There's a big difference this morning in how the Times and Tribune framed the news of the latest change in Tampa museum plans. Trib announces, "Art Museum Redrawn," with a cutline reading "What's In Its Favor" beneath the photo of the proposed riverside location. The Times in its subhed says that the change means Mayor Iorio's "hopes for a 'City of the Arts' has taken "another hit" — and goes even further in doomsdayspeak in the body of the story, referring to the change as a "failure" that marks "another setback" for Iorio's art-centric plans.
Hard to figure this as a "failure" — the real failure would have been if the city had gone ahead with the Beercan plan, given the impossible financial burden it would have imposed. And isn't it possible that this could be a better route to the City of the Arts idea, presenting the chance for a Museum Row on Curtis Hixon Park? (There seems to be widespread support in museum circles for canning the Beercan; interim exec director Ken Rollins, one of the panelists at our Political Party discussion last night at
American Stage, seemed palpably relieved.)
Maybe the Times is just suffering from Museum Fatigue — like Tampa City Councilman Shawn Harrison, with this telling quote from the Trib: "I'm kind of over it… I don't really care where it goes."
(And speaking of tellling quotes, how about Hal Flowers in the Times. To paraphrase: You mean we still have to save that damn Kiley Garden?)
— David Warner
This article appears in Aug 16-22, 2006.