Against the Relocation and Destruction of Our Museum
- SaveMPM
- Aug 28
- 3 min read
The narrative began with stories about the roof—leaks specifically noted in the Japan exhibit area. Management emphasized this as emblematic of a building beyond repair and reflective of an absentee landlord. While concerning, a closer look revealed a different picture. After members of the community requested records from the county and spoke with employees, it was reluctantly disclosed that the roof had been substantially repaired in 2017, years before these persistent complaints were publicized. This discrepancy suggests an agenda—one focused on finding excuses to abandon the current property in favor of a new facility.
As the roof narrative weakened, attention shifted to other maintenance issues—escalators, elevators, pipe leaks, and more. Yet, these claims ignored a critical fact: the county provides $4 million annually to the museum’s private management organization, largely earmarked for facility maintenance. If millions in deferred maintenance exist, where does the blame lie? A reasonable observer would conclude that a management team receiving substantial public funds should prioritize upkeep. Their unwillingness to do so raises questions about competence and intent.
The management’s message evolved: the current museum, they argued, was unsalvageable, and the only solution was a $170 million new facility. This plan, however, lacked transparency and coherence from the start. Despite honing their public messaging, it became evident that these plans were in motion well before the community could engage or understand their implications. Leadership positioned the project as a way to safeguard the museum’s artifacts, portraying themselves as stewards of Milwaukee’s legacy. Yet, cracks in this narrative emerged in January 2021, when an article in OnMilwaukee revealed that cornerstone exhibits like the Streets of Old Milwaukee and the European Village were not slated for relocation.
Initially, this omission was justified by logistical challenges, as these exhibits were built in situ. But as weeks passed, it became clear that these beloved exhibits—and much of the museum’s art and history—were being abandoned altogether. The new facility would be roughly one-third the size of the current museum, with a fundamentally different mission. Instead of preserving over a century of Milwaukee’s history, the focus would shift to natural science and biology, reflecting the personal interests of the current CEO. The word “artifacts” became a convenient smokescreen, obscuring the scale of what would be lost.
This vision conflicts not only with community desires but also with decades of work by local artisans and benefactors. The proposed facility feels less like a museum and more like an “attraction,” emphasizing traveling exhibits and revenue streams over Milwaukee’s rich history. It is clear this management group is not committed to the legacy of the museum but to creating a smaller, privately owned venue optimized for sponsorships and profit.
Further troubling is the plan’s legal and operational framework. The new facility would be entirely privately owned and controlled by a separate legal entity. Employees of the current museum would need to reapply for their jobs, signaling a disregard for the institution’s workforce. Meanwhile, management has repeatedly failed to meet fundraising goals mandated by the county and state, resulting in significant delays. Despite these failures, the group continues to push forward, asking for public money to fund a project that dismantles a public institution.
In the end, converting a publicly owned museum into a private entity while destroying its art and history represents a profound betrayal of our community. It disrespects generations of effort, artistry, and philanthropy that have made the museum a cornerstone of Milwaukee. Public funds should not be used to undermine the very institution they were meant to preserve. The people of Milwaukee deserve better.
Comments