Photograph by Matthew Girard

Chase Rynd’s knowledge of architecture was negligible in July 2003 when he became president and executive director of Washington, D.C.’s National Building Museum. He says his background as a fine arts museum administrator, promoter, and financial manager decided his selection. Rynd began his career as an investment analyst and portfolio manager in New York City. In 1976, he moved to Seattle, joined an investment firm, and—marrying a love for art with managerial skills—launched the Equivalent Gallery. His work consulting for museums, private collectors, and corporations led to his appointment as chairman of the Seattle Arts Commission and, later, to his position as executive director of the Tacoma Art Museum. Named founding executive director of Nashville’s Frist Center for the Visual Arts in 1998, Rynd secured the center’s financial health by attracting sponsors, and helped give it cultural credibility by forging partnerships with national and international arts organizations.

Q: Your experience has been with fine arts museums. What surprises did an architecture museum present?

I thought the building arts were about structure and function, with aesthetics slapped on. I spent all my life being blown away by visual artists and didn’t know how creative and disciplined you have to be to blend structure, function, and aesthetics. My transition wasn’t as easy as I anticipated. At the building museum, we look at all the building arts: engineering, urban planning, and historic preservation—I feel like I’m immersed in intense postgraduate study.

The museum building, constructed to house the U.S. Pension Bureau in 1887, resembles a rust-red Renaissance palazzo. Does it pose problems as a museum? The building is our toughest challenge. It makes events hard to produce. When you first come into the five-story Great Hall, it’s a thrill, but it’s also disorienting. You don’t know where to go, what to do, what’s going on. We want to carve out a space on the main floor for visitor orientation. One goal is to refurbish our auditorium, an embarrassing space. And raising funds for our $8 million annual budget is never easy.

How do you explain that attendance figures for 2004 exceed last year’s by 20 percent?

People are venturing back to D.C. after 9/11, and school trips are back. We’ve gotten enormous attention from the press, which translates into attendance. The redevelopment of downtown Washington has also raised our figures. Now there’s a lot to attract people: the Science Museum, the Spy Museum, the MCI Center [sports arena], and a vibrant new neighborhood.

What kinds of exhibitions and programs are most popular?

We are a culture of celebrity, and the better known the lecturer, the higher the attendance. But issue-oriented programs are also a big draw. Our affordable-housing exhibition had excellent attendance, as did our show on Washington’s Anacostia River and its environs.

And the future?

We’ve done a good job of speaking to the professions; we haven’t been as strong addressing a broader audience. We need to gear exhibitions and education to more varied points of view, and I want to develop an interactive gallery where people can learn the vocabulary, issues, and importance of the building arts. Our overarching direction is toward greater national recognition through developing partnerships with other institutions around the country. We’re intent on contributing research and original ideas about the built environment, rather than just using other peoples’ ideas.