upvote
I'm openly (very) curious to hear the reasoning behind that statement, not having lived in SF.

From what I've read, George Lucas funded 100% of the project, and the Presidio trust rejected it. Then he tried building the museum in Chicago, but he was sued and blocked for a couple years and eventually gave up. Finally he found a spot in LA. IIRC the project took 12 years. The same source mentioned SF hasn't started any major museum projects since 2016.

America is falling behind on public works. We used to have the largest aquarium in the world, and now we're sitting at #5 or #6.

So I am genuinely curious why you and others are opponents of public works projects? I honestly do not understand.

reply
Why is that fortunate? Seems like a loss for San Francisco whose arts scene used to be thriving.
reply
>"Seems like a loss for San Francisco whose arts scene used to be thriving."

No no. San Francisco must be preserved in state as it existed in 1970 for all time, you see.

reply
Fortunately for Los Angeles, unfortunately for San Francisco!
reply
We're happy to have it. It's a gorgeous building and I can't wait to see the weird museum exhibits.
reply
deleted
reply
I think he wanted to have it on Treasure Island at one point also
reply
And Chicago lake front on museum campus.
reply
I'm told Chicago screwed themselves on that
reply
It was an impasse. Chicago wants the development money and tourism, but it also holds pretty strongly to the idea that the lakefront belongs to everyone and shouldn't be developed with private money and closed off. Yes, it was a parking lot. But it was a public parking lot.

That means sometimes these kinds of developments don't happen and you can argue either way. Lucas got a little pushy about how he wanted the museum to be developed and also turned down alternate sites. So he took his ball and left and that's okay too.

reply
Chicagoans fought quite hard to preserve the parking lot it would have replaced. I hope they are happy with their choice.
reply
I hope you are happy with their choice, because it would have required overturning this [1] to build. The museum lost in federal court, BTW.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illinois_Central_Railroad_Co._...

Note that the museum was planned to be built on the actual land that was the subject of that Supreme Court case ;)

reply
deleted
reply
> The museum lost in federal court, BTW.

Nope. None of the frivolous NIMBY lawsuits ever made it to trial, nor was the museum ever a defendant in any of them (it was the city being sued for approving it). I don't see what you gain from misrepresenting this years after the fact.

The city could've gone to trial for the one case you're referencing, and would've won given enough money and time, but by that point the museum had already started investigating other locations.

reply
Hey solider field south lot is very important 8 days a year.
reply
Not for much longer.
reply