This paper, first posted in December 2010 on my blog at http://museumstudies.tumblr.com, is a first draft of a much wider risk assessment of the new Annex of MACRO, designed by French architect Odile Decq. Further in-depth papers will be posted to SlideShare later this month.

1. MACRO - “(Re)opening a Museum: Some DOs and DON’Ts” (1)
by Alessandro Califano (2)
The title in brackets was the theme of the latest UNESCO workshop I organized in August
2010 at the National Museum of Afghanistan in Kabul, for museum and site management
professionals coming from the capital and from the provinces – most of them from Ghazni.
It could however – and even should, maybe – be applied elsewhere, too. In Rome, perhaps,
where during the last (3-5 December 2010) weekend MACRO’s annex reopened to the
public. Designed by French architect Odile Decq, it had been briefly opened for a preview
in May 2010, but underwent since than a rather lengthy (seven months) “final touch”
treatment.
MACRO’s (re)opening has been well deservedly wide echoed by the media, and
institutional presentations at the opening have underlined the significant role the new
Municipal Contemporary Art Museum (or rather – Gallery – since MACRO’s collection is
to be fuller implemented yet) is called to play. We have heard presenters speaking of
“urban microsurgery” and “land marking” (Deputy Mayor Marco Corsini), we’ve been
informed of the vast amount of new space delivered for expositions and other purposes
(Deputy Mayor Umberto Croppi), and we were told of the exiting challenge of building a
new museum – even more so in Rome’s rich historical setting – (architect Odile Decq), and
in opening it to the city (MACRO Director Luca Massimo Barbero). Rightly so, after all: a
new museum is often almost as a newborn child – to be looked upon in awe, and hope, and
expectations.
But stepping aside from celebrations and the festive mood they bring along, something
should be said regarding the process, the building, and the final (at this temporary stage)
result. Though the rush and crowds of an opening surely are not the best conditions one
could think of under which to perform a comparative (May and December 2010) risk
assessment, a quick survey could be done at once. I’ll lay out an in-depth analysis about
this issue, either in other documents or presentations to be posted to SlideShare, or in an
essay to be published elsewhere, soon. Nevertheless, I would like to anticipate a few points
here for tumbler, first.

2. We can address a risk assessment considering the building’s project (i.e. if the specific
functions it has to absolve – in our case: being a museum – have been correctly and
coherently taken into account, or not), its result (are there any flaws in the materials, in
the finishing? are there risks for the artefacts on display, for the staff, for the visitors?), and
its functioning (are some of the solutions messy, or simply unpractical for those in
charge of handling them? has the staff – or do visitors have – enough clues regarding
locations, weak spots, etc.?).
Though some major flaws registered at a similar assessment in May have been effectively
taken care of – slippery steps in a staircase descending from the court of the old building to
the foyer of the new one, for one, or the leaky glass roof over the central part of the new
building (but I can remember that also at the opening of Moshe Safdie’s new National
Gallery of Canada in Ottawa, back in 1988, a similar story could be told) – others are still
existing. Some of them are a matter of functionally not-too-sound solutions.
Just to give a few examples, dedicating 50% of the new 20.000 sq. m to exhibition space
means reducing way too much the functional infrastructures’ area of the museum,
especially considering that to the display area a two-storey garage, a restaurant and a
terrace must be added, and that in the old building storage areas, office space and labs
were already much too cramped. The access to the building, though rather attractive, is
however not up to its function, as it consists in a narrow zigzagging path, on a slightly
higher level than the surrounding gravel stone area, on which cleaning machines and
visitors alike are bound to clumsily move. Also the two elevators – only way to allow
walking impaired people to move between three levels of the new building, and between
the new and the old one – are insufficient to provide an adequate service, except maybe in
a really low visiting season.
Other flaws, however, are a matter of too much rush in opening to the public. This
accounted for no time being left over for the staff to properly familiarise with the new
building before the opening itself. Trainees were given just a quick guided tour by curators,
but no proper plan was developed for allocating human resources, in order to identify
needs, times, and locations – which was self-evident during the first opening days. This is
– it may so be hoped, at least –a matter that can and probably will be corrected in due
time, while running the new museum. Nevertheless, it also is a pretty good case study

3. about the nefarious side effects politics and its timings often have on cultural heritage
institutions and policies…
Notes:
(1) This paper was first posted to my blog on Tumblr, MuseumStudies, on 5 December 2010.
(2) The Author, Ph.D. in Oriental Studies, is a member of the Canadian Museums Association,
ICOM, and ICOMOS-UK. Since 1999 a part-time senior Museum Professional at CRDAV, the
City of Rome’s Research and Documentation Centre for Visual Arts, he is a Cultural Consultant
for UNESCO in Central Asia – first in Uzbekistan, then, starting from 2009, in Afghanistan –
mostly involved in risk assessment and collection management programmes.