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 op

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.