LACMA Tear-Down Is an Artless Decision

Why on Earth does the Los Angeles County Museum of Art need to tear down the existing buildings and replace them with a “tent” (“L.A. Art Museum Decides to Radically Reshape Itself,” Dec. 6)? Are the current buildings in danger of collapsing? Are they seismically unsafe? Does the roof leak? Is the plumbing clogged? And what will happen to the great collection during the three- to four-year demolition and construction period?

If the collection has grown so much that more exhibit space is needed, why not open up a few more of the floors of LACMA West, or even build a new satellite building, perhaps on top of the existing parking structure? It strikes me that this current plan is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle that will inevitably end up costing far more than the $200 million quoted in the article. Why not take a tiny fraction of that amount to acquire some new art and support upcoming young artists?

Charles E. Hendrix

Pacific Palisades

Here we go again, tearing down perfectly good buildings that house the art world’s treasures. In true L.A. form, if something has been standing longer than a minute, then tear it down and build a new, meaningless building in its place. What little history we have here we never preserve, let alone have any regard for. Isn’t it more important to worry about what the museum has to offer on the inside than worry about the wrapper that covers it? Oh, I forgot. This is L.A., where it seems the only thing that ever matters is the facade, no matter what form it takes. What a waste of money!

Frances Terrell Lippman

Los Angeles