Museum of Transportation was postponed in 2003 due to a serious slowdown in fund raising and complications over use of the proposed lakefront site. But now a new site has been chosen and the museum is scaling back its designs, setting a “goal that is obtainable in this kind of climate,” says Tamera Brown, director of development and external affairs. Much of the completed exhibition design work, she says, can be salvaged for the new site and building, which should open in 2007. Three years after opening its 142,000-square-foot Santiago Calatrava wing to record attendance, the Milwaukee Art Museum is facing financial problems—largely long-term debt related to construction costs that nearly tripled early estimates. According to CEO David Gordon, this year’s operating expenses may show a small deficit due to lower than expected attendance. But the long-term debt recently was refinanced with low-interest bonds, and fund raising continues. Despite higher than expected construction costs, the project is considered a bargain, in comparison to other art museums of its type. Says Gordon: “Each museum building project is special. Architecture is the most public of the arts, and one should aim for the architecturally splendid.” Local news articles describe the new museum as a popular attraction that has generated much local pride.
Washington State’s Bellevue Art Museum opened a state-of-the art, 36,000-square-foot, $23-million facility designed by architect Steven Holl in 2001. Two years later, the museum had let most of the staff go and closed its doors, plagued by deficits created by overly optimistic income projections, the lack of an endowment, and a mission focused on cutting-edge contemporary art that was not in tune with community interests. This dramatic move led to a period of reevaluation and an opportunity for a second chance. Interim Managing Director Mark Haley has led a comprehensive effort to reach out and listen to stakeholders in the community. The board has reorganized itself and is developing a new strategic plan, and raising funds for a grand rebirth of a museum devoted to craft and design planned for fall 2004. In reflecting on the experience with the Holl building, Board Chair Rick Collett notes that the new facility is considerably larger and different than the prior location and that estimated income from the museum’s art school was unrealistic. He calls their current effort “a steep mountain to climb” but believes it will result in a new business model, based on a new community-supported vision.
Building for the Future
Which factors lead to successful building programs? According to information from my 2002 survey of 30 art, history, and science museums engaged in building programs as well as follow-up interviews with museum directors, the best programs have a clear link to organizational strategic planning, support the museum’s vision, are keenly aware of the needs of their communities, and navigate the many challenges in funding and implementation. Successful characteristics include the development of master plans, feasibility studies and business plans, adept use of consultants, and intensive involvement of stakeholders throughout the process.
Strategic planning is a critical part of setting the framework and rationale for a building program. Construction projects are driven by several factors: outdated facilities, inaccessible locations, need for improved collection showcases and/or amenities that will accommodate varied and larger audiences. Strategic plans support the long-term comprehensive vision that in many cases is realized through a building program. Planning timelines usually last at least a year or more and include development of an intellectual program, collecting plans, estimates of space needs and fund-raising feasibility, and architectural competitions.
Program planning is probably the most important phase of a building project, and museums must be clear about what their needs are well in advance of design and construction. Priorities cited by most of the surveyed museums were spaces that would best serve the visitor experience: orientation space, improved way finding and intellectual coherence, retail areas, interactive or immersion experiences, landscaping and site improvements, classrooms, and the ability to showcase more of the permanent collection and provide for changing exhibitions. In many cases collections storage and other behind-the-scenes functions had been moved to off-site locations.
Dan Monroe, president of the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem, Mass., recently presided over a major building program, comprised of renovations of historic structures, construction of new collections storage and installations, and a new $84-million, 113,000-square-foot wing designed by Moshe Safdie. The new Peabody Essex opened in June 2003 to much popular acclaim. “Museums often spend insufficient time and care developing the program plan,” which should involve all department heads, senior staff, and the board’s building committee, says Monroe. “All assumptions regarding program needs, space requirements and adjacencies, and human and technical requirements should be explicitly listed [and then] tested and re-tested for validity, with the help of outside experts, including experienced museum professionals. . . . The well-done program plan will simplify and guide architect selection, design, and construction. It will also help control costs by reducing [the need for] change orders.”
Architect selection is critical. Often museums will seek a “signature” architect to ensure that the project attracts both funding and audiences. This process can be extremely complex, involving review committees, design competitions, and considerable expense. The challenge museum planners face when working with a radical new design concept and a world-famous architect cannot be understated. No matter who designs your building, a strong collaboration between the architect and museum should be expected. The Denver Art Museum (DAM) currently is engaged in the construction of a 140,000-square-foot Daniel Libeskind wing, a design characterized by the Sept. 15, 2003, issue of the New Yorker as “an astonishingly beautiful explosion.” According to Dan Kohl, DAM’s director of museum design, Libeskind was very open to staff’s ideas for the design.
Cost estimating often was cited as a red flag by the surveyed museums. Some institutions hire construction firms to add greater levels of detail as well as provide advice during the cost-estimating phase. Tied closely to funding, actual construction can take anywhere from three to five years, making cash flow a major concern. How do you plan for unexpected costs such as asbestos removal, preserving archeological artifacts found during an excavation, the death of a key funder, or a major tourist downturn? Sometimes museums, in their excitement about a project, move forward before tying operations costs to design decisions. Walter Crimm, vice president of Ewing Cole architectural firm in Philadelphia, has worked with several museums on large renovation programs. “Project scope and project quality determine costs,” he says, “both in terms of the first costs of construction and the long-term operational costs. The quality of spaces, finishes, and building systems have an impact on . . . maintenance and utility costs. Since few projects have the budget to completely achieve both full scope and quality, it is critical to have a process that balances competing interests and supports informed decision-making by the museum.”
Funding sources: Successfully funded building projects usually draw on a mixture of sources, including lead gifts from board members, matching grants from foundations, state and local government grants, bond issues, corporate sponsorships, membership solicitations, and (in some cases) retail-development partnerships. Museums with an eye on long-term viability seek funds for capital expenses, start-up staff, and marketing, but also carefully estimate needs for ongoing operations, often provided by increasing their endowments. According to Director Dennis Fiori, for example, the Maryland Historical Society’s recent renovation and expansion raised $30 million, one-third of which was earmarked for endowment.
Although state funding cuts have had an impact on many museums and cultural organizations, some projects remain supported by public funds. The John and Mable Ringling Museum of Art in Sarasota, Fla., is in the midst of a 10-year, $76-million renovation and expansion program. Executive Director John Wetenhall attributes that to the Ringling’s status as “official state art museum,” under the administration of Florida State University. The state legislature has provided one-to-one matches for new building programs as well as matching endowment grants. “This gives comfort to our major donors,” says Wetenhall. On the other hand, while state funding supported the construction of the new Bob Bullock State History Museum in Austin, Tex. (opened in 2001), the institution is expected to manage operations based on earned income and private contributions, says Director Lynn Denton.
Post-opening budgets are of real concern. To cushion the institution from unexpected downturns in attendance, tourism, or traditional funding, museums are considering new approaches. Gail Lord is president of Lord Cultural Resources, a Toronto-based consulting firm that has worked on hundreds of museum projects. The cost of additional square footage often surpasses earned revenue and attendance, she says: “In the enthusiasm to build, the last thing that people want to hear is that they require increased subsidies to cover the gap.” Many museums have created feasibility studies that help estimate future attendance and operating costs. At Philadelphia’s new Constitution Center, a 160,000-square-foot, $123-million facility that opened in July 2003, audience reactions have been positive and attendance has been on target. Operational funding in this start-up phase will be approximately 50-percent earned income, 45-percent contributions, and 5-percent endowment, with endowment increasing over time, says Executive Vice President Laura Linton: “You just don’t know until you open your doors” how well you are going to do.
There are advantages to seeking new sources of earned income beyond the traditional attendance and retail activities. Spencer Crew, executive director of the Underground Railroad and Freedom Center in Cincinnati, opening in August 2004, plans to generate revenue by offering mission-based diversity training to other organizations and groups.
Mixed-use development is another creative way of financing a building program and establishing long-term stability. In May 2003, the Seattle Art Museum announced a development agreement with its neighbor Washington Mutual Bank to build contiguous facilities in the downtown area. This will allow the art museum to expand into a total of 300,000 square feet over a period of time, while the bank gains additional office space and parking facilities.
Project management: Some of the surveyed museums developed steering committees comprised of board and staff to monitor activities and ensure adherence to program plans. Other museums, those without the requisite in-house skills, hire professional project managers to oversee the many details associated with construction and renovation or to serve as the museum’s representative. Museums also use consultants in the planning phases or for estimating, design, staffing, market research, post-opening evaluation, or fund raising. “Checks and balances are essential to control costs and avoid surprises,” says Dan Monroe. “After selecting an architect, a museum should select a general contractor. The general contractor will provide a check for the architect on cost estimates and constructability. Additionally, independent consultants should review design documents for consistency and completeness.” Monroe also recommends that independent firms review lighting, mechanical, and electrical plans and specifications.
Deciding whether to close or stay open during building and renovation projects is critical. Museums must balance ongoing public service against prolonged projects, additional costs, and inconvenience to public and staff. Some institutions—the Museum of Modern Art, for example—have moved to alternate spaces, where they run scaled-back programs and stay in the public eye. Others have closed completely so that staff could focus on planning for the new facility. Of course, closing may cut the steady stream of earned income from admissions and retail operations and perhaps lead to staff layoffs.
San Francisco’s Asian Art Museum worked with staff during the 18 months it closed during the construction of a new building, which opened in spring 2003. Staff were concerned about layoffs, the lack of public programs, and the uncertainty of life in a new space. Valerie Pechenik, director of human resources, says the museum took a proactive approach to dealing with morale issues. A highly visible “wellness program” for the 80 staff members included such perks as massage therapy, yoga, and language classes. A popular peer education program allowed staff to share their skills with each other. These activities lead to enhanced team-building, which Pechenik believes was the “most important thing” ensuring survival during this phase. In the new space, efforts to support the staff have resulted in minimal turnover.
Good communication is crucial; it is important to keep board, staff, funders, and public well informed throughout a new building program. Both the Air and Space Museum and the Denver Art Museum have used the Internet quite effectively. The Web can highlight progress via project timelines, live Webcams, or ongoing appeals for the capital campaign. Many museums have added marketing and public relations staff to ensure that their messages are clear, consistent, and compelling.
Moving Forward
Making the monumental decision to go forward with a building program requires considerable thought and study. Milwaukee’s David Gordon provides a cautionary note. “Everybody has a great idea for a museum,” he says. But the “overbuilding of new museums can lead to the danger of excess capacity.”
Perhaps it is cheaper to renovate or expand than to build at a new location. Or perhaps the museum can provide new outreach programs through the Internet rather than bricks and mortar? Marketing studies to forecast visitation, select location, or determine fund-raising feasibility are an important factor in the decision mix. Miami’s Museum of Science & Planetarium researched the economic impact of a new science center project as part of the city’s urban redevelopment and cultural tourism initiative. It is one of several new projects around the country that are taking advantage of the Smithsonian Affiliations program as a way to increase programming and attract funding. Affiliates can borrow Smithsonian collections on a long-term basis and collaborate on programming.
The challenge of decision-making continues throughout the project. Because so much is at stake there will be countless opinions on every aspect. Monroe emphasizes that “managing staff and board engagement in all key aspects of a major facilities project is critical to maintaining unity, focus, and overall success.”
Spencer Crew notes that a new building program “needs a great deal of flexibility in considering what’s possible. The process is evolutionary.” Being open to a variety of ideas often leads to the most successful programs. Laura Linton emphasizes the importance of staying completely committed to your project and having the will to overcome inevitable roadblocks.
Less often considered but of real consequence is the impact on staff. Few museum staff participate in more than one building project during their professional lifetimes. Staff are often not experienced in overseeing and living through lengthy and disruptive projects. Doing appropriate research about the process and learning about the experiences of colleagues can make a major difference.
As many museums move forward with their plans for expansion and renovation, they will be looking for solid data on construction costs, marketing strategies, economic impact, visitor attendance, and funder willingness to support their efforts. Extensive efforts are needed to ensure that this infinformation is collected and made available to the field.
Martha Morris is associate professor of museum studies, George Washington University, and former deputy director, National Museum of American History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
