I don’t know if Bi-Hall counts as evidence that the moves we’re planning for the MCFA will increase student traffic in that building, but the example is instructive. A building can be removed from the so-called center of campus, but succeed as a destination for students (and faculty and staff) if the building has the right mix of program and infrastructure.

It’s important to note in this case that we’re not just talking about moving the HARC offices to the MCFA. We’re also looking at how we can hold more HARC classes there (which would include developing additional teaching spaces in the building), and how we can strengthen the connections between HARC and the Museum. HARC now has over 100 majors—I believe it’s the fifth largest major on campus—and these numbers obviously don’t include the non-majors who take Art History classes. So there is good reason to think that we can make the MCFA more of a destination—for more students—than it currently is. And I agree fully that the mark of success will not be the number of students who walk through the building, but the quality of interactions that take place once they get there.

It will take time to achieve these goals and to reorient the student perception that the MCFA is a ways from the center of campus. But, hey, if large numbers of students are happy to walk to the athletic complex, which is even farther away, then there is hope for this plan.

I’m curious about an assumption that seems to have been made as part of this process — why will moving art history offices increase traffic in the CFA significantly? Or, put differently, what evidence do you have that this will occur?

There are at least two related questions:

First, is traffic that comes to the CFA for brief periods (office visits, classes) and immediately leaves “quality” traffic, by which I mean, traffic that meaningfully changes the social and human environment of the space? Or is it just transient traffic?

And second, is it possible that this move might result in fewer student visits to art history faculty? As you say, the CFA is “off the beaten path.” I imagine that in many departments, easy student access to a central location such as Johnson contributes to a certain number of productive visits between students and faculty that would not otherwise take place. Will students be less likely to “drop in”? Will there be less hallway interaction between students and faculty because they are not passing through?

It would seem obvious that this move is good for art history faculty and the museum, but at what price to students?