Museum, theatre should be built at new locations

The provincial government has decided to spend more than $800 million on building a new Royal British Columbia Museum. The reaction by a large part of the voting public is strong opposition, criticizing both the cost and the eight years during which the institution will be closed. Much of this criticism is justified.

First, the decision to tear down the existing building and build a new facility on that site is not justified by any documents the government has made public. It is understandable that there is a desire to locate any major cultural facility in the downtown central core.

Tourists, a major source of revenue both in the local economy at large and for the museum, would prefer a facility within easy reach. But it’s hard to believe that there is no site in the downtown core that would be suitable for a new facility which could be built while the existing museum continues to serve residents and visitors alike.

The plan adopted by the B.C. cabinet calling for destruction of the existing facility and building a replacement on its site must be informed by other factors. If this approach is actually cheaper for B.C. taxpayers, this should be clearly demonstrated.

The plan specifies closing the museum for eight years beginning this September. Eight years!

The long-term costs — monetary and otherwise — associated with such action are not considered in the published business plan. These costs need to be added to the $800-million price tag. First, during the eight-year hiatus, the attraction of the museum would be eliminated from city guides so tourists would never hear about it.

Secondly, virtually an entire generation of B.C. students would never experience visits, organized or independent, to learn about the evolution of the culture be it social, economic, ethnic, artistic or demographic of British Columbia.

Imagine if any enterprise meeting the needs of the public at large (e. g. The Bay, or Microsoft or Amazon) were to close for eight years. People forget and they find alternatives.

Eight long years from now (or more, if there are delays), when a new building and improved and expanded exhibits depicting the development of the province are once again open to the public, the initial opening will undoubtedly elicit large local crowds.

But, will attendance in the first year equal the level of, say, 2019? Tourist attendance specifically will likely lag for at least a year. A complete shutdown to the public for eight years motivated, it would seem, primarily by the desire to keep a new museum on the same site, doesn’t make sense.

I enjoy the Royal BC Museum and often visit when in Victoria. So, I believe the government should consider another location, acquire a site, build a beautiful new structure and move the existing materials along with newly exhibited artifacts into it and then close and — if no other good use for the existing building has been found in the meantime — demolish the existing structure. Great cultural centres do not often tear down their cultural facilities — though they do repurpose them.

Though the business plan does not mention this as a reason to demolish the existing structure, doing so would be a graphic and visible negation of a “colonial” institution.

Personally, I think it is preferable to forego the symbolism and concentrate on making the new facility’s exhibits more inclusive and representative of our past — both the good and the bad chapters.

This kind of myopic strategic thinking is not proprietary to the provincial government.

Here in Kelowna, the need for a new performing arts centre has some local politicians thinking that the solution might be to tear down the existing Kelowna Community Theatre, built in 1967, and rebuild on the same, now inadequate, site. That would probably take five years from start to completion.

During that time, where would two pillars of the local cultural scene, the Okanagan Symphony Orchestra and Ballet Kelowna, present their programming? As Kelowna continues to promote growth, the availability of such cultural amenities will be a critical ingredient in attracting both companies and their workers to come to the community.

More on this dilemma in a later column.