George Lucas Can’t Give a $1.5B Museum Away | Hacker News Reader

George Lucas Can’t Give a $1.5B Museum Away

bloomberg.com

81 pointsrafaelc90 comments

Even a really rich dude can't expect to get the single best public site in a large metropolitan area to build a monument to himself. I don't think the goofy tasteless art collection referenced in TFA is even a consideration; Lucas will die eventually and then they can start hanging decent art. If he had picked a smaller city, or a major university, or a less valuable site in the cities he's targeted, the project would have been started already. Instead, he has chosen rare open coastal land in the busiest most valuable neighborhoods of top-tier cities. If he had gotten either of the first two sites, the nation would soon have been covered with similarly pointless museums bearing the names of our silliest billionaires. Thank goodness, those who made these decisions have both taste and integrity.

> Even a really rich dude can't expect to get the single best public site in a large metropolitan area to build a monument to himself.

If he is willing to pay an extremely high annual property tax on the unimproved value of the land he would be excluding others from using, and let the city seize and auction off the land in the event of non-payment, then I don't see why not.

The issue is that he is probably not willing to do that, and is probably trying to get the land without paying property tax. From the article:

> On October 2015 the city and the Lucas museum signed a 99-year lease in exchange for $10.

Good for you, for proposing a compromise, but even that seems open to abuse. After all the government could just sell the land. If it's too sensitively located to sell, any lease, even an initially expensive one like that you propose, should come with strict requirements for land use.

"...If he had picked a smaller city, or a major university, or a less valuable site in the cities he's targeted..."

He also could have picked the site that was counteroffered by Friends of the Park. It was 600 feet away from the original site proposal.

A few years ago a rich cycling enthusiast promised $50M to the Brooklyn Bridge Park to build an indoor velodrome on a bit of prime waterfront green space. A generous gift for sure, but the cost was a big parcel of extremely valuable real estate for a sport very few people are interested in. Thankfully it fell apart.

Haha if there's anything that doesn't need to be on the water then a velodrome is it. The fact that the velodrome wasn't built a few blocks inland after the initial site fell through, tells us all we need to know about those "charitable" motivations.

Seems like part of the problem is that he insists that the museum be located some of most highly prized real estate in the entire world. Of course it would be hard to get it built on Crissy Field! Duh. Why not Columbus Circle NYC or Trafalgar Square or the Champs Elysee? Kind of stupid to even ask.

I think it would be a great museum for undeveloped land in Tacoma or Oakland, though.

Yes, it really doesn't HAVE to be in Crissy Field (of course, diehard SF residents are going to get upset!), and if anything, you'd want to build it in a place that allows it to develop a new area as a focal point of attraction.

To be fair, Crissy Field is underutilized prime real estate screaming for a worthwhile, architecturally beautiful monument/museum of some sort. It's too big of a field, usually mostly empty, to be sitting in such a scenic location, and any development there would surely continue to offer plenty of green public park space. It's not like Columbus Circle which is fully utilized.

Personally I don't think Maxfield Parrish rates Crissy field, but opinions differ. But a nice big lot next to Lake Merrit seems about right.

It's good enough for the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NY, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxfield_Parrish

Just because it's accessible doesn't make it inferior. Pre-Raphaelite art is also pretty heavy on the eye candy and nobody complains about that. Conversely it's not like you can't find any cheese in the De Young or other local museums - indeed my favorite painting there is rather conventional, an important factor in the heist I'm planning.

Probably the best place to see Parrish is in Newport, RI. (http://americanillustration.org/) There is also a nice Parrish mural in SF in the Palace Hotel. It used to be in the bar but I haven't been in there in a while so I'm not sure of the current configuration.

+1 for reopening it as a GA air field and solving at least my commute.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Did I misunderstand, or was the argument in Chicago about replacing a parking lot? I mean, I see how it would change the lake's shoreline to have a big building there, but it would be replacing a parking lot—pretty much the least valuable use of prime real estate short of warehouses or an industrial park. A bleak expanse full of cars is at least as much an eyesore as a blob of modern architecture. (And the renderings of the museum in the article actually look quite elegant in my eyes, but I'm not hostile to modern architecture in the first place...)

More generally, we really waste a ton of great real estate on open-air parking lots, even in really expensive markets like SF. Multistory car parks are one thing, but there are single-story lots all over the place, like within a block of SF's piers. The fact that that's economical is either an indictment of local zoning ordinances or our unhealthy overdependence on cars. Or both!

Anyhow, Treasure Island actually sounds like a wonderful location for the museum—and the neighborhood itself would benefit too. I rather hope that works out, and I'll probably visit it if it does, even though I'm not a particular fan of that strain of artwork.

It's the opportunity cost. That parking lot is going to go--the question is what's the best use of that (now) prime land? An ewok museum is not it.

Far be it for me to tell someone what to do with his money, but I was just in Pittsburgh visiting the city's fantastic museums bankrolled by Carnegie money. Carnegie didn't build a museum in service of his own ego, he left something that could become a central part of the city's experience.

It's not an "ewok museum." I'll refrain from what I would normally append to that sentence given HN guidelines. You may not care much for American Illustrators but many do.

500K items from the Prequels? With that many Jar Jar mannequins, there won't be any room for ewoks!

Very true. A Jar Jar museum!

Count me among those that care very much for American Illustrators and would love to see the development of a world class museum devoted to their craft, but who also didn't care for the proposed locations in the Presidio and Chicago lakefront.

I personally think the Expo Park location near USC would make sense.

The issue is that he was trying to lock in a 99 year lease on lakefront land for only $10. If Chicago wants to incentivize high value property improvements and minimize flat \ single-story parking facilities, they would get rid of sales, earning, and real estate tax and charge a location-rate property tax on the unimproved value of land reassessed at a floating rate annually.

It's a parking lot now. But look at the architectural drawing:

http://www.trbimg.com/img-576d64a5/turbine/ct-lucas-museum-m...

That's some of the most valuable real estate in the country. It's directly on the lakefront, right behind the convention center, a short walk from Soldier Field, and from there the museum campuses.

Actually, that was the second proposed site. The original proposal would have put it right next to Soldier Field, where it would form a wall blocking the lake. So you can see why the Friends of the Parks didn't want it there.

Yes. Treasure Island should be a non-controversial choice assuming Lucas can make it work. Of course, this being San Francisco, nothing is uncontroversial.

I also think the TI location would make sense, assuming transit can be properly planned. I haven't looked into it much but I believe I've read that the plan was to run increased ferry service to the museum. Does anyone know how viable this is?

Also, I'm assuming sea level rise and soil liquefaction due to earthquakes are a major concern on TI. Are there plans to remedy these issues and can they be built/engineered around?

Funny, Denver recently created a whole museum for the Clyfford Still collection. The work was given to any city who would put up the funds for the museum itself. This seems like a better deal (I'm not a fan of Clyfford Still, so I'm less than enthusiastic over the museum)

You could start it off as a touring exhibit, like they're doing for the Star Wars costumes (currently at the Denver Art Museum). This also worked for the controversial Bible Museum, which is is now (privately) in D.C.

One of the problems of this idea may be, what do you do about new exhibits?

Maybe all those comic books are just... junk and don't need a permanent place to be displayed in an expensive city. Maybe things like the Rockwell paintings can go to the Rockwell Museum that already exists. Or at least the majority of the collection can be easily digitized, and available to all via The Internet Archive. How about $1.5 billion to TIA, as well as all these "artifacts"

How about, sell off all the originals, and give the money to charity.

Why can't he just buy some land and put it there?? Why does it have to be some public open space, of which we have little left in SF anyways??

Edited: For example, why not buy one (or two) of these piers, and put a giant Enterprise-shaped museum there? https://goo.gl/maps/FVWFuPvgi292

I think that will be such an unbillionairly thing to do. I see billionaires like to push personal motivations as public agenda all so often.

Enterprise-shaped

Well played.

It's not the land, it's the planning permission. It's not like you can do anything you want on your own piece of land in a city. Cities also want amenities that bring tourism and set aside lands for projects like this.

The holdup here (as well in Chicago and LA, from what I've read) has always been his desire to get free land. If he had the land, I don't think it'd be difficult for him to get permission to put up his mausoleum, I mean, museum.

Maybe, but have you ever sat in on contentious planning meetings? IT's a great way to undermine any lingering faith in democracy you had :-(

I wish we legally purchase a copy of the original theatrical release of episodes 4-6.

Han shot first.

Not sure why this is being downvoted. It perfectly summarizes in brief what the re-releases did to change the original artworks. Some things like replacing cardboard cutouts are nice, others not so much.

There was a story I saw a while back that the Rogue One director was saying Disney has (at least?) 4 restored.

Gonna be a while though. Fox has distribution rights to 4 for forever and 5/6 until (IIRC) 2020.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Star-Wars-Trilogy-VHS-1992-3-Tape-Se...

Ahh, the glorious FOX SET.

The 'despecialized editions' are reasonably faithful. These are certainly the ones I intend to bring my kids up on.

The 2005/2006 "Limited Edition" DVD sets contain the theatrical release as "bonus". http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Original_unaltered_trilogy

I have that set. It's not really a quality image, more VHS than DVD

That's because it is a transfer from the laserdisc pressing

I did, a few years ago for $0.25 each at a garage sale. I'd love an HD, professionally done and legally available version, though (Disney De-Specialized edition, or some such).

«“It’s an epic act of generosity and altruism,” says Don Bacigalupi, the museum effort’s president. “George Lucas, as with any person of great resources and great success, could choose to do whatever he wants to do with his resources, and he has chosen to give an extraordinary gift to the people of a city and the world.”»

There's an attitude here that's a bit... off-putting.

I hear a lot of people claiming this is the "best public site in a large metro area," "highly prized real estate in the entire world."

This is what the museum would replace: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8035885,-122.4592349,3a,75y,...

The view that might be obscured: https://www.google.com/maps/@37.8019879,-122.4587395,3a,75y,...

This slide show has its proposed design and the other ones

http://sf.curbed.com/2013/9/18/10196782/final-design-proposa...

Lucas' building was trading a generic store for a generic building that looked more at home housing sleezy mortgage brokers than to be a world-class museum.

That's really your personal opinion. I'm honestly not going to solicit artistic opinion on Hacker News. He hired a world class architect.

For those in the London area, there is a Star Wars exhibition which features 200 original costumes, props, models, and pieces of artwork from Lucasfilm Archives.

http://www.starwarsidentities.com/

One of the big pieces missing here is a picture of what the original design for the Lucas Museum was. Articles elsewhere [1] show just how generic the original plan was. His half-assed mission revival idea snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by being strikingly bland.

[1] http://sf.curbed.com/2016/10/27/13440012/lucas-museum-render...

The original building looks by far the best to me. The others look silly.

This is so annoying to me. I love Maxfield Parrish's work, as well as other American illustrators, and this would be a great addition to any city. Perhaps I'm biased but I just have a lot of trouble understanding the objections that have derailed a couple of the past proposals.

From the outside it looks like a superb deal, but issues are in the details. Most notably, the Museum is being proposed on PUBLIC land and thus the conflict in meeting the requirements.

As quoted in the article from Presidio Trust board member:

“If it’s your land, you can do pretty much what you want,” Bechtle says. “But with public land, there is just a higher level of scrutiny.”

The trust developed design guidelines for the site. The building could be no higher than 45 feet; as for looks, the trust didn’t want a building that replicated an old-fashioned architectural style...

...in short Lucas proposal didn't meet the guidelines and he didn't want to compromise.

Personally, I think the museum is a fantastic deal and any city would be blessed with the gift -- still hoping SF & Lucas find a mutual agreement (one of which not be exclusive to Lucas items/curation).

That's fair enough. On the other hand, I never really understood the objections in Chicago.

Yes, Lucas wants to create a monument. Building it in the middle of nowhere where no one will visit doesn't serve that purpose, but then it doesn't really serve the public interest either. I do hope that some reasonable accommodation can be arrived at in a location that will give many people access to the art.

If it's worth visiting, people will go even if it is in the middle of nowhere. Lots of places in the middle of nowhere off highways get visitors--think of outlet malls and theme parks. If it's filled with Star Wars stuff, those fans will trek out to see it. Lucas's issue is that he wants to build a monument to himself in a prominent place. This isn't about making his art available. It's about him building an edifice to glorify himself.

Some folks have to do great things to get monuments built (Lincoln). Others donate money and let others have a say in what edifice gets built (Smithson, Carnegie, Mellon). Still others build their own edifices but buy the land on the open market (Trump, the Sears Tower). Lucas wants to build his own edifice on prominent public land, all while retaining complete control for himself. That's his problem.

I don't have a whole lot of respect for guidelines like the building being no higher than 45 feet - well I don't mind it as a guideline but as a hard limit it's a kind of bullshit constraint. You couldn't accuse his proposal of looking like old-fashioned architecture so I presume they're fighting over the former issue.

But honestly. I think constraints like that are just a bargaining chip in San Francisco's social power game, where Lucas has the money and the political support but not the elite social pedigree of San Francisco's philanthropic set (who in turn suffer an inferiority complex relative to their competitors on the east coast): http://www.greenwichtime.com/bayarea/place/article/Major-pla...

Let's not forget that right now the site is occupied by a sportswear outlet and 20 years ago was little better than a parking lot. Tech billionaires show more interest in space, hospitals, and vehicles (perhaps because those fields offer quantifiable metrics of success) so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for someone to come along with a check & collection for a more obviously highbrow museum in a city that's already amply supplied with such options.

I would personally veto any museum that had a design requirement of "provide enough space to exhibit anything and everything that George Lucas wants to show off."

If he wants the museum to happen, he'd better withdraw his big, fat thumb from the pie a little, and let someone else determine just how much of his personal art collection qualifies as "cultural treasure".

You have to figure that there's at least one person in every major American city who has seen the Star Wars Christmas Special, in addition to all the people who "have a baaaaad feeling about this," after seeing the movies he has directed personally, and the "enhancements" made to certain works for their DVD release.

That's why all the cities want to know what exactly he's going to put into the museum, and replying "that's proprietary information" just raises a huge, Hutt-sized warning flag over the whole project.

Besides that, I just visited the Art Institute of Chicago a few days ago, which sort of anchored my expectations for "art museum". No city wants to green light a project expecting "art museum" and end up four years later with "that useless, ugly building full of m-f-ing Gungan codpieces and Ewok hats."

The history has been that odd preferences for the content & operation of museums and foundations very rarely outlive the founder, so you're looking at at most ~20 years of purely interior weirdness.

It mostly has at the Gardner in Boston but even that's been shaken up a bit recently.

There are some glorious counterexamples, though: the Sir John Soane museum in London is both magnificent and magnificently weird...

I'm going to have some time in London at the end of January. I haven't been there and may need to check it out.

If I had billions and wanted to leave a legacy, I'd establish a nature preserve or fund a space telescope. Making a building for my comic book collection seems pretty low on the list.

Good ideas! Still, they're sort of medium-term, aren't they? Thing big! It seems like Elon Musk is making the smartest long-term investments in eternal monuments to himself.

Elon Musk has a shot at being one of the greatest men in history.

I agree with you, although I guess I'm just asking to get whacked by the jealous haters' downvote brigade too.

> “As a popular artist, I hit the same chord with people that Rockwell hit, that Michelangelo hit, that the people who painted on caves in France hit,”

That would be a more compelling argument if he could hit that chord reliably. Instead the original Star Wars trilogy looks like a fluke of good luck when put in the context of his other work. Others are much more successful carrying on his universe than he is.

Why not break it into parts and build them in thematically appropriate locations? You could have a little one in Nevada (Tattooine) and another in Antarctica (Hoth) and Florida (Dagobah). I think this would be more appropriate and more well received.

The problem starts and ends with Lucas's attitude. Until that changes, nothing is going to happen.

There's attitude enough on all sides here, that's pretty clear to me as a disinterested outsider.

Can we please cancel the plans for the new stadium (in SF) and just build the museum there?

Why doesn't he just build it at his ranch?

Star Wars lost Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay to Annie Hall by Woody Allen. Given how significant Star Wars was to our culture, I think it was a mistake on the part of the Academy.

In retrospect, sure, but Annie Hall is a really really important movie as well.

Also a better movie. The Academy Awards aren't a measure of cultural impact.

The basis of this opinion is ... italics?

Which opinion are you challenging, that the Oscars should be a metric of cultural impact, or that Annie Hall is better than Star Wars?

Hmmm. I'm a huge Woody Allen fan, but even so I'd have to say most of Annie Hall's value lies in its cultural impact. It's far from Allen's best work, but it is among his most accessible and most popular, which did factor into its Oscar win.

Right, it's not like Annie Hall has faded into obscurity like, say, How Green Was My Valley which is now known primarily as the answer to a trivia question.

Annie Hall has the same sort of stand-up-routine-turned-into-a-feature-film vibe that a lot of Woody Allen's films have. It's funny and well done, but really facile, almost throwaway, all the same.

I greatly enjoy Star Wars, but it doesn't strike me as even remotely deserving of a Best Original Screenplay award.

Academy Awards aren't supposed to be based on popularity, they're supposed to be based on quality.

My other favorite George Lucas property development anecdote is that when Marin County refused to allow him to expand the Skywalker Ranch, he threatened to deploy weaponized "low-income" (80% of median) housing against his uber progressive neighbors.

Truly, real estate brings out the worst in man.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/1...

> Income requirements could be set so eligible residents had to make less than 80 percent of the area’s median income, the paper reported. The median household income for Marin County is $90,839

> “We got letters saying, ‘You guys are going to get what you deserve. You’re going to bring drug dealers, all this crime and lowlife in here,’”

This, along with the labeling of people living in a household making [$90k*80% = $72k] as "low income," makes it incredibly difficult for me to read this with a straight face.

> [$90k80% = $72k] as "low income," makes it incredibly difficult for me to read this with a straight face.

A household* making $72k in Marin County could very easily spend half their income or more on rent (depending on the size of the household and the dwelling they need) and likely would be living paycheck to paycheck. That's life for many in the Bay Area.

When rent is well over half your post tax income, it's low income there.

Actually that seems like a great idea. I can't think of many communities that need moderate-income housing more than Marin County does.

Not sure what you think "progressive" means.

Here's a free dinner! It consists of deep fried beef, topped with fresh crab, and nuts.

That is certainly quite unique, but can we have some substitutions? Quite a few people are vegetarian, and have nut or seafood allergies.

Ingrates!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com