Southwest Museum Plans Stir Tempest : Landmark: A new report has added fuel to the controversy over the fate of an institution that has outgrown its site.

The long-disputed fate of the Southwest Museum is approaching a decisive point, but not without controversy.

A consulting firm hired by the museum’s long-range planning committee has recommended that the 85-year-old institution vacate its historic site in Highland Park and move to a new location that would draw bigger crowds and allow for development of a much larger, more modern facility.

But a community-based organization, Save Our Southwest Museum, has responded with a declaration of outrage, refuting the report and charging that the consultants simply delivered the verdict that the board of trustees desired.

“One thing that we all agree on is that we all have a great emotional attachment to the Southwest Museum’s building, but the problems can’t be solved by emotional commitment,” said attorney Michael Heumann, a trustee of the museum and chair of the long-range planning committee.

“We face a hard choice, but doing nothing is not an option,” he said. “We must pick the option that has the best chance of surviving in Los Angeles. If we don’t recognize that reality, despite our best efforts, we may not succeed.”

Three alternative plans are discussed in the recently released report: a limited rehabilitation of the existing museum, at an estimated cost of $12.9 million; a maximum redevelopment on the present site, at $21.9 million, and relocation to a new site, at $32 million.

Architect Richard Barron, who represented Save Our Southwest Museum on the planning committee, said the community group is “not happy with the report” and will “dissect it, point by point” in the coming weeks.

Meanwhile, SOS has issued a letter stating: “The initial reaction of our steering committee is one of outrage. We are appalled that this much time, money and energy were put into an attempt to support the museum’s original desire to move. Instead of a clear analysis of the three alternatives, the report justifies one side and refutes the others.”

The museum was founded in 1907 by Charles Fletcher Lummis, as an outgrowth of the Southwest Society established in 1903 as the Los Angeles chapter of the Archeological Institute of America. After operating downtown for seven years, the museum moved to its present location, in a Spanish-style building overlooking the Pasadena Freeway. The fledgling institution’s declared mission was to collect, preserve and exhibit the history and culture of the Americas.

After 85 years of operation, the Southwest Museum’s claim to fame is one of the world’s largest and best collections of American Indian art and artifacts, plus a major research library and archive of original manuscripts, field notes and photographs. The institution also has important holdings of Hispanic folk and decorative arts.

The collection has long since outgrown the beloved old building, which offers magnificent views of the city, but a solution to storage, exhibition and financial problems has yet to be found. One possible answer, a move to merge the Southwest Museum with the Natural History Museum, was dropped five years ago in response to public opposition.

The museum’s long-range planning committee last year directed the consulting firm of Harrison Price Co., with Barry Howard Design Group and Kiewit Construction Co., to conduct a feasibility study examining the best location for the museum. The preferred way to meet the museum’s future goals is to move, the study concludes. “Economic advantages and the impact on the museum’s program development potential are ‘overwhelmingly’ with the relocation alternative,” according to the report, which lists several reasons for recommending the most expensive option:

Audience potential would grow to a projected 100,000 visitors with the rehabilitation, 150,000 with the more extensive redevelopment and 300,000 with a new location. In addition, the rise in attendance would enhance fund-raising possibilities.

A new site would offer an opportunity to create an up-to-date facility and present a larger percentage of the 250,000-piece collection, of which only 5% is currently on view.

Building a new museum designed for the purpose would be more cost-effective than rehabilitating an outmoded facility.

Moving would require “only a minor interruption” in operations, while rehabilitation “would seriously interdict” the museum’s program and visibility.

According to the report, requirements for a new site include access to public transportation and the freeway system; proximity to schools, cultural attractions and a resident population, and flat ground, which would lower development costs and provide better parking.

The study makes no recommendation for a site but suggests several general locations: the Gene Autry Museum/Los Angeles Zoo area in Griffith Park, Union Station, Exposition Park and Wilshire Boulevard in the vicinity of the Page Museum, La Brea Tar Pits and the County Museum of Art.

The letter from the Save Our Southwest Museum group cites three major complaints, charging that the report is “market driven, treating a landmark cultural institution in economic and numerical terms” and misconstruing the museum’s responsibility to the American Indian and Hispanic communities; that it “dismisses the historic, architectural and cultural context” of the museum and its collection, and that the report’s methods of comparison are “conflicting and inaccurate.”

For example, the report emphasizes the importance of freeway access, incorrectly implying that the current museum is not near a freeway, Barron said. The study also suggests that the mid-Wilshire area, which has poor freeway access, would be a more suitable location, he said.

The lengthy report states that the museum has many strengths. But it cites even more weaknesses, such as a grossly undersized facility; unacceptable areas for storage, research, classrooms and orientation, and a host of deferred maintenance problems.

The SOS letter concludes that these problems “can be successfully addressed at the current site while maintaining and strengthening the ties of the museum to the Native American and Hispanic communities. . . . As defined in the report, the major problems facing the museum appear to be marketing, management and under-utilization. In these cases, the solution does not lie in relocation.”

Heumann stressed that the board has not reached a decision, but indicated that the least-expensive approaches--rehabilitation or redevelopment--may not be best for the museum in the long run if they limit potential growth.

As for a possible new location, “It would be premature to talk about any site before we decide if we are going to move,” he said. The museum has been approached by several suitors in Los Angeles and outside the city, Heumann said, “but the strong sentiment on the part of the board is to keep the museum in Los Angeles.”

No decision about the museum’s future will be made until after May 29. Until then, the public is invited to contribute factual information in written form to the Southwest Museum (P.O. Box 41558, Los Angeles 90041-0558) for consideration by the board of trustees. Copies of the report are available at the museum’s library and at the Arroyo Seco Library branch, at 6145 Figueroa St.

Save Our Southwest Museum has called a public meeting on May 11 at 7 p.m. at the Highland Park Ebell Club, 131 S. Avenue 57. The group will issue a final response to the museum’s study following public input.