Prepared for Bumps, the Met Starts Charging Non-New Yorkers

Post by exhilaration » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 9:07 PM UTC

drb91 wrote: post #10

beezle wrote: post #3

25 bucks is pretty rich for just kicking around in a museum for a little while. Understand they need more funding but think they would do better with a lower price that doesn't result in turn aways (or never shows). And certainly taking a $20 out of your wallet just hurts less psychologically than having to fish out another bill as well.

"The Met" isn't just any old museum, it's a main reason to visit new york. I'd pay $100 for an entire day there (or three days, as it is now!). You simply can't see that quality of museum in many parts of the country, let alone the world.

Post by acomjean » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

drb91 wrote: post #10

beezle wrote: post #3

25 bucks is pretty rich for just kicking around in a museum for a little while. Understand they need more funding but think they would do better with a lower price that doesn't result in turn aways (or never shows). And certainly taking a $20 out of your wallet just hurts less psychologically than having to fish out another bill as well.

"The Met" isn't just any old museum, it's a main reason to visit new york. I'd pay $100 for an entire day there (or three days, as it is now!). You simply can't see that quality of museum in many parts of the country, let alone the world.

Post by ghaff » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 9:58 PM UTC

ggg9990 wrote: post #25

No problem with this, but then art donations to the museum should not be federally tax deductible. Donations should be tax deductible only if they benefit the entire tax base — if the Met only offers free admission to New Yorkers, billionaires should only be able to deduct their New York taxes when they donate Michelangelos.

Post by HorizonXP » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 10:13 PM UTC

rhombocombus wrote: post #21

JBReefer wrote: post #13

There is a lot to be said about seeing great art in a less crowded context. One of the best days of my life was when I went to Member Only Hours at MoMA, and I walked alone, in silence. I live near the Met, and too many tour buses show up, discharge huge groups of people who hustle and shove from one famous piece to the other - ignoring the art that isn't in text books. It's not a checklist, it's a really incredible…

My first time at the Louvre, I was enjoying a relatively quiet stroll through the less crowded galleries after enjoying a thoroughly european vacation for about a week. It was only when I happened into a very busy gallery with a quickly moving throng of people. My reverie was shattered when I heard over my shoulder in a thick southern US drawl "Man, lets just go see the Mona Lisa and get the f * outta here." It was r…

Post by bradleyjg » Fri, Mar 02, 2018, 10:25 PM UTC

ardit33 wrote: post #27

bradleyjg wrote: post #14

I don't have a problem with the general concept. Tourists spend a lot of money coming to visit NYC in no small part because of attractions like the Met. Why should the airlines, hotels, restaurants, bars and so on get some of that but not the actual attraction itself? That said, as I understand significant mismanagement and scope creep have lead to the financial shortfall that inspired this pricing change. I worry th…

The Met was build on a city property/building, and since the 1870 its mission has been to provide art and culture free of charge. Should the Met charge us residents but out of state visitors? eg. people that just live across Hudson (NJ)? How about, lets say the visiting parents of somebody that lives in NYC? How about people that lived here and moved away at some point. On the other hand, the Met has no alliance for…