Lessons From the Building Boom

The construction boom at the turn of the 21st century added many new cultural centers and building projects across the United States, especially in the South. For example, The Mint Museum in Charlotte, N.C., opened a new uptown location in 2010 that spans 145,000 square feet, filled with five stories of displays and exhibits.

A new academic study is adding perspective to the 15 years of roaring construction that preceded the recession, and providing lessons for future community projects.

The study, titled “Set in Stone,” looks at the major building boom of museums, performing arts centers and theaters in the United States from 1994 to 2008. It is the first scientifically prepared study of its kind, and was born from requests by foundations and cultural leaders that had, in many cases, provided vocal and financial support for the building projects.

The building boom in cultural facilities outpaced building in other sectors, such as health care, said Joanna Woronkowicz, a co-author of the report and an associate at the Cultural Policy Center, the Chicago-based group that performed the study.

“At least in the beginning, each of these projects was based on the assumption that a new facility would help increase audience size, increase income, and – at least indirectly – help realize the institution’s mission,” said Carroll Joynes, co-author of the report and a senior fellow at the Cultural Policy Center. Results were mixed, and in many instances, expanding the facilities was far more challenging than expected, putting enormous strain on the sponsoring institutions.

The study drew data from more than 700 builds, including both new facilities and major renovations, the costs of which ranged from $4 million to $335 million. Researchers interviewed people in more than 500 organizations, gaining rare, behind-the-scenes access to the discussions surrounding the projects.

Among the key findings:

• Spending was strong across the country from 1994 to 2008. The New York area led the country with $1.6 billion in cultural building, while the Los Angeles area expanded by $950 million and the Chicago area saw spending of $870 million on arts-related projects.

• Cities in the South added the most cultural buildings. The region had lagged behind the rest of the country before the building boom — the Northeast and West had twice the number of cultural facilities per capita in 1990 than the South.

• Increases in building were most common in communities with increases in personal income and in education among their residents; this was another reason why the South led in building expansions.

• Smaller cities with fewer than 500,000 people were building as well – on a per capita basis, nine of the top ten spenders on cultural projects were in smaller cities. Pittsfield, Mass., for example, with a population of 44,700, led the list with a per capita expenditure of $605 for six projects at a total cost of more than $81 million.

• More than 80 percent of the projects studied ran over budget, some by as much as 200 percent.

• More performing arts centers were built than any other kind of arts facility.

The Morgan Library in New York City was one of dozens of cultural centers renovated or newly built during the construction boom. The city’s Cultural Affairs department had an $865 million budget for building projects for 2006-2010 alone, more than double the previous budget cycle.

“We found the most successful projects were driven by both the organization’s artistic mission and by clear and definable need,” Woronkowicz said. “It helped enormously when there was one project manager, answerable to the board, in charge of the details and accountable for progress,” she added.

“Also, a big problem is estimating the actual demand for cultural projects,” said Joynes. Although increased education and income are usual predictors of demand for music, performance and museums, actual vs. predicted attendance does not follow a scientific formula,” Joynes said. “It’s not an automatic, ‘you build it, and they will come,’” he said.

The researchers also found that some projects faltered when they became signature pieces for leading architects, who ended up designing a significantly more expensive building than the organization could afford to build or maintain.

“Set in Stone” was released on June 28 by the Cultural Policy Center, a joint project of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy Studies, and the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago.

See the full report at: culturalpolicy.uchicago.edu/setinstone/