Cultural Policy Center at The University of Chicago
Abstract
In November 2008, after a 68millionprojecttobuildanewmuseumbuildinginRoanokewascomplete,theTaubmanMuseumofArtreopened.The15 million needed to fund the new building was still to be raised, and by the end of the 2008 fiscal year (FY) in July, 14.4millionhadbeenborrowed.Beforethemove,themuseumwasprovidedwithitsspacefreeofanyrental,maintenance,security,custodial,andutilityfeesbyalocaloperatingfoundationatitsCenterintheSquare.Afterthemove,thecostsofstaffingandmaintainingthefacilityfarexceededestimates,whiletherevenuesprovedfarbelowexpectations.Inthefirstyear,themuseum′soperatingbudgetbeforedepreciationwas5.5 million. In fiscal year 2009, an additional 2.8millionhadbeenborrowedand945,000 paid in interest. This debt expense alone was larger than the entire pre-expansion operating budget. For the grand opening, the Taubman Museum had hired additional staff for a total of 52, but the financial pressure forced four rounds of layoffs, during which the staff was trimmed to 17. At the same time, the admission fee increased, from nothing before the project's beginning to 3duringthecapitalcampaignto10.50 after opening. Even after these drastic measures, the museum is still struggling, fighting for its very survival. Moreover, other arts organizations complained that the museum had become a drain into which cultural funds were being sucked from foundations and philanthropists in Roanoke Valley.Why did the Taubman Museum's fortunes change so drastically after its move? To what extent was the new building -- rather than the depressed economy -- to blame for the severity of its crisis? What measures during the planning process could have been taken to prevent this catastrophe