4 ms·

It wasn't going to take over any new space in Crissy Field, it was proposed to take the spot of Sports Basement in the Presidio. I'd much rather have a museum t

It wasn't going to take over any new space in Crissy Field, it was proposed to take the spot of Sports Basement in the Presidio. I'd much rather have a museum than a discount sports store in that location. Instead, in true NIMBY fashion, we discuss how ugly the planned architecture was.

Inconel 10y ago
As a former SF resident who could never afford to live there now, in no small part due to the onerous constraints the city puts on housing development, and who generally believes that you should be able to build anything you want with minimal red tape as long as it falls within reasonable zoning restrictions, I don't think the opposition to the Lucas Museum is a good example of NIMBYism. We aren't talking about any old plot of land here. This is land that is held in trust for the public. It certainly didn't help that the proposed design for the museum was steeped in the kind of faux nostalgia one would expect of Lucas. The first time I saw the design I thought I was looking at a new Westfield mall development in San Jose. In HS I ran cross country and we would sometimes meet up at that location for our Presidio runs. You can count me among those that would rather have a discount sports store at that location rather than a permanent monument to an out of touch billionaire's ego.
- beatboxrevival 10y ago
  Biases based on personal experiences are one of the core tenets of NIBMYism. It's not about what's better for you, it's what's better for the community at large. I could care less about George Lucas and his art. With that said, culturally and economically a Star Wars Museum will have undeniable wide-reaching impacts on this city. Sports Basement will never have that impact. Nor will a museum change the fact that the Presidio and Crissy Field will remain a hub for fitness activities.
  - Inconel 10y ago
    I completely agree and I included the comment about preferring a discount sports store over this particular museum as a personal anecdote, not as a reason to oppose development. The city certainly shouldn't base its decision on the proposal to suit my particular desires, particularly as I no longer live there. And to clarify, I would actually love to visit a museum devoted to American Illustrators. Again, I'm also very much against much of the building review process I see on display in SF, especially as it relates to things like architectural review. Even historic preservation, while well meaning, is often misused in SF to block development. Part of the reason that SF is so expensive to build in is a result of the permitting process where neighbors can lodge complaints to hold up development even in cases were the proposed building falls completely within the normal zoning guidelines. With very few exceptions I completely disagree with architectural/design based aesthetic building reviews and generally view most zoning rules as a way to exclude poor people from certain neighborhoods, or increasingly, entire cities. However, in the case of a museum being situated on exceedingly rare open public space, I can make an exception to my dislike of architectural review. This is public land being gifted here, I think the citizens of the city have a right to have their opinion heard on whether or not the proposed building's design conforms to their desire for the site. SF has no shortage of good examples of crazy NIMBYs but I still don't feel like this is a good example of NIMBYism when the development is situated on public lands that are specifically held in trust for the community.
9935c101ab17a66 10y ago
This is not an example of NIMBY — structures like halfway houses or homeless shelters are better examples of the phenomenon. In this case, the residents are not opposed to the idea of the museum per se (and it's impact on the surrounding neighbourhood) but rather the proposed use of unique and incredibly valuable public land. EDIT: In fact, to further illustrate this isn't NIMBYism: In San Fran, they offered him a location 600 feet from the original proposed location after he wouldn't alter his non-conforming blueprints. If it was NIMBYism, they wouldn't have offered him land 600 feet away from the original site.

Inconel 10y ago

As a former SF resident who could never afford to live there now, in no small part due to the onerous constraints the city puts on housing development, and who generally believes that you should be able to build anything you want with minimal red tape as long as it falls within reasonable zoning restrictions, I don't think the opposition to the Lucas Museum is a good example of NIMBYism. We aren't talking about any old plot of land here. This is land that is held in trust for the public. It certainly didn't help that the proposed design for the museum was steeped in the kind of faux nostalgia one would expect of Lucas. The first time I saw the design I thought I was looking at a new Westfield mall development in San Jose. In HS I ran cross country and we would sometimes meet up at that location for our Presidio runs. You can count me among those that would rather have a discount sports store at that location rather than a permanent monument to an out of touch billionaire's ego.

beatboxrevival 10y ago
Biases based on personal experiences are one of the core tenets of NIBMYism. It's not about what's better for you, it's what's better for the community at large. I could care less about George Lucas and his art. With that said, culturally and economically a Star Wars Museum will have undeniable wide-reaching impacts on this city. Sports Basement will never have that impact. Nor will a museum change the fact that the Presidio and Crissy Field will remain a hub for fitness activities.
- Inconel 10y ago
  I completely agree and I included the comment about preferring a discount sports store over this particular museum as a personal anecdote, not as a reason to oppose development. The city certainly shouldn't base its decision on the proposal to suit my particular desires, particularly as I no longer live there. And to clarify, I would actually love to visit a museum devoted to American Illustrators. Again, I'm also very much against much of the building review process I see on display in SF, especially as it relates to things like architectural review. Even historic preservation, while well meaning, is often misused in SF to block development. Part of the reason that SF is so expensive to build in is a result of the permitting process where neighbors can lodge complaints to hold up development even in cases were the proposed building falls completely within the normal zoning guidelines. With very few exceptions I completely disagree with architectural/design based aesthetic building reviews and generally view most zoning rules as a way to exclude poor people from certain neighborhoods, or increasingly, entire cities. However, in the case of a museum being situated on exceedingly rare open public space, I can make an exception to my dislike of architectural review. This is public land being gifted here, I think the citizens of the city have a right to have their opinion heard on whether or not the proposed building's design conforms to their desire for the site. SF has no shortage of good examples of crazy NIMBYs but I still don't feel like this is a good example of NIMBYism when the development is situated on public lands that are specifically held in trust for the community.

9935c101ab17a66 10y ago

This is not an example of NIMBY — structures like halfway houses or homeless shelters are better examples of the phenomenon. In this case, the residents are not opposed to the idea of the museum per se (and it's impact on the surrounding neighbourhood) but rather the proposed use of unique and incredibly valuable public land. EDIT: In fact, to further illustrate this isn't NIMBYism: In San Fran, they offered him a location 600 feet from the original proposed location after he wouldn't alter his non-conforming blueprints. If it was NIMBYism, they wouldn't have offered him land 600 feet away from the original site.