George Lucas and the Presidio

The Presidio in San Francisco is home to some of the most scenic views in the country with the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay. It is also home to the 80,000+ acre Golden Gate National Recreational Area and the corporate offices of Lucasfilm. Charlotte and I have been lucky enough to visit the Lucasfilm offices here a few times over the past couple of years and knew it would be a great installment in our George Lucas x California episodes. The first episode we did was one on the town San Anselmo, where George has lived since the 1970s and his footprint in the historic downtown. Next, we looked at his childhood hometown of Modesto and all the ways the town highlights George’s film American Graffiti to promote local tourism. I work as an architectural historian in my day job, and this episode and website post all about the Presidio is going to dive deep into some of the environmental law and public policy that allowed George Lucas to construct his corporate offices within a national parkland. Follow along with our podcast episode to learn more!

This post will be organized in the same three parts as the podcast episode, and sources will all be linked throughout: 

1. The Presidio and Environmental Law 
2. George Lucas and the Letterman Digital Arts Center 
3. The Lucas Cultural Arts Museum

The Presidio and Environmental Law

This section will really discuss the history of the Presidio as it became a national park and also review some of the environmental laws and regulations that the Presidio is beholden to. While this section is not about George Lucas specifically, I think it’s important to go through this context to understand how unique of a place the Presidio is, and understand the environmental considerations and public processes that Lucasfilm went through in their proposal to build their offices within a national park.

To begin, let’s situate ourselves geographically and give a brief history of the site until the late 20th century. The Presidio as it exists today is approximately 1,500 acres within San Francisco, California. This area was first occupied by the Yelamu indigenous people. It became a Spanish military site in 1776 and the name “Presidio” means “fortified military base.” The base was under Mexican control from 1822 – 1846  when the United States took ownership and it remained an active military base until it was earmarked for closure along with about 350 other United States military bases though the 1989 Base Realignment and Closure Act. The timeline of the Presidio as a military base makes it the longest active military base in the country at the time of its closure.

Before going too much further into the discussion, we have to have some context for two important environmental laws that really guide the process of the Presidio as a national park. There are many environmental laws that apply to the Presidio and other federal projects within the country, these are just the two that make the  most sense to review here: 

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) was enacted in 1970 and at its core it is meant to be the country’s “national charter for protection of the environment”. Simply put, it says that if federal money is being spent on a project, then environmental resources have to be considered in the design and undertaking of that project. 
2. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) was established in 1966. Much like NEPA, it says that if federal money is being spent, then cultural resources have to be considered in the design of that undertaking. Cultural resources here meaning archaeological sites and historic properties. This portion of the NHPA is known as Section 106 (my job is Section 106 compliance). Additionally, there is Section 110 of the NHPA which dictates that federal agencies also have a responsibility to “manage and maintain historic properties under their jurisdiction in a way that considers the preservation of their historic, archaeological, architectural, and cultural values”.

These two laws are important as the Presidio is federally owned land while it’s a military base and then it remains federal land when it becomes a national park and is subject to compliance with the above laws. These agencies are not meant to be able to demolish or change places like the Presidio whenever they like. This means that the US military and agencies like the National Park Service (NPS) employ a lot of environmental specialists (like historians, archaeologists, ecologists, NEPA analysts, etc.) to make sure that they are in compliance with laws like NEPA and Section 106 of the NHPA.

About 17 years before the Presidio was closed, Congress was in the process of creating “national recreational areas” across the country. Congress’s goal was to “bring the national parks to the people” and have protected areas closer to places that had higher concentrations of people (i.e. cities) so that they were more accessible to the public. It is at this time that the Golden Gate National Recreational Area (GGNRA) is established and in the area of the military base, it is essentially a border between the military base and the Bay. When the GGNRA is created, one Congressman, Congressman Philip Burton, had the foresight to include language in the act that notes that the Presidio should be absorbed into the GGNRA “should it not be needed for military purposes”. Burton writes that the GGNRA is  “a remarkable opportunity to establish a unique national park reserve that will save for the people of the United States and the world a magnificent open space immediately adjacent to one of the major metropolitan regions of the United States”.

Almost 20 years later, the Presidio is closed as a military base and it’s time for it to become a part of the GGNRA. There is one issue though and that’s the cost. The Presidio as a part of the GGNRA is given a budget of $25 million annually. This makes it the most expensive national park within NPS and Congress determines that this is not sustainable. In determining a solution that would keep the Presidio part of the GGNRA and public land, Congress (spearheaded by Nancy Pelosi), comes up with an idea called the Presidio Trust. The Presidio Trust (Trust) is a board of directors, mainly appointed by the President, whose job is to oversee the management of the Presidio and find a way to make the Presidio financially self-sufficient and therefore take no money from the federal government. When the Trust was passed by Congress at the end of 1996, they were given 15 years to find tenants that would occupy the Presidio, generate income, and make the park financially self-sufficient. As you can imagine, with anything going through Congress, there was a lot of back and forth and plenty of critique on how this was going to work. No other national park operated this way and people would have a lot of concerns and questions about a “private/public partnership” within national park land. 

With the Omnibus Parks & Land Management Act of 1996 (which is where the Presidio Trust grew out of), this is the description of the Trust and its goals: The Presidio, “will be managed through an innovative public/private partnership that minimizes cost to the United States Treasury and makes efficient use of private sector resources.” In order to generate income they must find tenants who meet specific criteria and

“[i]n managing and leasing the properties transferred to it, the Trust shall consider the extent to which prospective tenants contribute to the implementation of the general objectives of the General Management Plan for the Presidio and to the reduction of cost to the Federal Government. The Trust shall give priority to the following categories of tenants; Tenants that enhance the financial viability of the Presidio and tenants that facilitate the cost-effective preservation of historic buildings through their reuse of such buildings.”

And so, in 1996, the clock is ticking and the Trust is now tasked to find a way to generate income. If at the end of the 15 years (2013), they have not achieved their goal of financial independence, then the Presidio will be closed as a park and sold off. Enter, George Lucas.

George Lucas and the Letterman Digital Arts Center 

About an hour north of the Presidio is Skywalker Ranch in Marin County. George Lucas is actively trying (and failing) to expand his footprint along Lucas Valley Road. The residents of this area are very against any expansion from George and file multiple suits against him. George has essentially run out of room at Skywalker Ranch and needs a new place to grow his business. In 1998, the Trust puts out a request for proposals for anyone interested in developing a 23-acre section of land within the Presidio known as the Letterman District.

The Presidio was designated as a National Historic Landmark in 1962 and since then there has been a monolith of research and studies done on the military base in cataloging the land and all of the historic buildings within the district. Specifically in historic districts, we talk about individual buildings as contributing or non-contributing. Contributing buildings are historic and contribute to why the historic district as a whole is considered historically significant. As you can probably guess, non-contributing buildings do the opposite. With over 800 buildings within the Presidio, it is no small task to assess and catalogue all these buildings. Over 450 buildings are identified as contributing within the historic district. 

When the Trust takes over management of the Presidio, they use these previous and on-going studies to begin identifying where within the military base would be a good spot to seek new, prospective tenants. This would end up being the Letterman District which was the medical center of the military base. The buildings within this area of the Presidio have had a medical use since the first hospital was built here in 1898. There were numerous medical buildings that were interconnected in this 60-acre site. The area was named for Major Jonathan Letterman, a medical director during the Civil War in 1911 and was one of the largest hospitals in the country in the 20th century. In the 1960s, about 23 acres of this area was demolished and a new hospital building was constructed known as the Letterman Army Medical Center (LMAC). This building was massive in scale and disruptive to the overall site plan of the Presidio. Additionally, this massive hospital was considered non-historic and non-contributing to the historic district and for those reasons was selected as the site that the Trust was willing to demolish and let prospective tenants propose new uses and buildings. 

By January 1999, the Trust had selected four finalists who have the opportunity to build at the Letterman District. Lucasfilm is one of them and a few months later a meeting is held with the public where all of the finalists give a 20 minute presentation on their proposals and then comments are heard from the public to see what they think about these options. This meeting is held on March 29, 1999, less than two months before The Phantom Menace premiers and yes, George Lucas was at this meeting to give part of the presentation for Lucasfilm! In the transcription of this public meeting, it’s noted that there is standing room only. Here is a brief description of the other three finalists:

• Letterman Complex Development Partners: propose a mixed-use campus, which includes offices, a hotel and conference center, assisted senior living center, restaurants and cafes, and job training and welfare-to-work programs; Marriott is the proposed business partner for the hotel portion
• L&R Presidio Partners: propose a mixed-use project that includes offices, facilities focusing on education, research and health along with an inn and visitors center; some of the organizations and institutions they’ve partnered with include the Goldman Institute for Aging, the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the Culinary Institute
• Shorenstein Company LP and Interland Corporation: propose mixed-use office and housing, a library and retail shops surrounding a public green; Shorenstein partners with internet and media company CNET who also present at this meeting.

George Lucas’s proposal is listed as the Letterman Digital Arts Center and is described as a proposal “to build a Letterman Digital Center of offices and workshops. In addition, an institute of digital learning and special effects archives are included in the proposals”. George starts off their presentation with the following remarks (it’s a long quote):

“Members of the Trust, my name is George Lucas, and I’m the Chairman of the Board of Lucas Film and the Letterman Digital Arts Center. I’ll be brief. I think my distinction is that I am not a real estate developer, and I’m not here really to pursue a business opportunity. I’m not motivated to gain any economic return on the ground lease you’ll be awarding. I’m very much for having a sustainable situation here at the park, that has the least amount of impact on the park. Especially in terms of traffic and adding more congestion. I’m not a big one for building more shopping malls, and sort of an L.A. development mentality. My motivations are different. I’m a Northern Californian by birth, and I personally am very excited about Northern California’s unique challenge to create a great urban national park. When I learned that the Letterman site would be available for redevelopment, I saw that my own vision and the Presidio’s fit perfectly together. By creating this artistic digital center at the Letterman site, I would bring to the Presidio those employees and artists who are helping to shape the future of cinema. Digital cinema is the cinema of the 21st century. And it’s an art form that is just now being put forward and being pioneered. And the artists and engineers and craftspeople who will work in this facility will help form a community that will be world-renowned for its great ideas. And I guarantee, because I’m very interested in architecture, I’m very interested in preserving the land, I think that what would be created here will also be world-renowned for its beauty and its location and design. The opportunity to work with the Trust to achieve this vision would be a privilege and a priority for me. I am personally interested in this, and I also realize that this is an evolving process. I’ve developed facilities in Marin for many years. They are state of the art, and at the same time, a very great asset to the community. And bringing the benefits of digital technology to education, and to building environments, and creating this creative campus are two of my highest personal priorities.In designing the center, I’m very interested there be a park within a park. We have put as much of the facility as we can into open space for people to enjoy as a park. We put all the parking lots underground, and the campus buildings are understated, respectful of their historic legacy, and appropriately situated on the site. And it opens up to a great lawn with promenades, cafes, coffee bars, and other amenities to the public.I also wanted to limit the building density, and again, as I say, put the parking underground to maximize the open space and create a less intrusive, low-impact, park-like setting. We worked very, very hard to create a facility that has the least amount of impact on the park, to keep it a park. And in achieving this vision, meant working with some of the best urban designers and architects. And I’d like to have two of the best right now, Larry Harpin and Kevin Hart, quickly walk you through the specifics of our design.”

The architects on the project discuss their designs and emphasize the importance of the large public green spaced they’ve included. A video is shown that talks about ILM, the film industry, and George as a creator and a good neighbor. Once all the presentations are finished, there is time for the public to submit their comments. At the time of this meeting, the Shorenstein proposal is definitely the front runner and the comments reflect that. The company is a real estate company with a lot of influence and money invested in San Francisco at the time.  I’ve only included a sample/summary of the comments in the list below, but you can read the entire transcript with all public comments from the meeting here.

3/24/1999 Public Meeting Comments: 

• One of the opening comments here really asks a lot of questions of what they hope the Trust is fully considering when selecting a private venture for this public park. These questions felt worth it to include in this discussion: “We ask these questions: is the proposed use appropriate to be in this national park? Is it best sited at Letterman, or elsewhere in the Presidio? How does it enhance recreational and educational opportunities? What are its benefits to the public at large? Does it welcome the Presidio’s visitors? Who’s invited, and how many? We need public attractions with minimized public impacts. Does this use help meet the Trust’s farsighted policy for a jobs/housing balance? And how successfully does it minimize traffic impacts and benefit sustainable design and use? In general, while all four proposals are improved, they all need to do more to serve the Presidio’s visitors. From another state or from across the street, the American people who own this park need to feel that it is theirs, and not feel that they’re intruders on a private enclave” – a comment from a representative of the Sierra Club
• Many comments from the public about how Marriott is not a good neighbor and should not be a part of the Presidio; union representatives and current employees discuss their distaste for Marriott
• Many positive comments for the Shorenstein proposal and their commitment to diversity and working with unions 
• Positive comments from multiple members of the public about the company CNET and how they support women in technology fields (the organization San Francisco Women of the Web come to support CNET and Shorenstein) and LGBTQ issues 
• A local religious leader, Rev. Arnold Townsend notes that he thinks the Trust and all the developers need a stronger commitment to including people of color at all levels of the process. However, he feels Shorenstein has done that the best so far and they have really coordinated with local trade unions and local community organizers
• The last comment of the night is the only comment in full support of George Lucas and Lucasfilm’s proposal: the commenter notes that Lucasfilm and George would become a “lode stone” and “magnetic center” for the film industry to coalesce around and that George Lucas has all of the money needed to fully fund this project and does not need to rely on investors or other businesses 

During this process wherein the public has multiple opportunities to submit comments and the finalists go through multiple workshops and meetings to refine their proposals and designs, the Trust is also drafting an environmental document for the NEPA process known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). An EIS document is the highest level of environmental documentation that can be completed under NEPA and it is a long process to develop and complete an EIS. An EIS document is an in-depth analysis of environmental impacts in a proposed project. The document will look at all the options (or alternatives as they’re referred to in the EIS) and analyze each alternative and determine how much impact it will have on the environment within the Presidio. For the Presidio, the EIS analyzed six alternatives against 36 different “impact topics”. Some of these topics include: impact to historic properties, impact to traffic congestion, impact to noise levels, impacts on water quality, and impacts to public safety. The goal is to say that in each of these “impact topics” one of these alternatives has the least amount of impact in this area. The EIS document does identify who the sponsor (i.e. The Trust) feels is the “preferred alternative” for the project throughout. The “preferred alternative” is who the Trust feels best meets the goals of the project and has the least overall impact to resources and could do the best job at ensuring the Presidio remains a public space. The Trust names Lucasfilm as their preferred alternative. The EIS also compiles all of the public comment that is received by the Trust through meetings, letters, and emails. Click here to read through all the comments. The Final EIS document can be read through here. The final piece of the EIS process is the document called the “Record of Decision” and as titled, it records the decision that is made and which alternative is selected in the end. Of Lucasfilm the Trust says they picked this alternative because Lucasfilm “fulfill[s] the mission of the Presidio as a park while at the same time supporting the Presidio’s financial self-sufficiency”. Read the Record of Decision.

The Lucasfilm offices had their grand opening on June 25, 2005, and celebrated with a big picnic on the Great Lawn, which is the public green space first proposed in George’s design. Over 2,000 people attend, mostly employees but a lot of politicians and celebrities are there as well including Gavin Newsom, Nancy Pelosi, Joan Baez, and Beach Blanket Babylon. Guests receive a custom wooden lunchbox and a book all about the history of the film industry in the Bay area (very much a new chase item for my personal collection).

Fifteen years later, Lucasfilm is still headquartered here in the Presidio. Although Lucasfilm was sold to Disney, George still owns these buildings outright. Lucasfilm, and other businesses in the Letterman Digital Arts Center, continue to lease their office space from George Lucas.

The Lucas Cultural Arts Museum

If you’re familiar with George Lucas’ story, you know that he has had a passion for art and collecting art for almost his entire life. The idea of a museum housing his collection was not a new one. Additionally, part of the initial plans and goals set out by the Trust for the Presidio was that one day, the grounds would include a “cultural institution”. A location had been identified by the Trust as early as 2002, but they had not been ready to move forward with the request for proposals.  In 2010, George held a meeting with the Trust where he presented them with an unsolicited concept to build a digital arts museum. He tells the Trust that he plans to hold an international design competition for the design and architecture of the building. At this time though, the Trust was not ready to move forward with developing its cultural institution and George would have to wait. The wait though, wasn’t too long because in 2012, the Trust sent out another request for proposals for development of a cultural institution on Crissy Field.

Crissy Field is an area of land within the Presidio that occupies about 130 acres. Historically, it operated as an airfield until 1974 when it was abandoned and remained unused until its restoration to the public as green space in 2001. A large component of its restoration was specifically focused around ecological features like the salt marshland that fronts the Bay. Its location is perhaps the best in the Presidio, with the proposed area and building for the cultural institution directly overlooking the Bay and Golden Gate Bridge.

In November of 2012 after the request for proposals went out, the Trust received back 16 applications. By April 2013, the Trust had narrowed it down to three finalists. The three finalists and a rendering for each of their proposals is below: 

• The Bridge/Sustainability Institute (from the Chora Group and WRNS): proposes a cultural education center focused on the theme of sustainability using the Presidio as a case study. 

• Lucas Cultural Arts Museum (from George Lucas): a museum highlighting populist art from some of the greatest illustrators of the last 150 years. 

• Presidio Exchange (from the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy): proposes a vibrant visitor experience that reflects the spirit of the Bay Area.

A public meeting is held on April 9, 2013 where the Trust heard feedback from the community. The meeting begins with the executive director of the Trust, Craig Middleton, outlining the six objectives for the museum to everyone before the public commentary: 

• Enhance visitor experience 
• Provide programmatic offerings that connect broader themes and offer cross-disciplinary programming
• Be compatible with the magnificent natural and cultural setting along Crissy Field and the Bay 
• Complement current uses and activities on the Presidio
• Welcome a broad cross-section of the community that reflects and reaffirms the public nature of the Presidio 
• Be economically viable

From the very beginning of George’s proposal for his museum, there were concerns and critique of his design. The Beaux-Arts style is meant to be in conversation with the neighboring Palace of Fine Arts. Critics of the design argue that the Palace of Fine Arts is not within the bounds of the Presidio and would stand out too much. Initial concepts also did not completely adhere to set design guidelines given by the Trust including maximum height requirements. The full transcript of this April 2013 meeting is available here.

• A former member of the Trust, “I must say I feel that the Lucas proposal was not responsive to the goals that Craig [Middleton] outlined.”
• A representative of the San Francisco Travel Association: As a Marin resident, I know that Mr. Lucas is a good neighbor and a generous benefactor. We’re fortunate that he calls the Bay Area home. The truth is that he will build this museum. If he doesn’t build it here, he will build it in another city. That would be San Francisco’s loss in many ways. I encourage the Presidio Trust Board to consider this and select this proposal for the short list. Thank you
• The Sierra Club: I would hope that you would not let the celebrity of Mr. Lucas overwhelm the good and excellent applications of the other proposals. […] I encourage you to be true to the goals you’ve set and to the criteria. While I respect Mr. Lucas, I think that his museum can go anywhere in this City. There are places like the Palace of Fine Arts as an example. So I would urge you to make your selections based on the needs of the park and its visitors and not the celebrity status of one of the proposers. I particularly would like to single out the proposals of the Conservancy. They have a proven track record with you, and I think that should go a long way in knowing that they will be able to serve the public that you serve. Thank you.
• San Francisco Chamber of Commerce: The Chamber is particularly intrigued by the Lucas Cultural Arts Museum concept. In addition to being the only project that would be entirely self-funded, we feel the opportunity to host Mr. Lucas’s vast, unique and important art collection in a beautiful, new, well designed and well integrated building at Crissy Field is worth consideration. Mr. Lucas has an excellent track record in the Presidio, and we certainly don’t want to lose his collection – that’s estimated at a value of a billion dollars – to another city. The Chamber encourages the Trust to select the Lucas Cultural Arts Museum as one of the finalists that you invite to respond to the RFP. Thanks.
• Neighborhood Association for Presidio Planning supports the Presidio Exchange

During this time, George has a lot of support from political figures and a fairly active publicity campaign is occurring to promote his museum. For example, this segment runs on CBS News where he talks about his goals for the museum. The rest of the year saw a series of meetings, campaigns, design adjustments, and more.

A packed meeting is held on January 27, 2014 to a room of over 500 people where the Trust outlines what they see as the pros and cons for each of the three finalists who are all still in the running. For the Trust, the design of George’s museum is still the major issue and they note this in their overview of the Lucas Museum: “[W]e have significant issues with the proposed building. It’s massive in height and in its architectural style, and believe it should be redesigned to be more compatible with the Presidio.”

Representatives from each of the finalists are present at the meeting and present to the public the ways they’ve incorporated feedback from the Trust and the public. David Perry represents the Lucas Museum and in his presentation he outlines all the ways he believes that they have incorporated the design change requests from the Trust and the public while still “fulfilling the creative vision that George Lucas has for this museum.”

Here are a few select comments from this Jan. 27, 2014 meeting and other comments that were submitted to the Trust via email. All of the comments received by the Trust via email can be accessed here.  

• A former member of the Trust: “If you choose a project, choose the PX (Presidio Exchange), which best lives up to what the Trust called for in its Request for Proposals, a project that indeed illuminates the power of place. That term refers to the inherent natural and real historical powers of this place, not fantasies of power. At best, the Trust should wait. It has finally recovered from the misery of the Fisher Museum debacle. To choose the Lucas proposal will start a contentious NEPA process of two to three years with likely legal action to follow as patriotic Americans who love their national parks and our country’s history rally to defend the Golden Gate. Such a fight would also lower the value of the Presidio Trust as an example of park management to our nation. Thank you.” 
• Representative from the San Francisco Board of Education: “What I think is unique about the George Lucas Cultural Arts Museum is that it proposes to be a museum for the future that will bring together the past, present and future by showcasing arts through the lens of innovation and storytelling. What better place for it to be, than located at Crissy Field, at the gateway of San Francisco at the entrance of the Golden Gate Bridge? As someone who actively raises funds for our youth in the City, I honestly appreciate that the Lucas Cultural Arts Museum will be fully funded and have an endowment that will not take much-needed fundraising dollars from the pockets of other nonprofit organizations and museums in the Bay Area.”
•  “Presidio is a national park, and as such it should be reserved for uses that are relevant to a national park. One of the park uses that can go elsewhere should go elsewhere. There is no nexus between a digital arts museum and a national park, and no connection at all between the purpose and content of the proposed Lucas Cultural Arts Museum and the history or mission of the Presidio. “It is unfortunate that RFCP and RFP did not clearly rule out nonpark-related uses. I’m disappointed in the Trust for stringing Mr. Lucas along. It’s past time to wish him well in establishing the Lucas museum in an appropriate location elsewhere.”
• “The Lucas museum is a private museum with a private purpose and a private penchant for architecture. A private preference for architecture. But this is not a private site, as we all know. This is a very public site, in a national park that is owned by all of us – and as Neal said, 300 million more Americans. I think the Lucas museum will be a great museum, hopefully on a pier downtown or in the Palace, or even in Chicago. But it has no place in this park. It no more belongs here than it does in Yosemite Valley.”
• “So I think that nothing is more rewarding than inspiring a youngster, and I don’t think the other two proposals will do that as well as George Lucas. George Lucas will inspire youngsters throughout the world, and this will become a site that will be popular around the world. So I think that this is a national park. It’s not a California park. It’s a national park. Your duty is not to the people of San Francisco; it’s to the people up in Sacramento, the people all over the country. And I think the Lucas park is the best for this, and I don’t think it’s fair to make him wait any longer either. Thank you.”
• “The Lucas proposal is geared to young people and a visual art museum is better placed elsewhere rather than across from the beach. Also, the building is ill suited for the location and is stall. Lastly, granting the project to Lucas creates the perception of catering to the elitist few. Sustainability is really the story of this location of the Presidio and should be reflected in the use.”
• “My family and I have had the privilege of seeing just a small portion of George Lucas’ art treasures at Skywalker Ranch, which did not include any of his groundbreaking and innovative film contributions. Our hope is that by inviting him to bring the magnificent collection to the public, everyone would have a great opportunity to see some of the most innovative and creative art imaginable. The building design does lend itself well to the lost art of Palatial construction that makes San Francisco a true “Grand Dame” of cities. It would be a shame to lose the collection and the stately design proposed by Mr. Lucas as well as the money to support such an endeavor in perpetuity.”
• “A big NO for George Lucas’ proposal. Have we learned nothing from the Metreon development downtown adjacent to a beautiful open space? Why build a museum that encourages people to be inside, sitting, watching, enveloped in fantasy and technology when we have one of the greatest natural treasures just outside of its doors/ What do movies have to do with Crissy Field? Just because a rich person offers you his hand-me-downs doesn’t mean you have to take them. Absolutely NO.”

The National Trust for Historic Preservation also submits detailed comments to the Trust on each of the finalists. They remind the Trust that in preservation, there is often a discussion around new construction creating a false sense of historical development and that designs that do that should not be undertaken. In their opinion, the design of the Lucas Museum of Cultural Arts, “relies on a historical precedent that is not to be found at Crissy Field, nor indeed anywhere in the Presidio NHLD (National Historic Landmark District). Rather, it appears that the design inspiration is the architecture of the Panama–Pacific International Exposition [the Palace of Fine Arts]. If the Lucas proposal had been conceived as infill to a Panama–Pacific International Exposition Historic District, one might argue that it represented a legitimate interpretation of the Standards. Within the context of Crissy Field and the Presidio, however, the design is inappropriate, and would undermine the historic integrity of the NHLD.”

Another common theme throughout the comments is people requesting that the Trust take more time to thoughtfully consider the long range impacts that any of these proposals, and subsequently any development on Crissy Field, might have on the future of the park. There were numerous projects under construction, including major road construction in the area of Crissy Field where the “cultural institution” was proposed to be sited. Many members of the public thought all the designs would be better served to wait until this road construction was completed to fully assess the needs of the site.

A few days later on February 3, 2014, the Trust announced that they are rejecting all proposals. George’s representative, David Perry, is quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle noting that George will still work with the Trust and they all take the stewardship of the Presidio very seriously. Regardless though, George feels blindsided by this move and also notes that the museum has other offers that they will start exploring.

About 19 months later on November 28, 2015, an article is released in the San Francisco Chronicle that reflects back on the Trust’s decision to reject all proposals and explores if there was implicit bias against George Lucas at the time. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Lucas supporters included thousands of emails from staff and board members about Lucas and his controversial museum design. Read the article in full here.

The article alleges that less than 72 hours before the Trust announced their rejection of all the proposals for the Crissy site, they were prepared to award the site to George Lucas if he changed the design of the building. Three members of the Trust had a private meeting with George at his office on January 31, 2014. In the end, the design and architectural style of the building became the make or break issue for both the Trust and George. George was unwilling to change the design and maintained that the building’s Beaux-Arts architectural style was appropriate for the site. The Trust disagreed and the parties could not come to a compromise. After the meeting, when the Trust relays how it went to the absent board members, they note that it went poorly and they’re ready to move ahead with the decision to select no one. When news later breaks that George is exploring other cities for his museum, he is interviewed by the New York Times complaining about the Trust was, “having us do as much work as we can hoping that we will give up … they hate us.”

After the interview’s publication though, he sends what could be interpreted as an apology to the Trust for his less than diplomatic statement, “As you know, I feel passionately about the Presidio. When the NY Times reporter called, I intended to talk about how art had impacted my life and why I thought the Presidio was the perfect home for the museum, but when asked about the application process I’m afraid my frustrations got the best of me.” Members of the Trust though are not sure what to call his note, with one member emailing, “Is there an apology in there somewhere”? Another member writes back, “Yes, I think so. Oblique perhaps but maybe the best he can do.”

As we know, George will continue to experience pushback with where he tries to construct his museum. It finally lands in Los Angeles and is set to open in 2026. Ironically, the Beaux-Arts design is nowhere to be seen in LA. The Trust did not end up developing the Crissy site for a cultural institution. Instead, the extant building was restored in 2022 and operates as a multi-use space today!

Conclusion:

The Presidio is one of the most unique places in the country. It has the most stunning views and a complicated framework for how it operates. It is a must-see destination though and their ability to be financially self-sufficient is in part because George Lucas was the first tenant and an incredibly successful one. Lucasfilm became a financial anchor in a lot of ways for the Presidio. Researching this topic though as someone in this field, it’s encouraging to see the process of public involvement and the time and consideration that these environmental resources are given. It is of course not always a perfect or politically exempt process, but it exists to hopefully make us pause and take a second look at what is around us and how can we best serve the public in the choices that are being made with our natural and historic resources.