What Milwaukee Is Really Losing

The Documented Value of the Museum Assets Being Left Behind

WPA-era mural by George Peter, created for the Milwaukee Public Museum and labeled as part of the Mu

George Peter panorama painting sold at auction. Comparable works have

In Part 1, we asked a simple question:

If the Milwaukee Public Museum is leaving an aging building behind, why is it also leaving behind the historic environments inside it?

In Part 2, we address the claim most often used to justify that decision — the idea that these dioramas and murals are “obsolete,” “low value,” or too costly to preserve.

The documented record points in a very different direction — and as move planning advances, decisions made now are irreversible.

These Are Not Decorative Backdrops

They Are Collection Assets

Photographs taken inside the Milwaukee Public Museum show interpretive plaques that explicitly state:

“The paintings are now part of the Museum’s collection.”

That language matters.

It means these works are:

• Accessioned museum assets

• Not temporary exhibit fabric

• Not expendable décor

• Subject to professional museum ethics and public-trust obligations

Many of the murals and dioramas were created during the WPA era, with named artists, documented dates, and institutional provenance. They were built to last — and to belong to the public.

What the Market Record Actually Shows

Claims that these works have “no value” collapse when compared to real-world data.

Paintings by George Peter, a WPA-era panorama painter who worked for the Milwaukee Public Museum, have sold at auction in the last decade for $5,500 to $19,200 — as detached canvases, removed from their original museum context.

Those auctioned works:

• Were not integrated into dioramas

• Were not part of intact educational environments

• Were not embedded in a historic public institution

Yet they still commanded significant prices.

An intact WPA-era mural, retained in a museum collection and integrated into a historic exhibit context, carries greater, not lesser, value.

Dioramas Are Assemblages — Not Single Objects

A historic habitat diorama is not one thing.

It is an assemblage of authored components:

• Painted panoramic background (often by a named scenic artist)

• Sculpted terrain and architectural elements

• Historic taxidermy mounts

• Hand-modeled figures and botanicals

• Integrated lighting and casework

• Scientific and cultural interpretation

Professional appraisers do not value these as scrap materials.

They value them as integrated environments, using a component-based approach consistent with USPAP standards.

Conservative Valuation — Not Worst-Case, Not Inflated

Using standard appraisal methodology, conservative estimates show:

WPA-Era Miniature Dioramas (Charles R. Porteus)

• Estimated $20,000–$55,000 per diorama

• Approximately 55 surviving examples

• Portfolio value: $600,000 to $2+ million

  
  

Medium & Large Habitat Dioramas

• Estimated $125,000–$250,000+ each

• Depending on scale, condition, and integration

  
  

Hall-Scale Environments

• African Hall

• Buffalo Hunt

• Streets of Old Milwaukee

• Dinosaur Environment

  
  

Replacement costs for these environments range from $750,000 to $4.5+ million per hall, based on contemporary fabrication, conservation, and artistic labor costs.

Total conservative value of assets at risk:➡ $18–$39 million

Total conservative replacement cost if destroyed:➡ $40–$85+ million

These figures are grounded in documented artists, dimensions, comparables, and accepted valuation frameworks — not speculation.

Dismantling Does Not Save Money

It Destroys Value

Once a historic diorama is dismantled:

• Assemblage value is permanently lost

• Provenance becomes fragmented

• Murals become “orphaned”

• Restoration costs increase dramatically

• Public-trust scrutiny intensifies

In preservation economics, intentional dismantling of a historic assemblage can constitute economic waste — a term used in public-asset disputes and heritage litigation.

This is not a neutral decision.

Other Museums Faced This Moment — And Chose Preservation

Milwaukee’s approach stands in contrast to peer institutions:

• Bell Museum (Minnesota): moved and restored historic dioramas

• Field Museum (Chicago): preserved and reinterpreted classic halls

• Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County: invested in conservation rather than replacement

Modernization did not require erasure.

That makes Milwaukee’s near-total abandonment of historic dioramas an outlier — not a standard practice.

The Issue Is Not “Old vs New”

It Is Stewardship vs Disposal

No one disputes the need for a new museum building.

What is in dispute is the quiet decision to treat tens of millions of dollars in public heritage as disposable — without appraisal, public accounting, or meaningful review.

That is not modernization.

That is abdication.

What the Public Is Now Justified in Demanding

Based on the documented evidence, the public has every right to call for:

1. An immediate pause on dismantling or destruction

2. Independent, USPAP-compliant appraisal of historic assets

3. A public inventory of dioramas and murals

4. Written justification for any proposed loss

5. Preservation review before demolition proceeds

These are reasonable requests. They are standard. And they are long overdue.

Once They’re Gone, They’re Gone Forever

You can build a new museum.

You cannot rebuild historic environments created by WPA artists, crafted by hand, and shaped by a century of public trust.

Milwaukee deserves progress. But it also deserves honesty about what that progress costs.

Modernization should not mean throwing the baby out with the bathwater.