DawnC on January 22, 2010, at 05:35PM – #1

Wow, sounds like that would be a major win for Downtown.

david on January 22, 2010, at 08:54PM – #2

I think that's a great idea. Since he specializes in contemporary artwork, I think many art lovers would love to go to MOCA and then walk a few blocks to the Broad museum.

Tilly 32 on January 22, 2010, at 10:07PM – #3

Since Eli Broad has often cited the reputation of cities in general, Los Angeles in particular, as being hurt when stuck with a third-rate downtown, it would be a bit ironic if he of all people couldn't put his money where his mouth is. That would be the case if he ends up creating his museum not in the center of LA but out on the westside, which is one of the places where a lot of the prosperity and energy of downtown first started to seep off to over 30 years ago.

Santa Monica, with its walled-off, NIMBYIZED, suburbanized ethos, is the last place he should be putting his museum, particularly if he wants it to give off a big-city, big-time vibe and aura. Of course, even if it were in downtown LA it wouldn't come close to radiating the energy of, as one example, a New York MOMA. But it at least would be somewhat better than a suburban SAMO.

Bert Green on January 22, 2010, at 11:50PM – #4

Institutions such as museums do not start off "radiating the energy of, as one example, a New York MOMA" – They grow into their roles over time. MoMA started in the 1930s and struggled for a very long time.

MOCA in Los Angeles is considered the best contemporary art museum in the world, after only 30 years. Broad was also a major donor to MOCA as well.

Cementing downtown as a go-to cultural destination will take decades of work, but the best way to get there is to build a cultural hub, which is happening in a big way with the Music Center, MOCA, Colburn, and now, perhaps, the Broad Museum. Hardly third-rate.

John Crandell on January 23, 2010, at 12:12AM – #5

Up to this point I've thought that plans for The Grand ought to be supplanted by a Broad Museum/Foundation. But on second thought, I'm starting to think that he ought to join with MOCA for the design of a new, joint facility at First and Grand. After it's completion, tear the 1986 MOCA down. For the latter is only a bi-furcated, neo-postmodern anachronism, with all of the soul and spirit of a wet mop. If anything, it reminds me of the red sandstone Stimson Block of 1895 that once stood at the n.e. corner of 3rd & Spring. The building simply does not speak to or for this city. Get rid of it! Replace it with housing or whatever could hide that ill-conceived hotel next door.

Mike Palecki on January 23, 2010, at 02:54PM – #6

While Closed Session real estate negotiations involving municipal agencies can drag on for months, the agenda for Monday's meeting of the Los Angeles Grand Avenue Authority clearly indicates-Eli Broad is window shopping. As Eric has noted, parcels L and M-2 of the Bunker Hill Urban Renewal Project-have been identified in item #8.

It's apparent that Grand Avenue L.A.,LLC and The Broad Foundation will begin negotiations for "Price and Terms". In the two years since Frank Gehry disclosed at the Concrete Frequency Symposium that there was trouble in paradise with the Grand Avenue Project-someone with the capital and credentials has surfaced.

When the Board of Directors report out of Closed Session, it will be interesting to see if Eli Broad is looking for a fire sale or orchestrating a rebirth of Grand Avenue. Oh, to be a fly on the wall!

Juanito on January 24, 2010, at 01:16PM – #7

Hey, L.A.: BMOCA!

Jared on January 24, 2010, at 02:20PM – #8

This would be fantastic.

Allan on January 24, 2010, at 03:24PM – #9

The impression I get is that Broad doesn't want to leave his collection to MOCA because that would discourage other collectors (especially David Geffen) from leaving their works to that museum. Opening up his own museum across from MOCA and then getting the Geffen to leave his collection to MOCA would make downtown a contemporary art mecca.

Mickey on January 24, 2010, at 06:52PM – #10

Why didn't Eli Broad even consider downtown from the beginning? That alone is kind of a snub or slap on the face.

Originally he mentioned locating his museum in Beverly Hills. And then Santa Monica got into the mix. An offer from a college in Culver City has been included by him as another possible site.

The land across from the Colburn School would be the fourth possible choice and then there supposedly is a fifth undisclosed location.

I read this 2 weeks ago

We asked him about a possible dark horse in the Broad Museum Stakes: interviewed by the Modern Art Notes blog, Deitch was quoted as saying that he’d asked Broad to consider building his museum on a vacant lot on Grand Avenue near MOCA, Disney Hall and the Colburn School of Music.

Could Deitch’s hopes sway the race? "I listen to everything Jeffrey says," Broad told us, but his noncommittal tone suggested that he might be saying it more out of respect for Deitch than enthusiasm for the idea.

After commenting on Deitch's proposal and telling us about West L.A. College, Broad added that there’s yet another site under consideration — but he couldn’t say where.

Eli Broad has said he wants a location where red tape will be minimal and parking won't be an issue. The bureaucrats in LA are horrible because of their reputation for taking their sweet loving time in getting anything finalized and approved. That's even more of a stumbling block because when you're Broad's age every second counts.

Space for parking on Bunker Hill would have to be created by building a garage, either underground or overhead, and that alone costs lots of money. He probably would rather spend his funds on the musuem's galleries and offices.

Unfortuntately, that just about excludes the competitiveness of any location involving the city of Los Angeles. I hope I'm wrong. But I am preparing myself that any news coming out about Eli Broad and Bunker Hill won't be worth cheering about.

However, might the fifth location be somewhere else in downtown?

John Crandell on January 24, 2010, at 07:29PM – #11

The four essential missions of the Broad Foundation, education, medicine, contemporary art and civic initiatives are together underwritten by 2.1 billion in monetary investments (so the website says). One would imagine that a new campus and museum space would be funded under the civic initiatives portion of the four-part mound of wealth.

Fifty or sixty million wouldn't go very far, particularly with the need to bridge across Kosciusco Way at the level of upper Grand and the inclusion of galleries suitable to house the works in Broad's collection. It isn't hard to imagine the need to spend at least three times as much. If he would be willing to spend that amount, the financial return for the city in the way of tourism and economic activity on Bunker Hill ought to induce the city to assist in acquiring the two parcels.

Otherwise, a significant economic downturn later this year which some have recently predicted could easily prove the death knell for The Grand. Does Eli want to wait another year and switch to the other side of the avenue? Dualistic possibilities for playing with and off of the very singular Grand Avenue facade of Disney Hall are enchanting. The clock ticks, after all is said and done with.

ChattyCathy on January 24, 2010, at 08:53PM – #12

My message to Eli:

Do you want to house your precious goods on the shelves of Walmart or Bloomingdales? To choose downtownLA, is to truly value your cherished artwork. The hassle is worth it, even if you may not live to see opening night.

carter on January 25, 2010, at 11:01AM – #13

The block south of Disney Hall on the west side of Grand, directly opposite MOCA, would be ideal, in that it keeps the artistic section of Bunker Hill together. Already partially dug out due to grade differential, with freeway and parking access ideal. And when looking west over Hope Street, there is no building blocking the building's view, hence better visibility. Maybe Gehry knows an architect who could design the project for him!