Albright-Knocks?

In a series of posts (here, here, and here) Tyler Green examines the trial balloon floated by the Albright-Knox in February—that is, the museum's aspirational pledge to build a 50,000–square-foot expansion. I'm not quite sure that I fully understand what he means by one comment:

[M]useum directors should stop pointing to tourism as a rationale for whatever they do. A museum's most important audience is is its hometown crowd.

but I think I disagree in this case. If the Albright-Knox is only able to commit to this expansion by attracting public support, as seems both perfectly plausible given the circumstances and straightforwardly implied by A-K director Louis Grachos, then increasing the Albright-Knox's profile as a destination is exactly what the museum will need to do to attract that support.

Rather, I don't disagree with Green. I think there isn't necessarily a conflict here. Is the Albright-Knox's most important audience its hometown crowd? Sure. Does the museum do a disservice to the hometown crowd by expanding in a way that's sure to draw eyes from outside Buffalo? No, not necessarily. Whatever decision it comes to in re: campus expansion, architect or starchitect, etc., the A-K will need to brand that decision as one that's going to bring jobs and eyeballs and expand tax revenue, in order to receive the sort of support (e.g., tax-increment financing) that has proved a boon to institutions whose trustees can't go it alone.

I would think that the satellite option might have been more appealing to state and local government, actually: The A-K brand name grows in two areas of Buffalo. But the powers that be say no. I expect, like Green, then, that the museum will hang its case on the strength of its expansion design. Hey, it's not necessarily a bad thing.

Posted by Kriston at March 7, 2008 4:18 PM