Excerpts from the Spring 2008 Forum Journal

The full text of these articles is available to National Trust Forum members on Forum Online. Become a member of National Trust Forum.

Download a PDF of the
first article
Join Forum now
Buy this Forum Journal
Blog about this topic
Forum Journal Spring 2008 Cover

"[T]oday most local house museums confront enormous challenges that threaten their sustainability.  Few have professional staff, and most of the volunteers who govern and operate them are at or over retirement age, with no new leadership in sight. Only a small fraction have annual visitation of more than 1,000; for many, holiday tours or tours by appointment are their only public programming.  At least 80 percent are faced with $1 million or more in preservation and deferred maintenance needs, yet their operating budgets are typically $100,000 or less.  How will choices be made about which of these organizations survive into the future, and who will make those decisions?

No question, historic homes are worth saving.  Preservation is vitally important if we as a nation hope to retain authentic examples of history, culture, and place.  But until now, most historic houses have been preserved strictly for the buildings' sake.  This has led to a troubling surplus of sites that are under-used and hopelessly disconnected from the beating hearts of their communities.  Attendance is dwindling, operating costs are soaring, and devoted stewards are leaving without being replaced.  These structures need to be re-purposed in order to be revitalized.  It is time to create alternatives to the museum model for preserving at least some of our important but endangered historic houses, and to transform them into productive buildings that truly serve their communities.  But how to go about this transformation?"

Return to top

"For a historic house museum, visitor attendance is a key factor in determining its health.  Newspapers have used declining attendance at Colonial Williamsburg, Old Sturbridge Village, and the Newport Mansions to imply failure, or the predicted record-breaking crowds at Mount Vernon, Lindenwald, and Valley Forge to signal progress. This puts most historic house museums in a tough spot because it suggests that if these hallowed sites are threatened, or if success is possible only through magical high-tech exhibits, stunning visitor centers, or painstaking restoration (and the mega-millions needed to complete them), it can only spell doom for the rest of us.

"But here's the reality: Attendance shouldn't be the only measure of success and it isn't the most reliable.

"[I]f we really want to expand our thinking, historic house museums should move beyond quantitative measures to qualitative ones.  The National Trust for Historic Preservation has established "engaging one million people" as one of its strategic goals.  Although some have quibbled about the number, it is "engagement" that's caused the greatest stir.  Simply counting attendance or membership numbers isn't sufficient.  To be "engaged" with the National Trust, the activity must advance our mission and have occurred in the last 24 months, and participants must recognize they have engaged with the National Trust for Historic Preservation and must provide their contact information so we can continue the relationship.  It's a major shift in thinking, because getting people to become members or pay admission is not the goal but a means to a larger one: the protection, enhancement, and enjoyment of places that matter to them."

Return to top

"Our historic sites and historic house museums are in trouble.  Although Americans love history, our audiences are shrinking or distracted by leisure alternatives.  Governmental support is scarce and often shrinking.  Philanthropic support may be stable, but it is unlikely to grow enough to meet the need.  Concerned professionals are talking about alternatives: "Maybe there are too many historic house museums."  "We certainly don't need more of them."  "How can we help the unsustainable ones appropriately to transform themselves, or even go to out of business?"  But what are we to do about the historic sites and museums that are worthwhile and can be sustainable?  What about the important new ones that truly ought to be created?  In our concern for a field that may indeed be overextended, should we close the door on the possibility of new and brilliant historic sites?  I don't think so.

"To be a true preservation steward of a historic place, the institution that holds it must achieve sustainability.  To achieve sustainability, a historic site or museum must realistically put its assets, opportunities, and obligations in balance, both for the present and long into the future.  It must provide both for its current needs and for the long-term needs it will face.  Its historic building(s) is often both its home base and the basis for its existence – it may at once be its greatest asset and its greatest liability.  The obligation to preserve and conserve must be core to its purpose and its mission.  If this is true, then the site or museum must address fundamental preservation needs in fundamental ways.  If preservation is core to its purpose, it must be made core to its operation, its budget, and its strategic planning.  Although necessary and worthwhile, funding of this kind of sustainability can be major challenge to a nonprofit institution.  The degree to which an institution can meet this challenge may be a touchstone for whether or not acquisition or holding of a historic building is a good idea, either for the building, for the institution, or for the public trust upon which the institution depends."

Return to top

"Numerous studies show that interest in cultural heritage travel experiences is increasing. A national study of cultural heritage travelers completed in 1998 and updated in 2001 showed that interest in cultural heritage tourism grew 13 percent, more than twice the increase of tourism in the United States overall. More than 43 percent of all U.S. travelers included a visit to a heritage site, battlefield, or historic community (Travel Industry Association of America: Historic/Cultural Traveler 2002). A 2007 survey indicates these numbers continue to grow: 51.1 percent of respondents said they visited a historic place in the past year (Destination Analysts, Inc.: The State of the American Traveler, January 2007).

"While interest in cultural heritage travel is reaching new heights, many historic site museum managers report that visitation at the sites they operate is either flat or declining. This apparent contradiction raises a number of questions. If cultural heritage tourism is truly on the rise, shouldn't historic site museums be seeing more visitors? Are the national studies on cultural heritage tourism flawed? Is cultural heritage tourism an outmoded idea? Are historic sites somehow failing to capture the interest of cultural heritage travelers?"

Return to top

"For sustainability and survival of museums, it could be argued that the most important standards are the public's standards. Historic sites and museums need to meet audience needs, and visitors and users have different standards than the profession. They want convenience, entertainment, and social learning experiences. They want things to do and touch. They want materials to take away. They want to be stimulated and even provoked. They want the sites to be physically and intellectually accessible. Successful visiting experiences change the visitor's perspective and attitude; such experiences lead to a healthy human spirit. Relevance to the audience is the fundamental standard."

Return to top

"Since the 1970s the dominant business model for historic properties has been cultural tourism, in which the organization provides an experience for a visiting public in exchange for admission fees and museum shop sales. The model became dominant at a time when nonprofits were expected to be run like businesses, with "customers" paying for services received.

"In reality, the model never worked completely. Most historical organizations have supplemented earned revenue with fundraising, usually in the form of grant writing and fundraising events. The problem has been that we have focused most of our attention on the cultural tourist, an audience now in decline. Renewed efforts to attract them with novel programs or better marketing may succeed briefly, but ultimately will fail. Unless something changes dramatically we will see more historic properties close.

"The question is: What is the new business model to replace cultural tourism? We have entered a period of uncertainty as we try to figure out what will work next. It is a time to experiment, learn from mistakes, recover quickly, and build on successes. With strategic thinking and discipline an organization should be able to make the transition successfully."

Return to top

"Cliveden's role in the community is not simply one of either-or: Cliveden cannot be either a traditional house museum or doing more community programming. Cliveden has to be both. It still has to perform the traditional duties at a high level, such as scientifically preserving the buildings and offering the most up-to-date interpretation on tours. The work plans and priorities each year reflect movement on both the traditional museum as well as the community initiatives. Cliveden's new approach is building an organization that transcends the traditional house museum model of the "velvet rope tour" for visitors. The plan is based on the belief that long-term sustainability for Cliveden lies more in community engagement than in tourism. Four years into the long-range plan, the response has been encouraging, and, given the issues facing historic house museums across the country, the experiences of Cliveden and Upsala may be helpful for other historic sites finding traditional approaches challenged by daunting contemporary concerns."

Return to top

"Brucemore tells the story of three wealthy families: industrialists, entrepreneurs, philanthropists, boosters, neighbors, and friends. The men created great fortunes: Thomas Sinclair in meatpacking; George Bruce Douglas in starch processing; and Howard Hall in manufacturing. However, the women of Brucemore are at the heart of the story: Caroline Sinclair built the mansion; Irene Douglas transformed it to a country estate; and Margaret Hall gave it to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Now honoring the fortunes, legacies, and influence of the families, Brucemore has also become the community's home.

"Set on a scenic 26-acre estate with 9 buildings, the 21-room Queen Anne–style mansion is the centerpiece of an active historic site and cultural center. Brucemore has positioned itself as one model for many house museums working to extend their missions to new and broader audiences. Capitalizing on the size of the estate, its central location in the city, and the prestige of being the only National Trust site in the state of Iowa, Brucemore is dedicated to offering an ambitious line-up of events and programs for the benefit of the community. Although the vitality of the site is a source of pride for the community, protecting and preserving the buildings and grounds for the education and enjoyment of generations to come is equally essential. Careful planning, constant vigilance, ongoing evaluation, and a sound preservation ethic are at the core of Brucemore’s dual mission to serve as a historic site and community cultural center."

Return to top

Powered by Convio