Albright-Knox Art Gallery Engages Snøhetta to Develop Master Plan for Growth

I wonder how big the expansion will be. I would love to see a large museum in Buffalo that takes all day to see everything. Its already is a large museum that takes 1-3 hours to properly see everything. A larger museum also usually means repeat visits from those who feel they didn't get to see everything.

I am also wondering what style they will go with. The modern style like the last expansion, or a continuation of the Roman-Greco theme, or maybe something else all together?

Put the history museum on the second floor of the main library downtown, which is vacant. That frees up the current building for use as a new Albright Knox gallery space.

In general, I like the Knox regardless of their controversial transformation over the last few years. But their hours are atrocious. Open past 5PM once a month?

Originally the Albright School was an Art School connected with the Gallery. My grandfather went there, and I wish that could be connected in future planning a return. It would make the gallery even more of a destination.

Architecturally, space is limited, and vertical growth would not gel with the neighborhood or the park setting.

Awesome!

Finally! After all these years, it would be nice to see a well-executed expansion which allows temporary exhibitions that don't sacrifice space in the permanent galleries.

I would really like to know the true size of the collection. I've seen varying numbers from 3,000 to 14,000. A June 2012 Business First article stated that the gallery has 8,500 items in its collection. The Albright-Knox website claims a collection of 7,000. Regardless, all of these numbers are incredibly low, especially as this is one of the oldest and most well-known art museums in the country. By comparison:

- The Munson Williams Proctor Institute in Utica has over 25,000 items.
- The Toledo Museum of Art has over 30,000 items.
- The Memorial Art Gallery in Rochester has over 12,000 items.
- The Everson Museum of Art in Syracuse has over 11,000 items.
- The Art Gallery of Hamilton has over 9,000 items.

And with the burchfield penny we can have an art district. The expansion would bring enough interest to renovate Elmwood from panos up.

Does the 7,000 items in the A-K Collection include their classical and period collection donated from Buffalo's golden age captains? forbidden from being decommissioned and sold...but disregarded and sold anyway to pay for modern and comtemporary...with no real hope of actually forming a competitive collection with other world class modern and contemporary museums.

I say that its time to think bold have 2 separate museums. Use the current Beaux Arts building for a classical and period collection and build an entirely new building for its modern and contemporary collection.

A good location is another museum hub such as the Science Center at Humboldt Park adjacent to the booming Life Sciences Medical Campus.

grad94, I agree with you. If they want to continue to pursue contemporary and modern art then they should pursue an entirely different location for their contemporary and modern collection.

Seems like across the street in the H.H.Richardson complex would be a relatively low cost, no brainer move--and would be eligible for historic tax credit assistance, etc.

But I think a perfect plan (dream?)would be to go underground the Elmwood Ave. side. Get rid of that butt ugly parking lot with a (somewhat) elevated kinetic sculpture/garden space that interplays with the existing classical facade. Then below, place 2 or 3 amazingly designed levels.

Would like to see the current Albright-Knox turned into a fine arts museum and a new contemporary museum built next to the Burchfield-Penney to replace the current Mental Health Hospital Building.
I know a dollar and a dream.

The consultants should feel right at home in SnØwy Buffalo!

Museums as they are now constructed are an artificial and unsustainable concept. They arose out of the 19th century that divided History, Art, Science, and Literature, among others, into neat little boxes. That really made no sense back then, and it makes no sense today.

Art today uses science and technology. History is contained within art, and art is a part of History. Why are Audubon's prints housed in the LIbrary? I guess because they were bound in a book, someone thought they belong in a library -- but they could just as easily be properly held in an art museum as a science and natural history museum, as indeed they are.

This concept is so limiting. WE can do better.

Imagine if we had one collaborative museum, and put it downtown. (Fine -- I'll be happy if it were the museum district). But have one museum to which ALL of Buffalos culturals are members and contribute to its exhibits.

For instance, we could have an exhibit of the War of 1812. That would include artwork of the time period from the AkAG, indian and early settlers artifacts contained at the science museum, printed materials from the Library, artifacts from the BECHS, other artifacts from the Naval Museum on the waterfront, historical records from City and County Hall, and so on. Really, you can't tell the whole story without the collaboration of all our institutions in any case. Make it multisensory by including music from the BPO and from modern artists at the Birchfield, perhaps having theatrical interpretations with the colaboration of our theater groups.

Such a museum would be unique in the world. It would tell a story far more fully and richly than any single museum, no matter how expansive it's holding, ever could. Force our curators to think -- literally -- outside their boxes and get out in the community and see how rich the collections are outside their own museums.

We don't need more space for the AK -- instead, we need a new type of museum for all our culturals that would enable them to display their contents in new imaginative ways. Why limit art to just an art gallery? It would reach far more people, and especially those who would never to go an art gallery.

Let's do something that no one else in the world is doing.

22 comments and no one has yet said Trico building yet. This is an oddity.

Snohetta means new build. They don't do historic renovations unless it's part of a much larger program. Right now they're doing a huge expansion of the San Francisco MOMA which is very much apart from the original Mario Botta building stylistically. (it's too bad this crappy website doesn't allow people to attach images to posts)

Hopefully it will be large enough to display much more of the collections at A-K so if the ambition is there, I'm thinking $300 million - $1 billion, an obvious fundraising challenge. As to what gets displayed where, I've seen classical artworks displayed well in modern surroundings and Modernist work displayed in more classical ones. But many of the newer artists do huge works that can't be accomodated in a traditional art museum with smallish galleries and relatively low ceiling heights.

I hate art and history so people ought not make much of a fuss about what happens here.

The AK and BECHS can do what they'd like but I'll go spasticly rogue if they try to use any taxpayer funding for any improvements. In my view, which ought to be the view of everyone, the government has no business assisting things that a large portion of the public sees value in.

Like the Bills? Ahem.

One of my main concerns is the Science Museuem. I understand why it was built out on Humbolt Parkway in the 1920s, but today it is way off the beaten track. They have done a good job in trying to remain relevant and boost attendance on a small budget, and it will never be like the Ontario Science museum, but it can play a valuable role locally.

We live in a world of science and technology, and the museum could be a major educational force for children and adults alike on explaining it. We also have a rich natural history that still needs to be explored fully and explained. Not to mention pre-white man cultures that lived in the region for thousands of years that need exploration. Those three aspects are something that the Museum could and should be doing, in my opinion, and I would love to see them expand to incorporate it all. But money is the big problem, as usual.

For the Science museum to really grow, would it have to move to a) downtown, b) near the other museums, or c) stay put? I though it, and I come up with no good solutions. It's a fine building that I would hate to just abandon.

I don't know why the Albright Knox just doesn't move from their current location and move to the Erie Freight House?

I mean, the way folks around here talk about the EFH you would think its far better than the Albright Knox.

canalside art museum?

The Albright already intrudes too much upon the Olmsted ideal; look that up, if you don't understand me. Expansion in that location would be yet another insult.

I think the obvious spot for and addition is were the parking lot sits now. placing the building more to the corner of elmwood and iroquois. That would be my guess. or doing something sunken were the parking lot sits. i dont think they would push to aquire the land between iroquois and the 198. It just seems like a hassle but it would be pretty cool.

Tear down the 1962 addition (which I have always felt falls short of the International Mark of a world-class facility), bury the parking lot, build a soaring, glass and steel modified trapezoidal structure on the south area incorporating the building once owned by Buff State. Make it a 250,000 sq. foot addition similar to the Lourve. Make it spectacular. I thought there were several international architects already working on an expansion plan? Am I wrong?