I’ve heard the Museum Partners (specifically Jim Richerson) give their presentation on the new museum square site plan with the smaller museum building a couple of times now. One phrase has really stuck with me — the idea that the Water Street side of the museum has a lot of open space so that it can “embrace the river.” Just to show what they mean by “embrace the river,” they have this really nice artist’s rendering they show:

See how the obtuse angle of the building opens up toward the river and the Murray Baker bridge, and all that shimmering, reflective water? There’s just one problem: this is an aerial view. When you’re on the ground, and when the buildings along the riverfront aren’t grayed out and diminished in size, the reality is that you can’t see the river — the open space opens up and embraces riverfront village and the River Station.

I took a walk down Water Street the other day and snapped these photos from the sidewalk right on “museum square”:

The only place where you can kind of see the river is when you’re standing about mid-block, looking between the River Station and Riverfront Village:

Something else to consider is this: Whereas the underground parking deck was hidden in the original plans by the street-level retail shops along Water Street, the new plans have removed the retail element, lowered the elevation of the plaza and exposed the parking deck to the Water Street side. So, in the fourth picture above, for instance, if we were to turn to the left and the museum were built to current specs, we would be looking at a parking deck.

The last council communication on this topic indicated that city staff doesn’t believe the retail portion will ever be built if it isn’t part of Phase I. They were proposing that it be taken out of the museum agreement — in other words, out of the museum partners’ control. Then the city could ensure that project gets built.

The museum folks are reportedly worried about that scenario because they’re afraid the city might allow something to be built that would block the museum’s view of the river. Perhaps they should take a walk down Water Street and see for themselves that the river view is already blocked.

However, we think the Tricentennial will have been a disappointment if some permanent memorial does not emerge from this year’s efforts. We’re not talking about a statue, for we have statues. We’re not talking about a riverfront green, or park, for we have those, too. We speak of a comprehensive history museum. We can think of no better way to “educate, communicate and celebrate” Peoria than through that museum, for it is impossible to appreciate how far we have come as a city and as a people without some knowledge of where we have been.

–Peoria Journal Star editorial, 9/13/1992

In the Beginning

From at least 1991 up through 2002, the talk and momentum for a downtown museum was concentrated on a “comprehensive” history museum. There was a lot of rhetoric — especially from the Journal Star Editorial Board — about the need for a museum that would showcase Peoria’s past.

It was the Peoria Historical Society that first suggested putting the museum on the Sears block, and they even hired a consultant to determine how big of a building they would need. In a May 19, 1998, Journal Star article, it was reported that LaPaglia and Associates, a museum consulting firm, had determined “a museum containing about 18,000 square feet of public space, including two 6,000-square-foot main exhibit halls, is the right size for the city.” Including offices and storage, the total museum size would be 33,000 square feet.

LaHood intervenes

Then in August 2000, Rep. Ray LaHood suggested combining a number of projects that were in the works at that time into one übermuseum. His reasoning? “There’s just not enough money in the community to fund a facility for each one of you,” he told stakeholders, according to an August 31, 2000, article in the Journal Star. In January 2002, the Historical Society, Lakeview, and others combined forces as LaHood suggested. (Incidentally, LaHood was correct about the funding limits, but it doesn’t appear that putting them all in the same building was the solution to that problem.)

Since the collaboration began, the history portion has gotten less and less press over time. After all, history is only a part of the “Peoria Regional Museum: Art, History, Science, Achievement” project now — not even getting top billing at that. And once the building designs came out, most of the focus shifted to the outside and how it would look.

History Takes a Back Seat?

But since the designs have changed and museum officials have directed the public’s attention to the inside again, I got to wondering what portion of the proposed Peoria Riverfront Museum would be devoted to Peoria’s history in the new, smaller space. I called the Peoria Historical Society to find out and spoke with Executive Director Amy Kelly.

Ms. Kelly said that the area I’ve outlined in the above graphic is where the history portion of the museum will be, and that it’s the portion called “The Street.” It will be designed to look like a city street with changing exhibits.

The total area outlined in red above: 14,000 square feet. Notice that it will also be shared with an “international exhibitions gallery,” “fine and folk art galleries,” and the “AAHFM Oral History and Wall of Fame.” The museum collaboration group has not determined how much space will be allocated to each element, and the space allocated could even change fluidly. But even if the history portion got as much as a third of the space on average, that would only be about 4,667 square feet.

Is that enough space to adequately display Peoria’s rich history?

The Delta Approach

While Ms. Kelly didn’t go into detail on how the exhibits would be displayed and changed, I know from reading other sources that the museum consultants, White Oak Associates, have programmed the space using something called the “Delta approach“:

A museum designed for change is a Delta museum; art museums are inherently easy to change, but science centers have formerly required huge investments to throw out the old and buy entirely new units. Thinking of learning spaces as flexible platforms that are equipped to host a succession of changing experiences is part of the Delta museum concept that facilitates change in parallel ways to a theater’s ability to host a succession of plays. The Delta approach calls for a long-term experience platform in each learning space (geared for the architecture of the space, the particular learning skills and the selected thematic content), and a scenario layer that can be removed and replaced with the new content and visitor experiences relatively inexpensively.

Nevertheless, any system, no matter how “flexible,” has to take up some space, and only that much space is going to be on display at any one time. Will less than 5,000 square feet really give Peoria’s history its due to tourists and other one-time visitors? Remember that LaPaglia and Associates had suggested a history-only museum would need 18,000 square feet of public space — more than the entire exhibit area outlined above. Surely there has been no small amount of compromise to get that whittled down to what’s being proposed now.

Storing Peoria’s Treasures

Then there’s another question. What about storage? If pieces are frequently being swapped out in the “Delta approach,” where are all the artifacts being stored when they’re not on display? Answer: where they’re being stored now (i.e., primarily the Pettengill-Morron and John C. Flanagan museum houses) and the current Lakeview building.

That’s right. When the new museum opens, Lakeview is planning to hang on to its building at Lake and University to be used for storage because there’s not going to be enough storage space at the new museum. In particular, there’s not very much space planned in the new museum for special, climate-controlled storage of fragile pieces.

One wonders how the museum will be able to support a brand new $65 million museum as well as a lease, utilities, and maintenance on their old building as well. Lakeview’s lease on their current building is up in 2012, just a year after the new museum is slated to open on the old Sears block. Will they be able to afford to lease that building when they’ll be using it for nothing more than storage? And will the Park District want that building to become nothing more than a storage shed? If they don’t or can’t keep the building, where will the artifacts be stored?

The Money

And then there’s the money angle. The original “comprehensive history museum” planned for the Sears block had an estimated cost of $10 million in 2000. That would be roughly $12 million in 2007 dollars. The new, combined museum has an estimated cost of $65 million, of which just under $25 million has been raised in public and private funds. Museum officials are pinning their hopes on the New Market Tax Credits program to provide most of the extra funding they need.

My Humble Proposal

In light of all this, I think the solution to the problem is pretty clear. Since Lakeview Museum is going to have to keep their current building anyway, and since their new planetarium equipment is already installed in their current location, they should keep their arts and science museum right where it is at University and Lake. Then a separate museum could be built downtown — one devoted to history and achievement. The building could be reconfigured and the cost significantly lowered.

This plan still achieves LaHood’s goal of consolidation, but also leverages assets already owned by those in the collaboration group. After all, there’s no compelling reason to move an established museum like Lakeview — especially if including them in the museum collaboration threatens to scuttle the whole project because of the increased costs their inclusion brings. Plus, this plan would put the focus back on Peoria’s history, which was the original vision for the project in the first place.

Since museum officials are comparing their proposed museum to icons of other cities, such as the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and the Eiffel Tower in Paris, I thought I’d help out by offering some more information to help us compare:

The Eiffel Tower

The Eiffel Tower was built between 1887 and 1889 completely of iron at a cost of about 7.8 million gold francs (don’t know how to convert that 2007 dollars, but one site estimated $35 million in 2006 dollars), as the entrance to the Universal Exposition of 1889, which was held in Paris. According to discoverfrance.net:

Of the 700 proposals submitted in a design competition, one was unanimously chosen, a radical creation from the French structural engineer Alexandre Gustave Eiffel…who was assisted in the design by engineers Maurice Koechlin and Emile Nouguier, and architect Stephen Sauvestre.

However, the controversial tower elicited some strong reactions, and a petition of 300 names — including those of Maupassant, Emile Zola, Charles Garnier (architect of the Opéra Garnier), and Dumas the Younger — was presented to the city government, protesting its construction.

Eiffel also engineered the internal structure of the Statue of Liberty and the dome of the Nice Observatory in Nice, France.

The Gateway Arch

The Gateway Arch was built between 1963 and 1965 at a cost of $13 million (about $85 million in 2007 dollars) to commemorate the nation’s westward expansion. According to the National Park Service, “The $11 million cost of the Arch itself was made up of 75% Federal funds and 25% City of St. Louis funds. The $2 million Arch transportation system was financed by the Bi-State Development Agency.”

The Arch was designed by Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen (after a nationwide search), who also designed the John Deere World Headquarters and John F. Kennedy International Airport. Historian Bob Moore says, “The arch’s design initially drew criticism, but before long the city of St. Louis embraced it.”

Peoria Regional Museum (PRM)

The PRM was designed by Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Architects, LLP, of Portland, Oregon, in partnership with local firms PSA Dewberry and STS Consultants. The project still carries a $65 million pricetag, but the size of the building has been reduced twice: once from 110,000 to 95,000 square feet, and recently from 95,000 to 81,000 square feet.

Obviously, the only comparison with the Eiffel Tower and the Gateway Arch is that the plan is facing opposition; that is, some people don’t like it. The implication is that this proposed building will presumably become iconic of Peoria, be a huge tourism draw, and eventually be embraced and beloved by Peoria residents as they realize what an architectural marvel it is.

I don’t think so. Maybe they could have said that with the original design, since the big sphere in a glass box could have at least become iconic of Peoria and was kind of a cool idea. But this new design? There’s nothing especially distinctive or memorable about it. They need to come up with a less-expensive design that still has a central architectural feature that impresses people. This building doesn’t have that — and furthermore, museum officials know it. They even said at the press conference that the so-called “wow factor” is on the inside now — the new planetarium and the programming of the museum. That was the whole idea behind Richerson’s plea to “focus on what we’re gaining.”

Now, if museum officials are willing to abandon the exterior “wow factor” and focus on the interior instead, then there’s really no reason to hold on to this building design or to fight for it. The interior can just as easily be housed in a more traditional urban building that fronts the street and only takes up a portion of the block, opening up a good portion of the block for other development. It would be cheaper to build, too, which would mean they wouldn’t have to raise as much money, something they’re having trouble doing anyway.

The museum partners unveiled the latest plans for Peoria Riverfront Museum at a news conference today. Are you ready? Here they are:

This is the view from Washington and Liberty Streets (above).

And this is an aerial view from above Washington Street (above).

Also, you can check out their slide presentation (in PDF format) by clicking here.

Museum officials were upbeat at the presentation, focusing on the positive. They explained that construction costs have risen at a much quicker rate than could have been anticipated based on historical data, and that’s the reason they’ve had to redesign the building. But, they were quick to add, they are not changing the museum-goer’s experience. The programming aspect of the museum has been maintained and, according to officials, even improved.

Lakeview Museum President Jim Richerson challenged those in attendance to not focus on the loss of square footage or various elements that have been eliminated, but rather “focus on what we’re gaining.” What we’re gaining, he said, was a more functional, efficient, and visitor-friendly museum with three times the space of the current Lakeview Museum.

The building facades are going to remain metal to blend with the “reflective quality” of the Illinois river. The 70-foot tall giant screen theater portion of the campus remains, as does the planetarium (though in a silo-shaped structure instead of the original design). The new footprint of the museum is bigger because all the exhibit space is on one floor now. The programming of the museum remains intact.

Officials are particularly proud of the the structure being what they call a “sustainable building.” They refer to its “green architecture,” its bioswales, and the fact that 90% of the material removed from the site has already been recycled (for example, used in the I-74 reconstruction).

The unique architecture of the building was held up as a compelling draw for tourists. Richerson stated “there is nothing cookie-cutter about it” and is “something we can be extremely proud of.” He also compared reaction to the plans with the initial reaction people had to the Gateway Arch in St. Louis and the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

Museum officials believe that the structure has an “urban face” on the Washington side because it comes closer to the street than before and has the mass of the 70-foot-tall theater. But on the Water Street side, they’ve retained the plaza which “opens up and embraces the river.” Part of that plaza includes 15,000 square feet being reserved for future commercial/retail space. They’ve also lowered the elevation on the Water Street side to allow an additional entrance.

Not pictured above is a black cloud hanging over the museum: funding. Funding has stalled at $24.5 million according to officials, and it was stated that “these next six months will be absolutely critical” to getting some “momentum” in fundraising. One key part of that is the hope that the museum will qualify for New Market Tax Credits; they hope to hear something by the end of October or first part of November.

Jennifer Davis has been doing some digging and came up with these specific changes:

…shrinking the building by about 15,000 square feet and doing away with both the reflecting pool and the large metal sphere enclosed in glass, which held the planetarium. Further, though it will look like a two-story building in places, the second floor will house mechanicals and no longer be accessible to visitors. The retail space along Water Street also will be put off for now. The planetarium still will exist, but in a silo-looking structure.

The City Council should shoot this down with both barrels. As far as I’m concerned, the museum group has proven that this cannot be a successful venture at its current size, and I don’t mean just the size of the building. I also mean the size of the project (combining multiple museums into one in an ever-decreasing space) and the size of the land (taking all that prime real estate away from public development that would produce tax revenue for the city for an 80,000 square foot building).

If the museum group wants to continue to try to stuff five or six museums/halls-of-fame into an 80,000-square-foot building, I suppose that’s their prerogative. But there’s no way the council should allow them to continue squatting on two-thirds of the former Sears block to do it. Give them a smaller portion of the block, and open the rest of it to private development — preferably a mix of retail and residential, in keeping with the principles of New Urbanism.

With respect to the size of the museum, this has changed over time. It’s gotten bigger; it’s gotten slightly smaller as we’ve continued to look at many different options.
-Jim Vergon, Lakeview Museum Board Chairman

So, the Peoria Riverfront Museum might be bigger or it might be smaller, but for sure there will be some “minor changes” because of “rising construction costs,” according to the Journal Star. Considering I’ve never seen a project ever get bigger due to rising construction costs, I’m going to guess Vergon’s quote is code for “it’s going to be smaller, just not as small as has been rumored.” I appreciate the museum partners’ positive outlook, but do they really expect us to believe this:

Vergon said that new program is “going well,” and [Lakeview Spokeswoman Kathleen] Woith adds fundraising has nothing to do with design changes.

Really? You don’t think delays in fundraising had anything to do with construction cost estimates going up, prompting “minor changes” in the design? They’re completely unrelated?

Woith also states that the public fundraising campaign doesn’t start until next year. If the “Circle the Square” campaign is any indication, I wouldn’t get my hopes up if I were Lakeview.

Last June, Jim Ardis and seven other mayors committed to raise $16 million in a year and raise grassroots support for the museum. At that time (6/27/06), the Journal Star reported that “the museum group has raised […] about $16 million in private funds and more than $5 million in a combination of state, federal and local dollars.”

Today, almost a year later, the Journal Star says that, as of February, public dollars total “only $6 million in commitments” and “[p]rivate donations total $18 million, or a little more than half the $35 million being sought.” That means the mayors’ efforts to raise $16 million in a year has so far fallen about $14 million short of the goal.

I hope someone with the museum partners at some point is brave enough to take an honest assessment of why there’s not more excitement about this project. The stalled fundraising should be a big hint that something’s not resonating with the public, or at least that the cost and scope of the project is just too big.