New York’s Museum of Modern Art gives us some insight into the financial health of America’s not-for-profit organizations. The New York Times says that they are buying a 12-year-old building, constructed at a cost of $32 million in 2001 ($42 million in 2013 “mini-dollars”) and demolishing it. Why can’t they reuse the former American Folk Art Museum’s home? Is it that hard to take down a quilt and replace it with a Brice Marden? “MoMA officials said the building’s design did not fit their plans because the opaque facade is not in keeping with the glass aesthetic of the rest of the museum.”
7 thoughts on “Non-profit organization tears down $42 million building”
Comments are closed.
I’m not sure you can extrapolate the “financial health of America’s not-for-profit organizations” from this one data point. Actually, since the American Folk Art Museum was forced to sell the building in question in order to pay off debt, some not-for-profit organizations seem to be in trouble. I’m not even sure if you could extrapolate the financial health of MOMA since the article did not say how they had financed the purchase of the building. MOMA does seem to be counting on the continued good will of its supporters, as the article did say that fundraising for the construction of the new building had yet to begin. If enough of their potential contributors find this move offensive, they may have made a major miscalculation.
If you’re a MOMA supporter and you feel this is a waste of your money, you are certainly free to choose not to support them anymore.
Not for profit doesn’t mean the org can’t be designed to make a profit, just that the profit does not belong to the “owners” of the org. They can of course redistribute it to themselves in the form of ridiculous compensation, but that is relatively difficult and available for public inspection. My favorite example of a highly profitable not-for-profit is Delta Dental (insurance) in CA.
But it takes money to make money, and it takes money to keep the doors open. They might believe that a new building will bring in more visitors and revenue, because it adheres to the aesthetic they are selling. Or, since they can’t take the money home with them directly, they have to spend it on *something* that will increase their happiness.
Everybody loves a new building, and in a virtuous cycle, there will be all sorts of new galleries and wings and promenades to name, and gaggles of patrons who want to pay for that privilege.
I used the word “virtuous” ironically, but there’s a psychological phenomenon that applies to non-profit fundraising. Despite the way it sounds on NPR, people love love donating and feeling attached, even anonymously. Of course naming a row of topiary after yourself or your dead husband has its own rewards.
Why is there an expectation on them to be frugal if they’re a not-for profit organization?
If people have donated enough money for them to do this, I don’t see the problem with it. Especially if the people doing the donations actually expect this from the organization.
It seems to me that supporters of MOMA would expect MOMA to place a very high value on aesthetics over any other concern, such as the cost of said building.
“You don’t understand sir…those hand-woven rugs smelled…”
I’m sure in the pecking order of art institutions, the Folklore museum rated far below the MOMA, and there are appearances to keep up. Your comments on the Chinati Foundation – museum as private club for the wealthy – likely apply here.
I live next door to a Famous University. It’s under continual assault from backhoes and cranes as wealthy donors plop down building after building to bear their names.
The tax treatment of “non-profit” corporations deserves serious re-consideration and reform. Most are not charitable, or at best are only minimally so. Many engage in competitive and highly profitable commercial pursuits, like running medical centers and insurance companies, only to bury their “profits” in tangential enterprises like real estate development. They can hire, advertise, buy and sell to compete with for-profit companies, but enjoy considerable protection from taxation and the requirements of shareholders. Large “non-profit” university medical centers and their holding trusts build their brands, buy property, build facilities, hire staff, buy equipment, and hire consultants to compete with private practice professionals who enjoy none of the tax protections of the nonprofit, but pay lavish bonuses to their management. If the government is going to be in the business of picking winners and losers, why do this?
The NY Review of Books has a story on the institutional ego-tripping behind the scenes.
Not pretty.
Money to burn. Really outrageous. This is like cash for clunkers, when perfectly good cars were euthanized.