September 20, 2006
Smithsonian Can't Give it Away
Written by DCist contributor Lindsay Gibson.
Just as we learn that tourists spent record dollars in the District last year, the Smithsonian Institution is lamenting a drop in attendance to their museums during the same time period. Apparently visitors willing to shell out cash are balking at the Capital's fine free attractions.
Some buildings were closed during Deluge '06, but museum officials are primarily placing the blame on the series of crimes against tourists this summer. Three muggings and 2 assaults took place on and around the National Mall in May and July. Five people were finally arrested for the crimes in August, and all plead guilty to charges related to the attacks.
Attacks on tourists are certainly worrisome, but overall, the Mall remains one of the safest places to be in the District. National reports hyped up the "crime wave" on the Mall throughout the summer, but Park Police Chief Dwight E. Pettiford reminded the Post that there hadn't been a similar incident in 10 years.
Smithsonian press officials should have responded strongly, reminding tourists that most of the incidents happened well after 10 p.m., when many streets around the Mall are deserted and tourists make good targets.
The Smithsonian's offerings continue to expand, with the more recent opening of the National Museum of the American Indian and the long awaited re-opening of the American Art Museum and National Portrait Gallery. But even with these improvements, officials would be wise to remember that they sometimes have to be pro-active to keep their "customers."
|
I'd like to believe the decline in attendence is a result of people being pissed that the "nation's attic" and their birthright were sold for a mess of pottage. But the fact is that tourists would rather eat at the Fuddruckers and Ruby Tuesdays in Chinatown than look at Archie Bunker's chair. C'mon, if you had a choice between two-pounds of grease and the Hope Diamond, which line would you be in?
What is it with the tourist bashing?
The reason tourists don't go to the Smithsonian so much any more is the same reason I don't go very much any more.
- some of them are rather run down
- if you've seen them already, you don't need to visit every single time you come to DC therefore..
- you get bored and look for other stuff to do
- there are other attractions now that compete for tourists, and some tourists have even learned how to use the Metro, so they can get to them (gee, you didn't think such hicks were capable of figuring that out now were you?)
Surprise! Washington is actually a "real city"! It has shopping, dining, even *gasp* REAL NEIGHBORHOODS!
There's no reason to stay confined to the taxpayer subsidized center of "official" national culture known as the Mall.
What is it with the tourist bashing?
It makes us feel better about our lives of quiet desperation here in the nation's capital. That and the fact that we're pissed that people wearing socks with sandals and fanny packs have Congressional representation and we don't.
Woah! Let's not get too crazy here. I don't think DC has real neighborhoods, especially if you come from another major city and know what a real neighborhood is like.
What's your definition of a "real" neighborhood?
One that has low turnover in residents, is not made up of transients here for just a couple of years, etc. Real neighborhoods also usually have strong generational links via their families that remain there and, finally, are usually based on a common character vis a vis nationality/ethnicity (whereas DC has areas/regions typically drawn on socio-economic lines).
These factors are not all dispositive, and may be subjective in some regards, but, nontheless, are good starting points that I think most places in DC lack.
DC (and environs) have plenty of real neighborhoods as described along the lines of what CN posted. However, many people overlook them because they might not be the same as the neighborhoods like where they came from.
I don't have figures handy, but it has been statistically shown that DC (and the greater area) is not as transient as the common myth would have us believe.
Well put, but I think you're setting the bar a little high for an area qualifying as a neighborhood.
Well until I see such stats, I am going to go with my current impressions after living here for several years: aside from a few of the black communities (who are now moving to PG Co.) and a few scant pockets here and there, DC-proper is mostly transients who can not count on both hands neighbors they have know for the past 10 years...
Civil Negligence--I think you need to get out more. There are plenty of neighborhoods in DC, even by your very stringent definition. I'm thinking Petworth, 16th St. Heights, Kenilworth, Marshall Heights, Chevy Chase, Brightwood and many, many, many more easily meet your criteria. I live in a more "transient" neighborhood than any of the ones I've listed and on my block I'm the only one who's been there less than 8 years.
Yes places like Cleveland Park, Dupont, Georgetown, Foggy Bottom etc. are full of people who come and go, but there are PLENTY of neighborhoods here.
"DC-proper is mostly transients who can not count on both hands neighbors they have know for the past 10 years..."
If this is true, then hardly anyone under the age of 30 (especially those who went to college away from home) lives in a "neighborhood". I guess we should all buy homes at 22 and never ever move anywhere. Dumb.
On my block in SW there are people that have owned their homes since the day they were built in the 1960's. Are you saying they are not part of a neighborhood.
But I guess if you are true hipster, the only neighborhood is Williamsburg, Brooklyn.
Wow, it was like I was talking in absolutist terms! I guess next time I won't even bother to use conditional or limiting terms since some here have failed to note them...
The problem occurs because once you put your foot in your mouth, it's difficult to extract. Although your later posts softened it, your original statement was "I don't think DC has real neighborhoods." That's pretty absolute to me.
It's not that DC has no neighborhoods, but that DC neighborhoods have undergone significant change in the past few decades, and continue to change. Whether that's for better or worse is an entirely separate debate.
DC has a transient and new arrival population like most other major metro areas. Some stay, some leave, while others never left. These days you'd probably encounter as many 'real' New Yorkers in South Florida as in Manhatten.
Let's discuss another one of the original foci of the article.
I'll start the ball rolling:
"The Smithsonian(s) are run down, boring after the 2nd or 3rd time (and most people in American have already been once), and you largely get what you pay for. Even though it's free, there's a lot more to do in Washington now than there used to be."
Flame away!
I live in Alexandria and see everything at the Hirshhorn. Natural History can sustain 20 hours of adult visit. History and Technology was a stale mess but it's being renovated.
OT: where's the best place to get and eat hot dogs during a day of museums? The sculpture gardens have seated cafes where you can bring them in and I think the stand on seventh street near the National Gallery construction has the freshest dogs. But I'd love to be educated.
On Bill's point, I think the important issue here is what the Smithsonian can control: the quality of its offerings, and it is mixed at best. The Hirshhorn is magnificent, the re-opoened Protrait Gallery and American Art Museum are splendid, as are the Freer and Sackler. But . . . American History has been a run-down mish-mash for years. The American Indian museum is an amazing building, half of which is occupied by trinket shops and a restaurant, the other half of which has dreadfully superficial exhibits. The main Castle is a shell. The Arts and Industries building has no purpose, and has been closed. The zoo is an embarassment compared to other comparable cities (shamefully, even Atlanta!). And, the Air and Spaces is a big, hot mess . . . the Smithsonian has obviously spent its budget at Dulles, rather than keeping up the museum on the Mall.
When I have out-of-towners here and take them around, I cringe in some of these museums. My guests are usually underwhelmed and can't wait to get back to their hometowns, where the museums are not treated like stepchildren.
Two points for Joel...
I strongly disagree with you about the National Zoo. I was in San Diego recently and visited their much acclaimed animal park and fully expected to be blown away by it. However, I was struck by its somewhat dated, average feel. To be fair, there were a few interesting areas BUT nothing incredible -- particularly given the high cost of admission. Our zoo (though currently somewhat dated), in contrast, is investing millions of dollars right now to fully update its offerings. The first phase of this redo will be done next month. More importantly, our zoo is free (thanks US taxpayers!) despite this massive upgrade. Atlanta? Get real!
Second most of the Smithsonian museums are far better now than they were ten years ago -- despite the never ending claims of poverty from the head honchos in L'Enfant Plaza. In fact, most of their museums have or will soon receive complete redos(sadly Arts and Industries is still
pending, BUT American History is underway -- no doubt, greatly needed -- and Natural History is more than half done). One of the earlier posters had it right -- there is much more competition around town now (with much more to soon to come). BTW -- nobody brought up the hassles associated with security (i.e., long lines). No doubt this doesn't help their outreach efforts!
I'm a little flabbergasted at all the Smithsonian bashing. I took my little one (18 months) to the Museum of Natural History about six weeks ago and I was blown away by the offerings. Maybe I'm not sophisticated enough to judge a musuem properly, but my biggest complaint was that the place was absolutely packed.
Perhaps those of you that are so disappointed with the Smithsonian should consider writing a check instead of just whining.
My opinion is that the Smithsonian has no real idea how to market itself so that it seems fun and exciting.
Let's look, for example, at the Spy Museum--the crappiest effort to gather together artifacts on a theme and make it interesting. The Spy Museum is boring, overrated and a waste of money. But people flock to it, so much so that there are days you can't get in. Why? Because they have a great PR program, designed to make the museum look cool, feel exciting, and draw in a crowd.
As another example, look at the National Geographic Museum. Right now they have a display on bizarre animals, complete with banners and a big bronze prehistoric bird outside the building. That's a draw right there, but an exhibit about weirdness---hey! Sign me up, the parents of bored, unruly kids will say.
The Smithsonian, by contrast has a rep as a boring, stuffy, old-timey museum with nothing of interest to anyone who can find the same stuff on the internet at any one time. Why aren't they designing exhibits that are exciting enough to draw a crowd? They have mummies fer petesake! They have spaceships! They have pictures of dead guys no one has ever heard of (ok, maybe not that last one, but still....).
Robis - A valid criticism of the Smithsonian, but my guess would be that this is a funding issue more than anything else. Don't the Spy museum and the National Geographic both charge admission?
Does the Nat'l Geographic charge admission? I can't remember if I've ever paid one there.
And as far as it being a funding issue---I can't imaigne it costs more to create a thoughtful and dynamic exhibit than it does a staid and static one.
I believe Nat Geo is free.
OK fine, but you said:
The Spy Museum is boring, overrated and a waste of money. But people flock to it, so much so that there are days you can't get in. Why? Because they have a great PR program, designed to make the museum look cool, feel exciting, and draw in a crowd.
That's what I was referring to as a funding issue, the Smithsonian doesn't have the funding to compete with the non-stop ad campaign of place like the Spy Museum.