The National AIDS Memorial Grove's news that it wants to build a national museum to chronicle the story of the epidemic was met largely with support on social media and from local officials. After speaking with grove Executive Director John Cunningham Tuesday, we see his point "that one organization should hold the full story of the AIDS epidemic." We're just not sure that a stand-alone museum is the answer, and eagerly await the results of the grove's feasibility and testing study due this fall.
The project is indeed in its nascent stage, according to a New York Times story, and Cunningham said that the grove is "not in a place" to launch a capital campaign yet. The museum is projected to cost tens of millions of dollars, so lining up significant donors would be an early priority for the grove, which is the country's only federally recognized AIDS memorial. Cunningham said that the grove takes its national status very seriously, and thus, feels it is the best entity to "keep the story."
A world-class museum won't be cheap. San Francisco's Mexican Museum had to raise $50 million for its part of a $500 million project on the ground floor of a condo building. That museum is 60,000 square feet.
Cunningham rightly pointed out that the grove, while located at San Francisco's Golden Gate Park, is not a local project because of its federal designation. Indeed, people from around the world visit the grove, however, locals feel very connected to it.
Dueling museums
A primary concern is that the AIDS museum would compete for donors with the GLBT Historical Society's plans for its own larger museum. In fact, the society is expected to launch its own capital campaign soon, likely tapping the same wealthy donors ahead of the grove's project. Conversely, some people may be inclined to withhold donations from the historical society in favor of the grove's project. While the historical society does have a deep archive that includes subjects beyond HIV/AIDS, it has an extensive collection of materials from the epidemic, donated by many gay men who died of the disease. A creative option may be combining the two projects into a larger museum for everyone. Separate wings could be dedicated to HIV/AIDS and general LGBT history. Pooling financial resources would make it easier to raise money, and could be a dynamic single project rather than two competing ones. And make no mistake, despite what Cunningham says, the AIDS museum would be in competition with the historical society �" for donors, visitors, and exhibition materials.
Terry Beswick, executive director of the society �" and an early AIDS activist himself �" told us he's supportive of the two museum concept. "The history of HIV/AIDS is part of LGBTQ history, so it will always hold a central place in the museum and archives of the GLBT Historical Society," Beswick wrote in an email. "But the history of the pandemic also demands a major museum of its own that will allow for all the diverse stories to be told and understood in their global context."
He said the society "embraces" the grove's project.
For his part, Cunningham said grove officials have had several conversations with Beswick and believes "both entities see synergy" between their projects. Collaborations are planned, he added.
One positive aspect to the project is that the grove would not seek public funding. Cunningham was clear that the grove does not receive government money now, and will not in the future. The grove long ago made a commitment not to compete with direct service providers and the AIDS museum project would not change that, he said. That's good news, because right now San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee won't even fund $2.5 million in housing subsidies for people with HIV/AIDS and other illnesses that was approved by the Board of Supervisors. We wouldn't want to see government funds go to support a museum when basic services like housing are still critically needed and massively underfunded.
Location, location, location
We're not keen on an AIDS museum situated right next to the grove in Golden Gate Park, and we suspect many others won't be either. Heck, the city's plan to renovate the park's soccer fields led to multiple ballot fights. The grove is in a peaceful, serene setting that allows visitors a quiet place to meditate, pray, and contemplate lost loved ones. Erecting a museum nearby would disrupt that. Cunningham said that the Recreation and Park Department, which oversees Golden Gate Park, "is aware" of the AIDS museum project. To be fair, no site has been suggested or identified yet. Cunningham said grove officials have not even looked at a location, except to say that it would be in San Francisco.
Cunningham said that attendance projections have been done, but he declined to share the numbers. Any project would likely need thousands of visitors a year to be sustainable, hence the need for a central location. Having a combined LGBT history and AIDS museum could easily bolster attendance for both.
We aren't entirely convinced of the feasibility of a stand-alone AIDS museum, although we do understand the importance of keeping materials in a single location and appreciate that the grove wants to tell the story of the epidemic from a national perspective, housed in a dedicated interpretative/visitors center where future generations can learn about the disease, the response, and the aftermath. It's also crucial to remember that AIDS isn't over, and a museum might be a good way to impart that message on visitors. But the grove needs to conduct its research and finalize its plans �" and it should keep an open mind to collaborating on the project.