The Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art is asking the public for feedback on six designs for a major museum expansion. After March 31, a museum committee will bring this feedback directly to the competing architects and choose a winner.
Late last year, the museum issued an open call to architects for an expansion that adds buildings, improves the circulation of guests, “[reveals] the museum’s inner workings to the public,” and “[creates] highly animated and fluid spaces that integrate into the life of the city.” On March 13, the museum unveiled the six finalists—firms from Japan, Italy, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles—and opened in-person and digital galleries for public viewing and feedback.
The digital gallery includes artist renderings of each design; the in-person gallery is on floor one of the Nelson-Atkins building and incorporates 3D models. In addition, each contestant explained their designs in a podcast by Graphic Machine.
We spoke with the museum’s director and CEO, Julián Zugazagoitia, about the competition and how Kansas Citians can give the most effective feedback before month’s end. (When you’re ready, you can submit feedback in person or online.)
In October, you spoke about the ideal design for this expansion. How did the finalists meet that ideal? And did any subvert your expectations and throw in something interesting?
Each design is surprising and unique and tells you a very strong team was behind the proposals. There’s are some commonalities, some themes that are appearing on how to address what we asked for—and, also, there are different ways. For instance, some emphasize the south lawn with below-grade galleries, and some focus more on the west side to somehow balance the Bloch Building. It’s just refreshing to see so many possibilities in each of the designs, and there’s always things you love.
Some of the projects have more of a presence in the building face; some others have more of an inner working or subterranean working. Some take advantage of the existing premises and work around it and give us more space there; some others build more to better connect the spaces that we already have. It’s going to be a complex series of conversations to see which one comes closest to the aspirations of the community and our own.
What makes good feedback? What will allow the selection committee to bring the public’s interest into the interviews in April?
When we invite our visitors to give us input, we want to have them look at these models and drawings with the notion that these designs are very quick responses to our [open call]. Whichever the winning design ends up being, we will work with them to continue developing the project. It will be very, very important to have as many comments before the end of the month so we’re armed with a bed of questions to ask of each of the teams.
All the input that we’re taking right now is to help us evaluate what the public resonates with, what they like, what they don’t like. But more than that, what I want to invite everyone to do is to think, How is this project fulfilling those questions that we asked of the architects? Is circulation better? Do you think that it will be more visible and more inviting? Would you want to spend more time in a museum like this? Does it seek to create better indoors and the outdoors?
Informed feedback would be to tell us what you see in the project that you like and what you don’t like, but in a deeper way than just saying “I didn’t like this one,” or, “Don’t do this on the left-hand side.” What emotions are you looking for in a museum? That will help us understand your perspective when you say, “I like this one because it is really big,” or, “I feel this is too big and it’s too daunting.” I think if you qualify your responses in writing and go to the emotions that you want or don’t want from a museum, that is a good start for the general public.
If you’re a professionally trained architect, then you can also give technical advice. We have three different committees of professional people in the field of architecture, engineering, and cost analysis that will be giving us that outside review, but we look forward to anyone to give us perspective, to give us as many comments as they wan—but also qualifying from which perspective they’re talking from.
Conversation edited for length and clarity.