A Radical Relocation

For decades after the Barnes Foundation opened its doors, things ran smoothly. But eventually the organization began to face financial struggles. The team in charge of ensuring its future had to figure out how to secure the collection and support its educational mission while respecting its founder’s very particular wishes.

For decades after the Barnes Foundation opened, things went well. But eventually the organization began to run out of money. The staff had to figure out how to save the collection while respecting its founder’s wishes.

In 1922, Albert Barnes bought a large plot of land in Merion, Pennsylvania, a small suburban town on the outskirts of Philadelphia. He hired French architect Paul Phillippe Cret to design a neoclassical building on the quiet, leafy street to house the collection and serve as classrooms for his students. The land also included an arboretum—a botanical garden with hundreds of species of trees and plants.

Barnes was so fond of the custom-made space that, before he died, he left instructions stating that his artworks had to be shown in the building, displayed in the ensembles he’d arranged—forever. In other words, the collection could never be moved or changed in any way.

In 1922, Barnes bought land in Merion, Pennsylvania. The suburban town is just outside Philadelphia. Barnes hired a French architect to design the building on a leafy street. It had art galleries and classrooms. There was also a botanical garden with hundreds of trees and plants.

Barnes loved the space. Before he died, he left instructions for its future. He said his artworks had to be displayed in the building—in the same ensembles—forever. The collection could never be moved or changed.

Barnes’s wishes were respected until the early 2000s, when the foundation began to experience serious hardships. Because of the building’s location in a residential neighborhood, there was a limit to the number of visitors it could receive each week. In 1996, Merion Township created a rule limiting public access to less than three days each week with a maximum of 200 visitors per day. This created financial troubles and made Barnes’s educational mission more difficult to accomplish.

In 2002, leaders at the foundation made a difficult decision. They began a controversial legal process, hoping to get permission from a judge to permanently relocate the collection to Philadelphia. The team argued that a more accessible location and new, state-of-the-art facilities would save the collection.

Critics of the plan believed the move would ruin the collection, disregarding Barnes’s ideas about how to display the art and changing the way people visited the space. In their opinion, there was no way to truly replicate the magic of the Barnes’s original home.

Barnes’s wishes were respected until the early 2000s, when the foundation began to have problems. The building was in a neighborhood, and residents didn’t want the street to get too busy. So the town leaders limited how many visitors the foundation could have. The public was allowed to visit only three days a week, with no more than 200 visitors per day. This made it hard for the foundation to make enough money. It also threatened Barnes’s mission to share his art with everyone.

In 2002, leaders at the foundation decided they wanted to relocate the collection to central Philadelphia. They argued that the new location would be more accessible. It would help them save the collection, they said.

The plan was controversial. Critics thought the move would disrespect Barnes’s vision. They said there was no way to capture the magic of the original building.