We asked if the Getty should move. Here's how readers responded

“Should the Getty move?” Times art critic Christopher Knight asked in a recent commentary. “Should the Villa, and the Getty Center in the fire-prone Brentwood hills nearby, both evacuate — for good?”

The thought occurred to Knight in the aftermath of the devastating wildfires that tore through the Pacific Palisades and Altadena in January, resulting in one of the costliest natural disasters in U.S. history.

“Fires will come again, and today ‘fire hurricane’ has entered the lexicon,” writes Knight. “Words like ‘unprecedented’ and ‘extraordinary’ accompanied dazed descriptions of a regional fire season that has been otherwise routine for centuries.”

If the museums were to move, where would they go? “The county’s soon-to-be-vacated Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration is a monumental, late Moderne civic building whose 1960 team of architects included the trailblazing Paul Revere Williams, the first African American member (and later, fellow) of the American Institute of Architects,” Knight writes of the downtown structure. “Is adaptive reuse of the Hahn building for an art museum’s needs even possible?”

We asked L.A. Times readers if they thought the Getty should move. Here’s what they said:

Responses have been lightly edited for style and clarity.

“Absolutely not! The venue is a big part of both the Center and the Villa. That is what makes the Getty Museums so ‘special.’ One option is to purchase additional surrounding land if one is concerned about potential future fires. There are no guarantees in life. Live on the edge a little! And enjoy two of the most amazing and unique museums in the world! Another option is for a third potential Getty Museum in downtown L.A. I am sure the Getty group can create an equally unique and special space there. They did an excellent job with the present ones.” — Greg Virelli

“No. As the article describes, the museum’s response to the recent extreme threats were well planned and successful. The idea that a wildly expensive move to another location would make it impervious to future disaster (earthquake) or attack is wishful thinking. The site and setting (of the Villa in particular but also the Center) are integral to the art collection’s display and interpretation, and obviously not merely a container. The question of access to communities is another matter entirely, and surely one that they continue to grapple with. One could imagine greater investment in running shuttles from the closest metro stations, for example. And while it’s not within their jurisdiction, the city should install a sidewalk and bike lane on Sepulveda, as it is presently impossible to arrive in any way other than motor transport.” — Todd Lerew

“I love the Getty Center and especially the Getty Villa, but it would be disastrous and heartbreaking to lose any collections at both of these facilities. However, honestly, I don’t know that I would visit a new Getty facility in downtown L.A., since downtown has its own set of challenges, homelessness, lack of parking. Perhaps if there was direct or close by Metro rail, I’d consider.” — Nancy Gill

“No! No! No! I have adored the Getty Villa as no other museum in my 88 years. I have lived in New York City, traveled London and Paris, and have always had to force myself to spend time in museums in those cities. The Getty was special because it was the Villa. Imagining the people living and working there gave it a dimension others don’t have.

“I would even prefer to have artwork fakes, if necessary. Most people wouldn’t know the difference. But the experience would be maintained.” — Suzanne Barber

“I worry about an earthquake and a fire. People will go anywhere the art is. As you eloquently said, protecting the art is paramount. I would hate to see the Getty as an ivory tower, but it is so large it could serve many purposes for many people. And the Villa could have a park around it… I hope the Getty employees, while acting with courage out of love for the Villa, were given medals, bonuses and long vacations! Thank you for writing an important and thoughtful article.” — Denah S. Bookstein

“Yes, definitely. The move to downtown Los Angeles would expose thousands more people to the incredible art of this priceless collection. The location is ideal, surrounded by good infrastructure that would enhance the beauty, history and architecture of, in my view, one of the most beautiful downtowns in the nation.” — Patrick Edwards

The Getty Villa pool, usually clear, is filled with ash from the Palisades fire, which burned around the educational center and art museum Jan. 22, 2025 in Pacific Palisades, Calif.

(Brian van der Brug/Los Angeles Times)

“That’s a really provocative and interesting question. The central reason for collecting museums to exist is to preserve and protect the collections. And the masterpieces of the Getty are irreplaceable. Given the potential for catastrophic fire in both locations, I could see a melding of the Villa and Getty Center collections into one large museum. They could then use the Villa as more of an “experience” for visitors (with reproductions) as well as a research center; the Getty Center certainly could become a university, perhaps focusing on art conservation, art history, even art practice.” — Anne Farrell

“No. Sounds like it was built with fire protection in mind. But certainly a review should be done and updated. Plans established for moving the most priceless in the event of a fire, unless they’ve already done that; like into an underground bunker or vault. It would take a Herculean effort with a number of staff required to do that, and often there’s no time! As you say, ‘An answer awaits.’ ” — Lisa Morris

“Yes. I’m not 100% certain, but I believe that a move to another location for the Getty (both museums) is an idea whose time has come.” — Sanford Forman

“One idea would be to set up an auxiliary site that could help anchor the Palm Springs and Coachella area. It might be a good plan to move part of the collection to a safer site. The Foundation could hire a climate aware architect that could build a state of the art facility that is safe from earthquakes, mudslides, wildfires, windstorms, acid fog, PCH traffic jams and any variety of ‘Mad Max‘-styled vandals. It would be quite enjoyable to stay in Palm Springs and also visit a Getty museum on the same trip.” — Forest Grey

“Not in the short term perhaps — but I take to heart your comment about the dearth of Eastside cultural access. It’s a criminal oversight by the county. I’d suggest a phased approach — perhaps a satellite(s) or a partial move downtown. Whatever it may be — a majority of Angelenos have little access to the Getty ‘Paradise.’ ” — William Moreno

“The Getty is more than a collection of artworks. Sort of like Richard Serra’s famous (or infamous) ‘Tilted Arc,’ if you move the Getty, it sort of stops being ‘The Getty.’ There’s something site specific to the institution. Part of what makes it iconic is the location. These buildings and the surrounding landscape is crucial to the local and global understanding of Getty. Is it possible to move the collection? Maybe, sure. I think it’d be a huge mistake though. A better response to concern, in my opinion, would be to double down on preventative measures.” — Abigail Mortensen

“You make a powerful argument to move and consolidate the Getty holdings downtown from the perspective of fire threat and greater accessibility to the public. If I recall correctly, the Getty Center faced strong criticism when it was planned because of the fortress-like location requiring both a journey on the traffic-plagued Interstate 405 and a monorail ride up a cliff. But downtown L.A., despite a couple of light-rail lines and a subway, is not urban Manhattan, N.Y., with its dense network of convenient public transportation to multiple museums for millions of New Yorkers. And let’s be honest, a large percentage of Getty visitors go to the two museums for the overall ambience of the architecture, the gardens, the reflecting pools and the view. The Hahn complex would function essentially as a faceless warehouse for the priceless art objects, similar to the now-labeled Geffen Contemporary at MOCA. I suspect that alone would engender sufficient opposition to render such a move moribund simply as a consequence of endless debate, the way so many intriguing ideas die in Los Angeles.” — Vic Turner

“If the two museums were to move,” writes Knight, “where would they go?” He suggest L.A. County’s Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration site in downtown.

(Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times)

“While it’s an interesting and provocative idea, where is safe? In the Ring of Fire where freeways topple, is anywhere truly safe. Fires break out everywhere, even massive ones. There is no saying that anywhere a museum moves won’t be the ‘Appointment in Samarra’ for the collection. The Getty has proven it has done an exceptional job of stewardship. If anyone appreciates the legacy they hold it is the Getty. Having worked with the Getty, I am certain they will only work to continually upgrade their already established systems and procedures. I am confident that the collections are as safe in situ as can be.” — Jordan Peimer

“As gutwrenchingly painful as even conceiving of leaving the Villa and Center is, the thought of losing the collections is totally unimaginable. My husband was a world class artist. And we visited the Getty to nourish our souls many times over the years. There just is nothing comparable to it’s collection anywhere on the planet. I think protecting it has to take precedence over everything else. So, yes, I would be in favor of moving to a safer location. The idea of turning the Villa into a replica of an ancient Roman living quarters is a brilliant idea and eases the blow of moving somewhat.” — Jane Franks

“Yes. The Getty is adjacent to Mission Canyon Landfill that covers hundreds of acres and is filled with toxic waste and highly explosive, highly flammable landfill gases. There have been fires there in the past.” — Janice England

“Yes! I didn’t think the Getty should do a thing until I read this article and learned that the Hall of Administration is being vacated. What an opportunity for our city! That building is gorgeous! Majestic. A gem! Move the collections there, but keep the sites as cultural centers — a bigger bonus for the city. More to love!

“If the Hall of Administration isn’t used properly, it will rot, taking down a huge swath of downtown, which has been in question for some time. The Getty collection would reinvigorate the whole area, but the city needs to commit to creating shady green space — all the way to Pershing Square, which should be returned to its original glory with fountains and trees. Create more one-way streets, and convert several thoroughfares to pedestrian-only. Add trees and solar-collecting pavement — voila!” — Christine Goethals

“No, neither museum should move. Each site is integral to the mission of the institution, particularly the Getty Villa. Each was built with consideration to natural disasters including fires. As a Getty Villa docent, I find the site particularly inspiring and beautiful and cannot wait to return.” — Susan Bowles

“Thank you for this incredibly informative article, one of the best I’ve read on the impact of the fires. Not sure how feel about moving from the existing Getty facilities yet, but the author makes a compelling argument for the Hahn Center. I will say that taking out-of-town visitors up to the Getty Center on a beautiful Southern California day, we’ve blown many a mind as they look out to the Pacific.” — Geoff Case

“If the decision is made to move the Hahn Center seems to kill two birds with one stone, preserving the 1960 architecture and housing irreplicable art objects.” — Bonnie Carruth

In 2019, the “ominously named Getty Fire broke out at Getty Center Drive and raced up the hills above the museum’s parking structure and its adjacent sculpture garden,” writes Knight.

(Los Angeles Times)

“Yes. The next time might be it — buildings may be hardened, but very little withstands fires as they are now. Happening relatively close together (2019 and 2025) is a clear warning that the area is a fire zone. Ignoring such a warning leads only to one thing, whether that’s next year or in another six.” — Emily Cikovsky

“Definitely not! As you point out in your article both the Getty Villa and the Center are two of the most fire resistant buildings in L.A. as witnessed by their lack of damage in the latest firestorms. Moreover Getty has the financial resources to purchase and maintain cutting edge fire protection technology. But in the case of the Villa there is an even more compelling argument against a move. The Villa’s architecture and its physical location are essential for understanding the art works it contains. The building that houses its art is a faithful replica of an ancient Roman seaside villa built in the first century AD whose ruins were uncovered in Pompeii. The landscaping, reflecting pools, ocean vistas are integral to the appreciation of its ancient Greek, Etruscan and Roman art collections. Finally, as a Malibu resident for 35 years and veteran survivor of many fires including the latest inferno, if I was forced to flee from another, I would happily go and hold up in the Getty Villa and be in no hurry to leave it!” — Diane Hines

“Maybe. Reasons: I remember the Bel Air fire, fall 1961. The fire jumped Sepulveda Pass. There was damage to Mt. St. Mary’s College, on Chalon Drive. That’s the old name for Getty Center Drive. I was a UCLA student, student-teaching at Paul Revere Junior High (now Middle School), with evacuees in my parent’s house.” — Mary Stewart

“No. I trust they know what they’re doing and if they think they’re safe, I’m good with that. Then again, after hearing what JD Vance said in 2021 about universities and professors, maybe both Getty museums and all of us interested parties should find a good hiding place. I fear for academia.” — John Finley