These two recent newspaper articles caught my eye.

Recent developments in Kansas City Union Terminal's crash rail exhibit development program:
http://www.belleville.com/mld/belleville/10502711.htm

Proposal to preserve a south Chicago coking plant, with ideas raising from straight preservation to heavy adaptive reuse:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27685-2004Dec26.html

The article on the Proposed Kansas City Railroad museum raises questions.

This is the same group that proposed that they would restore and display the Smithsonian's PA which is sitting derelict in Portland Oregon. That was expected to be a million $ plus restoration. I would assume that project is now dead.

The consultant's proposed visitation of 250,000 and the idea of an operating surplus was a red flag. Most historic sites just don't get visitor numbers that high. The fact is most historic sites require a continuing operating subsidy (not to mention the cost of collections development and buildings). Attendance fees just don't cover the costs. Even a significant, successful site like the California State Railroad Museum doesn't turn a profit.

It appears they purchased a large private collection (Of which, few (none?) of the cars had a Kansas City History) in a hurry, (after all, they had surplus funds) thinking they would have an instant museum, only to discover the cost of exhibit development and car restoration. Now they are proposing to sell much of what they purchased. I would hope they have developed a collection policy with good de-accessioning and ethics elements before they go down that road.

At least the interm director has enough knowlage to reduce the expectations.

Without a doubt, historic preservation is a hard sell. Due to competition for limited resources, promoters of historic preservation often need an attention getter to not only crack open doors but to keep them open. 250,000 visitors gets people's attention whereas a much smaller projection, say 25.000 or even 50,000, raises only a few eyebrows. If not for utilizing seemingly "inflated" projections, some historic preservation projects would never go beyond the dream stage.

Are these projects forever to be labeled "lost causes"?

Ken Middlebrook wrote:

"Without a doubt, historic preservation is a hard sell. Due to
competition for limited resources, promoters of historic preservation
often need an attention getter to not only crack open doors but to
keep them open. 250,000 visitors gets people's attention whereas a
much smaller projection, say 25.000 or even 50,000, raises only a
few eyebrows. If not for utilizing seemingly "inflated" projections,
some historic preservation projects would never go beyond the
dream stage.

Are these projects forever to be labeled "lost causes"?"


If the project can't get the support (be it a business model based on admission fees, or government subsidy) it needs with realistic visitor numbers, it needs to be reevaluated and possibly redefined, or at worst case abandoned. If we use inflated projections, and the project fails, it affects how people look at all later projects. We probably have more railroad museums and train rides than the "market" can support. Of course we are not a true market system as many of our museums have some level of government support.

It sounds like these people were sold a bill of goods by a high priced consultant. Someone needs to tell these folks that a museum with half a dozen railcars and a bunch of china and timetables will never attract hoards of people loaded down with kids in minivans and SUVs and wallets full of cash to spend.

As we all know there are many places that have much more to offer that just don't get the kind of support they have been told will exist by this consultant. Even the low end figured should be taken with a shaker of salt.

Tom Gears