Rift in Family as Whitney Plans a Second Home

Rift in Family as Whitney Plans a Second Home


Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times


By CAROL VOGEL and KATE TAYLOR
Published: April 11, 2010

When the cosmetics heir Leonard A. Lauder gave $131 million to the Whitney Museum of American Art two years ago, it was the biggest donation in the institution’s history, and it came with one important stipulation: The Whitney could not sell its popular but cramped home on Madison Avenue in the foreseeable future.



Fred R. Conrad/The New York Times

The High Line elevated park at the corner of Washington and Gansevoort Streets, the site of a planned downtown Whitney.

Now an expansion plan that involves building a second museum downtown has opened a rift on the museum’s 45-member board, which includes some of the wealthiest art patrons in New York.

On one side is the majority that favors the construction project, saying it is integral to the future of a renowned museum with a world-class collection of American art by the likes of Edward Hopper and Alexander Calder. On the other side is a handful of longtime members, including Mr. Lauder, the chairman emeritus, who view the plan as a vanity project the Whitney can ill afford. Also at stake is the fate of the signature building on the Upper East Side, designed by Marcel Breuer and synonymous with the Whitney since it opened, in 1966.

The institution has been grappling with space problems for decades. When it moved to its current home, it had 2,000 works in its collection. That has since mushroomed to about 18,000, but there is only enough space to show some 150 at a time. As the collection continues to grow, many larger works have never been displayed because there simply isn’t the room.

Since the 1980s the institution has tried to expand its landmark building, hiring star architects like Michael Graves, Rem Koolhaas and Renzo Piano to design additions. But each time the effort was abandoned, either because of the cost or the design or both.

Now board leaders insist they are going forward. “This isn’t just the Whitney dreaming again,” said Brooke Garber Neidich, co-chairwoman of the board. When asked about the reality of running two museums, she said: “There is a chance we can run two locations. It’s just down to money.”

Not everyone is so sure. Although Mr. Lauder declined to be interviewed, people close to him have described his opposition. His is a key voice because as the Whitney’s biggest benefactor, he has given tens of millions of dollars in postwar American art in addition to multimillion-dollar cash gifts.

And Gilbert C. Maurer, a longtime board member and former president said: “This is like the politicians who love to build bridges but hate to paint them. I’m not as involved as I once was, but I think that like all institutions in this economy, it’s probably possible to build a building. The challenge is how are you going to operate it. And that’s worrisome.”

When the board meets next month, several issues may be thrashed out: Does it have the funds to operate both sites? Should it abandon the uptown building? Can it come up with a compromise between the two?

Ms. Neidich said the Whitney could afford it. “The museum has been in the black for years,” she said. “We are prudent fiscal guardians. The fact that we were able to raise more than half the money at this moment in time says something.”

The institution has quietly been gathering financial support for the $680 million project, which would involve a new 185,000-square-foot building on a city-owned site at Washington and Gansevoort Streets in the meatpacking district. Whitney officials say they have promises and signed pledges totaling $371 million and expect to have $105 million more from the sale of adjacent brownstones and its annex building uptown.

But the Whitney’s endowment is just $190 million, and a big question is whether the museum can afford to operate two sites. Officials there declined to say what it estimates running the new building will cost other than to note that $230 million of the $680 million is designated for the endowment. The museum said that like many nonprofit institutions, it limits its use of the endowment for operating expenses to 5 percent of the fund’s value.

Experts say it is hard to see how the museum could keep up two sites. Elizabeth Ellis, a principal in AEA Consulting, which often advises museums on operating costs for new or expanded spaces, said the Whitney currently has operating expenses of roughly $315 per square foot. “It’s probably safe to assume that they could realize some economies of scale with this new facility,” Ms. Ellis said in an e-mail message, but added that it was hard to imagine less than $200 to $225 per square foot. That would imply combined yearly operating expenses of at least $60 million, a substantial increase from the Whitney’s expenses of $36 million in the 2008 fiscal year.

Yet Adam D. Weinberg, the Whitney’s director, said the downtown site was necessary if the institution wanted to stay relevant. “It became apparent that to try to expand uptown meant building vertically or ruin the integrity of the Breuer building,” he said. “And vertical museums don’t work because in order to show the kind of art being made today, we need large open spaces.”



Scott Wintrow/Getty Images
Leonard A. Lauder, the Whitney's largest benefactor.

The Whitney could find no building to renovate that was large enough to meet its needs. Mr. Piano’s design for the new Whitney would give the institution a six-floor space more than twice the size of its Madison Avenue home.

As for the uptown building, according to Mr. Lauder’s stipulation, it cannot be sold — and Mr. Weinberg and several trustees say they have no intention of doing so. But board members won’t say how long they are required to keep it; under their agreement with Mr. Lauder, the number of years cannot be disclosed.

The museum has, however, reached out to other cultural organizations, including the International Center for Photography, the Dia Art Foundation and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, about potential partnerships with the Whitney in which they might share costs and collaborate on exhibitions.

Flora Miller Biddle, a longtime board member and a granddaughter of Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney, who opened the museum, said of the uptown building, “I imagine it will remain very much a part of the Whitney.”

Last year, the Whitney signed a contract with the city’s Economic Development Corporation to buy the city-owned site, at the entrance to the High Line, the abandoned elevated railway line that has recently been transformed into a park. The museum would pay $18 million, about half the appraised value of the property. It has until 2013 to close on the purchase and until 2014 to begin construction. The Whitney has been making nonrefundable monthly payments of $50,000, credited toward the purchase price, to continue until the closing date, which has yet to be determined.

The city has allocated $55 million toward the downtown building and remains upbeat. “We continue to actively work with them,” said Kate D. Levin, the commissioner of cultural affairs, adding, “I understand they may decide to close on the property and break ground substantially sooner.”



Since Mr. Piano first showed Mr. Weinberg and the trustees his design, he has streamlined it to cut costs. Originally there were angled walls, but those have since been straightened, which is cheaper, Mr. Weinberg said. And two planned basements to accommodate climate-control systems have been reduced to one, with some of this equipment being moved to the roof.

“It may be the first green museum in New York,” Mr. Weinberg said.

Even with a more modest design some board members worry, citing the $41 million American Center in Paris, designed by Frank Gehry, as a cautionary tale. Just four years after it opened in 1992 the institution, devoted to the promotion of American culture, was forced to close because it could not afford the $6 million annual operating costs. Mr. Weinberg was its artistic director.

“The two are not comparable,” Mr. Weinberg said. “The American Center had no track record of fund-raising and tried to do too much in too short a period of time. The Whitney has been raising a vast amount of money and is a fiscally sound institution.”