THE MUSEUM
CHAPTER I
The Situation of the Museum Building
THE first problem to be considered by a Board of Trustees about to found a new museum is the choice of the location. Sometimes this is already decided for them: a gift of land is made and it is necessary for the building to be placed upon that land. If, however, the trustees are free to make their own choice, what are the questions that should be answered before a lot can be considered desirable? The first of these is whether a museum should be regarded as an institution for the education of the masses, or whether it should serve as a centre for study for specialists, or both.
Here in America a museum is regarded as a part of the educational system, and the great contribution that we have made to the development of museum science has been the addition to the duties of the museum official of the important work of teaching Art, not only to those who know they are interested, but to the school children and others who may be induced to take an interest. If, then, the museum is to fulfil its greatest function, in bringing its treasures into the lives of all the people, the first and most important consideration in choosing a site is, how easily will it be accessible to the majority of people who will visit the museum? In certain unfortunate cases it has been deemed wise or expedient to choose a position far from the centre. Let us consider, for a moment, the Boston Museum. When the old building in Copley Square was put up, a plot of ground considered sufficient for an indefinite growth was bought. With streets on either side and in front, it was hoped that the museum would be safe. With the rapid growth of the city the situation became more and more intolerable. It was accessible; yes, too accessible. The street cars, which passed the front door, and the trains, which stopped at the station almost immediately behind the Museum, brought not only vibration, but dust, which it was impossible to combat. Then, again, the changing character of Copley Square made the danger from fire such that the situation was no longer considered safe. Land values in the meantime had increased so much that by selling their holdings in that place and buying in a less expensive locality the Trustees were able to control a much larger area. Thus there were many extenuating circumstances which excused the move to the Fenway, but in spite of the new building, the increased facilities, and the interest already aroused among the people, the attendance fell off to such an extent that it was deemed necessary to offer, for a time, inducements to visitors. On certain days special through cars were run from different parts of the city to bring to the new site people who had formerly been able easily to reach the Museum.
In New York the situation chosen for the Metropolitan Museum was at a great distance from the centre, but such are the peculiar conditions in that city that growth must be in the direction of the Museum and not from it. The question of communication is here even more complicated than in Boston, and yet the very fact that there will undoubtedly never be a street-car line going directly past the Museum is in itself an advantage, because the dangers from vibration are thus removed. With the millions of inhabitants and visitors in New York the Metropolitan can register a large attendance though it is not accessible, but this is not true in smaller cities, and the question of how far it is right to sacrifice safety in order to put the building where it can most easily be reached by the people is a very serious one. In Chicago, on the other hand, the Art Institute is located in the centre of the down-town district and while it is most unfortunately placed in relation to the railroad which passes the rear, it is at the same time so accessible that the number of its visitors is extraordinary.
Let us consider for a moment the European museums from this aspect. In Berlin, where there is a large group of Art museums, all the more important ones, with one exception, are grouped on the so-called Museum Island, in the heart of the city. The street cars and railroads pass so close to the museums that the dust and vibration which they cause are serious. In Paris, the chief collections have been brought together in the old royal palace of the Louvre, situated in the heart of the city, and although street cars pass along one side the traffic is not so heavy as to cause vibration, though there is much noise and dust. Accessibility is assured by the innumerable lines of motor buses which pass the museum on all sides, as well as by the underground, which has a special stop at that point. In London the case is somewhat different. There, although the British Museum is in the heart of the city, there are no street-car lines which come nearer to it than one block away. The enormous number of people who visit this museum may be compared with some interest with the comparatively small number of those who visit the South Kensington Museum, which containing, as it does, collections of decorative arts, should have an equal popular appeal with the archaeological and scientific material in the British Museum. This is just a case to illustrate the point. The people will go to the museum that they can reach with the least effort, irrespective of what it contains. From all these examples it will be seen that the ideal situation for a museum building is in a central location one block away from street-car lines and several blocks removed from the railroad. A strong argument in favor of centralization of museums has been presented by J. C. Dana in his article on the Gloom of Museums in the Newarker for October, 1913, page 396.
Another important consideration is the cost of the land. If the museum is to be in the heart of the city the site will cost more in proportion to its size. With the rapid development of our American cities it is quite impossible for any one to forecast the direction of the growth, but care should be taken to choose a site which in all probability will not decrease in value, as circumstances might arise which would make it necessary for the museum to move and for this reason to desire to sell its former site.
The ownership of neighboring lots is another vital question. The erection of a factory near the museum may be a dangerous menace to the safety of its contents. Smoke, soot and dust are among the greatest dangers we have to face in the preservation of works of art. A large department store or even an office building as a neighbor cannot fail to bring some fire danger. Unfortunately it has not yet been possible to find a means of rendering our buildings thoroughly fire-proof. Even with all modern devices the risk is great, and there is hardly a building that would not prove a serious menace to its neighbors should a fire once gain headway. If a museum building is to be placed in the heart of the city, therefore, there must be riot only the usual provision for a legitimate growth, but some surplus to guard against undesirable neighbors.
As regards growth, it is to be hoped that the museums of the future are going to be very different from the museums of the past, and that we shall learn that economy in running a large plant is not the only consideration. Such monstrosities as the Louvre in Paris, the South Kensington in London, and the Metropolitan in New York, will no longer be possible, but their place will be taken by museums of moderate size, devoted not to all art from earliest times to the present day, but to different periods or classes of material, and we shall then have museums dotted about in the different quarters of the city where they will reach a larger number of people and where one can spend, in intimate association with a series of objects, a number of hours without that overwhelming sense of fatigue that comes to the weary visitor who knows that although he is now in gallery number 22, there are fifty-seven that he has not seen, and through which he possibly may have to pass before emerging from the building. It is very much more interesting to go to ten different places than it is to go to the same place ten times.
One other matter should be considered in choosing a lot, and that is the quality of the ground. As a concrete example let us see what happened in Berlin. So many mistakes have probably never been made elsewhere in this respect, and yet, Germany has at this present time developed museum work to the position of an exact science. It seems as though in these days it would hardly be possible anywhere for a piece of ground situated at the end of an island, between two streams which are constantly used by canal boats, to be chosen as the site for a museum, especially a museum of such importance as the Kaiser Friedrich. In the first place the ground is not capable of supporting so large a structure, and the expense of building piers is almost as great as it would be were the building located in mid-stream. Again, the smoke from the engines of the canal boats makes on some days so dense a cloud that the windows of the museum are darkened by it, while the presence of the water elicits the complaint from the engineer in charge of the ventilating apparatus that he is unable adequately to control the humidity because of the amount of water in the immediate vicinity of the museum! But this is not the worst evil. Permission was granted to build, directly behind the museum, the elevated tracks which were to carry express trains from Petrograd to Paris through the city instead of around it. On these same tracks run suburban trains at frequent intervals. This means that several times a day enormously heavy trains with many cars go jolting by, and every five minutes a suburban train, puffing volumes of smoke, pants on its way. The vibration from this road has caused such cracks in the walls of the museum that in a desperate effort to remedy matters many thousands of dollars were spent in digging a trench ten metres deep and ten metres broad. In this trench concrete retaining walls were built and the middle space was filled with rough stone loosely put in to interrupt the vibratory waves. One would have thought that when everyone recognized that such a mistake had been made in the case of this museum that in Berlin, at least, no other museum would be subjected to a similar fate. Unfortunately, however, an old decree made by the grandfather of the present Emperor called for the building of all museums on the so-called Museum Island. When, therefore, money was given for the building of the new German, Oriental and Pergamon Museums, there was no question in the mind of any one where they would be placed. The expense of building the foundations in the soft soil was cheerfully met and, though it seemed a criminal waste to put so much money below ground, all would have been well had they not stumbled upon a place where, in spite of boring to great depths, they were unable to find solid bottom. This proved to be a glacial pocket, small on top and broad beneath, which had to be cleared out and filled in before the work could proceed. In the process of excavating, so much water had to be pumped out that the neighboring Neues Museum began to show signs of weakness. For about twenty-four hours it was in imminent danger of collapse and only immediate stoppage of all work and great precautions to relieve the strain prevented the subsidence of the whole building. After wasting two years of time and about a half-million dollars on this one bad place in the earth, the hole was filled up with concrete to a depth of sixty metres, or more than one hundred and eighty feet. That the extent of the damage wrought in the Neues Museum is not yet known we may be sure. The building is erected on wooden piles which have stood in water until this unfortunate affair necessitated the pumping out of the ground water from that vicinity. How much damage had the air done to those piles before the water was allowed to flow back again? This is the question that is now occupying the engineers.
To sum up: in selecting the site for a new museum building the following matters must be considered. First, the situation should be as near the civic centre as possible or at least thoroughly accessible from all parts of the city. Second, if outside the centre, it should be on the side of probable future development. Third, the lot must be large enough to allow for growth as well as to protect the museum from undesirable neighbors. Fourth, it must be of such a character that the expense of building foundations and the maintenance costs when built will not be excessive.