2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

PostFeb 05, 2022#251

I know this is an incendiary question but I can't think of a more appropriate way to ask it: Is the Science Center a joke?

First, I love science centers. I get what they're supposed to do, and I think I have an idea of what makes a good one. But I have never seen a more slap-dash, haphazard place of interest than our own. It's been that way in some respects for years, but in the past few years (starting pre-covid, if that would otherwise be an excuse) it's had seemingly no cohesion or direction as they whittle away at exhibit space.  What used to be a public gallery has been lopped off by a "fossil lab" which seems to only be open to staff. I clearly remember the exhibits around that area - a bit about plate tectonics, a bit about fossils, a bit about evolution - but it's as though they just took half of everything away to make room for a perpetually closed area, and whatever was left is still there. Significant parts of the exhibits that remain are broken. Other areas are cordoned off into Discovery Zone and Makerspace and MakerGarage and Life Science Lab and various other things with random hours that require reservations.

There is a new(er) area that seems like it could be really cool, devoted to the evolution of gaming. At first you see historical video consoles, a subject which could appeal to so many generations of people. But there's no cohesion to it. The few games are mixed with some broken exhibits, and those are mixed in with some old Boomer-era board games, which doesn't make much sense in context. Oh and also there was chess at one time, and here's a tubular version of a ping pong table. There are a few plaques that kind of start to tell what makes a good game..but everything is disjointed, with vast amounts of empty space and very few hands-on activities. One area has a poster/board that talks about how senses can change your perception of a virtual world and then.....nothing...but across the room is a Galaga console.. Cool.

There is another well-worn section on energy which is clearly sponsored by (and favors) Peabody Coal. Again, 'energy' is sort of a catch-all, with one exhibit about potential vs. kinetic energy leading right into one about the electrical grid. There are some things in there that could be really cool if it could bring you from one exhibit to the next, but it just doesn't.

I know the main exhibit spaces don't have anything in them at the moment, but it just makes the rest seem more forlorn. I haven't seen the giant machine with all the balls on in more than a year. There's a sign that says they turn it off from 9-1 each day because it's too loud (???), but I haven't seen it on outside of those hours.

The Structures area is significantly closed due to roof leaks. Most of the hands-on exhibits had been removed already anyway. You can look at a model of Willis Tower or some posters about structures, but you could also look at them on YouTube.
PXL_20220204_232858058.jpg (2.09MiB)

I don't know if it's new for February, but there's a sad, pathetic exhibit about Black Inventors. Inside was a table with some inventions scattered on it, and the rest of the room was filled with boxes and building materials. If this is for Black History Month...I'm just disappointed.
PXL_20220204_232246390.jpg (1.96MiB)


PXL_20220204_232315272.jpg (2.01MiB)


The Planetarium side is probably the most cohesive (it deals with "space" at least), but even a significant chunk of that is devoted to a Mars Rover (two I think) that are controlled from elsewhere when not broken, and don't really lend much to the space. The exhibits past the ticketed planetarium area are very dated, and the interactive parts are significantly broken, but they are interesting and there's really no reason that they're only available for a few minutes after a planetarium show.

Am I wrong in asking if SLSC either overextended or has poor leadership? Maybe it's just too big for itself, trying to do too much and not doing any particular thing well.  Even the tiny Science Center we had when it was just in the planetarium and interactive outdoor area was much more enjoyable and entertaining. I expect more from a ZMD institution, but maybe less would be more in this case.

12K
Life MemberLife Member
12K

PostFeb 05, 2022#252

I've been disappointed with the Science Center for years. Just seems so amateurish some how. Personally, I blame it on lack of leadership.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 05, 2022#253

yeah, it's gone way downhill. i walked through several years ago and it felt like a dead mall—lots of empty space and broken exhibits. really embarrassing. no idea what's going on with it, but i also presume it's poor leadership. to wit, they held an "international" search in 2019 and ended up picking this guy as the new CEO and president:

https://www.slsc.org/meet-the-new-ceo-and-president/

2,041
Life MemberLife Member
2,041

PostFeb 05, 2022#254

From what I have heard it is extremely poorly run.

145
Junior MemberJunior Member
145

PostFeb 07, 2022#255

bprop wrote:
Feb 05, 2022
I know this is an incendiary question but I can't think of a more appropriate way to ask it: Is the Science Center a joke?

First, I love science centers. I get what they're supposed to do, and I think I have an idea of what makes a good one. But I have never seen a more slap-dash, haphazard place of interest than our own. It's been that way in some respects for years, but in the past few years (starting pre-covid, if that would otherwise be an excuse) it's had seemingly no cohesion or direction as they whittle away at exhibit space.  What used to be a public gallery has been lopped off by a "fossil lab" which seems to only be open to staff. I clearly remember the exhibits around that area - a bit about plate tectonics, a bit about fossils, a bit about evolution - but it's as though they just took half of everything away to make room for a perpetually closed area, and whatever was left is still there. Significant parts of the exhibits that remain are broken. Other areas are cordoned off into Discovery Zone and Makerspace and MakerGarage and Life Science Lab and various other things with random hours that require reservations.

There is a new(er) area that seems like it could be really cool, devoted to the evolution of gaming. At first you see historical video consoles, a subject which could appeal to so many generations of people. But there's no cohesion to it. The few games are mixed with some broken exhibits, and those are mixed in with some old Boomer-era board games, which doesn't make much sense in context. Oh and also there was chess at one time, and here's a tubular version of a ping pong table. There are a few plaques that kind of start to tell what makes a good game..but everything is disjointed, with vast amounts of empty space and very few hands-on activities. One area has a poster/board that talks about how senses can change your perception of a virtual world and then.....nothing...but across the room is a Galaga console.. Cool.

There is another well-worn section on energy which is clearly sponsored by (and favors) Peabody Coal. Again, 'energy' is sort of a catch-all, with one exhibit about potential vs. kinetic energy leading right into one about the electrical grid. There are some things in there that could be really cool if it could bring you from one exhibit to the next, but it just doesn't.

I know the main exhibit spaces don't have anything in them at the moment, but it just makes the rest seem more forlorn. I haven't seen the giant machine with all the balls on in more than a year. There's a sign that says they turn it off from 9-1 each day because it's too loud (???), but I haven't seen it on outside of those hours.

The Structures area is significantly closed due to roof leaks. Most of the hands-on exhibits had been removed already anyway. You can look at a model of Willis Tower or some posters about structures, but you could also look at them on YouTube.
undefined
I don't know if it's new for February, but there's a sad, pathetic exhibit about Black Inventors. Inside was a table with some inventions scattered on it, and the rest of the room was filled with boxes and building materials. If this is for Black History Month...I'm just disappointed.undefined

undefined

The Planetarium side is probably the most cohesive (it deals with "space" at least), but even a significant chunk of that is devoted to a Mars Rover (two I think) that are controlled from elsewhere when not broken, and don't really lend much to the space. The exhibits past the ticketed planetarium area are very dated, and the interactive parts are significantly broken, but they are interesting and there's really no reason that they're only available for a few minutes after a planetarium show.

Am I wrong in asking if SLSC either overextended or has poor leadership? Maybe it's just too big for itself, trying to do too much and not doing any particular thing well.  Even the tiny Science Center we had when it was just in the planetarium and interactive outdoor area was much more enjoyable and entertaining. I expect more from a ZMD institution, but maybe less would be more in this case.
The Science Center is sadly the most disappointing of the Forest Park museums, I remember the special exhibits are usually pretty good, but the main admission things haven't been changed / updated in over a decade in most areas.

I agree the Planetarium / Space area is the best of the bunch.  With the classic show and the scale replica of the shuttle cockpit.

Beyond that though it's either outdated exhibits (the animatronic dinosaurs get a pass, for nostalgia.), badly / obviously sponsored sections (Peabody coal teaching about energy), perpetually closed pieces (the hamster wheel / ball machine), or exhibits that just don't really teach you all that much.  Pretty sure all the video sections are still playing educational videos from the 90's as well.

I just don't feel that I ever really come out of the Science Center learning anything, unless it's a traveling exhibit.

It's pretty sad because I'd put any of our other Forest Park attractions up against just about any US city.  The Art Museum, Zoo and Muny all punch way above their weight class.  But the Science Center feels like a dated relic from the past.

2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

PostFeb 07, 2022#256

Contrasting a ZMD institution of similar budgetary size and similar taxpayer support: the History Museum has really nailed a lot of exhibits in the past few years. Overall it's just a far better experience. The current one on "St. Louis Sound" is fantastic. Across the main hall is another on Suffrage which is also very good. In contrast with the Science Center, everything is done so..professionally. Not too much, not too little, a good flow, a relatively complete story, displays that are clearly professionally done (as opposed to the "Museum of Black Inventors" sign dangling from the wall in the science center), impressive artifacts, several degrees of optional immersion. And they have three large galleries that haven't changed in years but are still engaging and interesting. 

Surely the Science Center can be better than it is, particularly as interest in STEM grows and the tech sector in St. Louis becomes more important. It just hasn't been for a long time. It's embarrassing.

681
Senior MemberSenior Member
681

PostFeb 07, 2022#257

I second all of the above points. I'm wondering if their budget is just stretched too thin - too much to maintain and not enough resources to cover it all? 

Someone with more financial expertise might be able to look over their financial information in their annual report and figure out where the issue might lie, at least from a general financial standpoint. It's all available here: https://mzdstl.org/financial-statements/

At a glance, they appear to be spending more than they are bringing in, at least based on the last three years of data. That might not actually be that indicative of anything, but seems like it could be relevant.

SLCC.PNG (78.56KiB)

991
Super MemberSuper Member
991

PostFeb 07, 2022#258

Just glancing at Table 2, I wouldn't put much stock into their net position other than it showing they too were impacted by COVID. Cut expenses drastically from $24M to $18.2M, but revenue also fell from $22.7M to $16.6M.  They've also leaned in on some areas that might surprise people, such as Esports: (https://www.slsc.org/programs/esports-e ... t-program/) to try and attract and introduce kids to STEAM career fields. 

681
Senior MemberSenior Member
681

PostFeb 07, 2022#259

^ The table shows that they were in the red in 2018 and 2019 though as well, you know?

991
Super MemberSuper Member
991

PostFeb 07, 2022#260

We’d need to see the breakdown of what the “other” supporting and program services that were cut I think. My assumption is that there’s some programming changes they’re making / some strategic plan they’re trying to align to, and that we’d need more info on their finances / more years to see if running in the red is a concern or something they might have even planned for.

2,663
Life MemberLife Member
2,663

PostFeb 07, 2022#261

I would be for the museum closing for a year or two to get a total refresh. Should be a huge fundraising effort. I also hope there can one day be a cool geospatial exhibit.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 08, 2022#262

^ honestly, the addition (built in the early 90s i think?) hasn't aged well. i always thought it was pretty dumb looking. wouldn't be opposed to putting some of that rams money toward demo and construction of a new one—something simpler and more elegant with a lot more glass.

2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

PostFeb 08, 2022#263

Laife Fulk wrote:
Feb 07, 2022
We’d need to see the breakdown of what the “other” supporting and program services that were cut I think. My assumption is that there’s some programming changes they’re making / some strategic plan they’re trying to align to, and that we’d need more info on their finances / more years to see if running in the red is a concern or something they might have even planned for.
Some information was contained in an article posted earlier in the thread.
From 2013
Leaders of the St. Louis Science Center dreamed of building a glass high-rise hotel on the Oakland Avenue campus. They envisioned a domed pavilion, a series of exhibit halls and an elevated plaza, the size of a football field, on stilts above the existing parking lot.

“It would have been visionary,” said the center’s chief fundraiser, G. Patrick Williams, of the $125 million campaign he termed “grandiose.”

None of that happened. Instead, the tax-supported Science Center built up more than $20 million in debt, largely over the past decade, driven by day-to-day expenses: pricey leases, expanded education programs and five-figure bonuses paid to a bevy of vice presidents.

One of the biggest expenses came five years ago, when the Science Center borrowed $3.4 million to buy land. It was meant for the future campus but so far has been nearly unused.
Officials at the Zoo-Museum District, which oversees the $70 million in tax dollars sent to five regional cultural institutions, have grown increasingly concerned about the Science Center’s finances.

“It’s a disaster,” district board member Charlie Valier said recently. “They’re underwater.”

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 08, 2022#264

^ it'd be nice if they just focused on having functional, contemporary exhibits rather than silver bullet nonsense. but then again, it's St. Louis: Silver Bullet City. also not at all surprised that it's being used to funnel taxpayer money into the pockets of old rich guys while they run it into the ground. WUSTL, SLUH, and UMSL need to step up and start supporting the Science Center, helping with programming, etc. WUSTL has one of the top Earth and Planetary Science programs in the US, and considering St. Louis' space history and strength in bio, agro, and geo there's just no excuse for SLSC not to have cutting edge exhibits. except for the management. it sucks that Pittsburgh is getting a new state-of-the-art space science museum (https://moonshotmuseum.org/ — the director is actually the former director of the Missouri History Museum) while SLSC is an embarrassment.

2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

PostFeb 08, 2022#265

^that could work but...somehow the science center must have someone with experience in curating a museum. Right? What - WHO - does the history museum (for example) have that the science center doesn't, and why can't the science center have the same type of people who can curate displays to look professional and logical? Really fundamental stuff at its core. What I saw last week was really no better than a series of grade school science fair projects lined up.

Even 'cutting edge' doesn't have to apply to everything in the place. Some of the best museums' core displays are not what I'd call cutting edge, just 'good'. They teach a principle and let you move on to something related but different, keeping the interest of all ages and attention spans. The Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago, Exploratorium in SF - one of my favorites - and others all have foundational galleries that are anything but cutting edge.  I was just looking at Exploratorium's site and they STILL have a "distorted room" among a whole gallery of optical illusions..which would still probably garner more interest than the complicated and inoperative Mars Rover exhibit SLSC still has. Remember the hot air balloon, gravity well, color maze, outdoor roller coaster for balls, and just basic stuff that kept kids engaged? They grab your attention, provide a little fun, and tell you the principle of what's going on.

I guess the ZMD exerts no control of the creative direction of each institution, but how else to implement change to such a necrotic, ossified museum?

1,155
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,155

PostFeb 08, 2022#266

urban_dilettante wrote:
Feb 08, 2022
^ honestly, the addition (built in the early 90s i think?) hasn't aged well. i always thought it was pretty dumb looking. wouldn't be opposed to putting some of that rams money toward demo and construction of a new one—something simpler and more elegant with a lot more glass.
The addition on the east side of the main building? Was built in 2011. It's pretty boring but demolition if far from necessary. Fortunately we didn't really lose much architectural character of the original building (which I love btw).

I went to the new agriculture exhibit a few times back in 2016 and was thoroughly impressed. Unfortunately it just made the rest of the center look that much more disappointing. I'm curious if it's holding up at all.

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 08, 2022#267

^ oh, i meant the addition to the planetarium... being the main building on Oakland. built in 1991. i don't hate it but i wish it were a bit more refined/timeless looking—more glass and fewer weird angles. just my humble opinion. the 2011 addition is fine i guess. it's a box. haven't been to the Grow exhibit yet.

2,077
Life MemberLife Member
2,077

PostFeb 08, 2022#268

urban_dilettante wrote:
Feb 08, 2022
^ oh, i meant the addition to the planetarium... being the main building on Oakland. built in 1991. i don't hate it but i wish it were a bit more refined/timeless looking—more glass and fewer weird angles. just my humble opinion. the 2011 addition is fine i guess. it's a box. haven't been to the Grow exhibit yet.
I think it's the teal that makes it look soooo early 90s :)

PostFeb 08, 2022#269

aprice wrote:
Feb 08, 2022
I went to the new agriculture exhibit a few times back in 2016 and was thoroughly impressed. Unfortunately it just made the rest of the center look that much more disappointing. I'm curious if it's holding up at all.
I'm curious what you thought was impressive about it. Granted, I've only been once, and I think the building was closed, so maybe I didn't get the whole picture.  But as I recall, the centerpiece is a combine which..while interesting..didn't seem to fit.  There were some odds and ends about sustainable farming but then again, no cohesive story about them. Some of the largest lobbying organizations in the bi-state area (MO Farm Bureau and Illinois Farm Bureau) funded it, along with - no joke - the Beef Council. So like the Peabody energy exhibit, I doubt it prevents science so much as a marketing opportunity.

1,155
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,155

PostFeb 09, 2022#270

bprop wrote:
Feb 08, 2022
I'm curious what you thought was impressive about it.
Just the amount of information to take in, kept me entertained much longer than I was expecting. There were a lot of staff there leading presentation. Plus it was all brand new, which always helps.

PostFeb 09, 2022#271

urban_dilettante wrote:
Feb 08, 2022
^ oh, i meant the addition to the planetarium... being the main building on Oakland. built in 1991. i don't hate it but i wish it were a bit more refined/timeless looking—more glass and fewer weird angles. just my humble opinion. the 2011 addition is fine i guess. it's a box. haven't been to the Grow exhibit yet.
Was not expecting the entire building to be referred to as an addition. Anyway, yeah, don't touch that building. I love it. The weird symmetry in both the entrance and the massing over the connection to the highway bridge are classic postmodernism. Plus the texture and spire sculpture on the dome are amazing. When you include the planetarium, the entire complex is great. Just desperately needs new operations.

I agree with Harv's idea of shutting down for a couple years for a refresh. I'm also curious how much they have to compete with the Magic House.

6,158
Life MemberLife Member
6,158

PostFeb 09, 2022#272

^Lord, I haven't been to the magic house in . . . oh, fully a generation now. I was thinking about it when this conversation kicked off and realizing that all my memories of it were childhood things. At least at the time it was . . . okay? But even as a kid I thought it was too kidsy. Maybe it's entirely different now. And maybe tweenage me was being less than generous. (But I liked the Science Center. Even when it was just the Planetarium. And I've kept going back to that.)

3,762
Life MemberLife Member
3,762

PostFeb 10, 2022#273

aprice wrote:
Feb 09, 2022
Was not expecting the entire building to be referred to as an addition.
ha. i wasn't alive when the planetarium was built but i'm old enough (forgive the cliche) to have visited the planetarium as a kid when it was the science center. so i guess i think of the Oakland building as an addition.

6,158
Life MemberLife Member
6,158

PostFeb 10, 2022#274

^I knew what you meant immediately. The Planetarium predates me, but I predate the Oakland building by rather more, I think. I miss the heck out of the rocket that used to be on display out front. I really wish there were a way to bring that or something like it back.

7,850
Life MemberLife Member
7,850

PostFeb 28, 2022#275

Maybe actually be good.

Read more posts (38 remaining)