[bobsky]

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).

[anigbrowl]

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.

[ghaff]

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.

[massysett]

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.