Add to favorites Examiner Bio

The perfect train wreck: the CAMP process

 

I just love those action films where a train wreck occurs and it is shown in excruciating slow motion. It’s good entertainment in that context. But when you see a real life train wreck about to happen, it’s anything but entertaining. And that’s what the Presidio’s Contemporary Art Museum of the Presidio (CAMP) is shaping up as.

 

Last Tuesday evening the Presidio Trust officially unveiled the revised design for CAMP to predictable comments both pro and con. To their credit, the architects from WRNS did a good job explaining the revised design which they’ve created. In particular, they made some good connections showing how they have used the surrounding historic cues to inform the building.

 

The fun got started before the meeting proper, as a surprising number of museum proponents showed up outside the Palace of Fine Arts Theatre where the meeting was held. I say surprising because the past public meetings of the Trust haven’t had much of a show of support for the project. The explanation was easily determined however; the Fishers’ publicity machine shipped in “grassroots supporters” complete with hand lettered placards of support. It was that obvious.

 

I’ve commented previously on the revised design, so I won’t reiterate my thoughts. I do think it possible to design a building that would work on this Main Parade site, but the revised design still needs refinement. The proposed design is clearly not a monumental building, but neither does it try to disappear into the background; that’s a very tricky middle ground to negotiate and few buildings anywhere manage it well. That being said, I think WRNS deserves the benefit of the doubt. The firm has produced some good design work in the past and might be able to pull it off here, too. Whether they ever get that chance will be the big question.

 

The public comment was not as raucous as in past meetings. The proponents offered little of substance beyond “I really like this museum.” Had they been truly invested in the process, I think there could have been serious rebuttal of the opponents’ point of view. In contrast, the opponents, while fewer in number, provided much more articulate and detailed arguments.

 

The highlight of the evening, though, was a series of comments from a group of Berkeley law students who have been studying the CAMP process. They provided a summary of their findings and made excellent points, both pro and con. It made me wonder why the Trust didn’t hire themselves some law students in the first place to advise them. 

 

There are several interrelated legal issues, all of which have to do with the legality of new construction within a historic district, which the Main Post is. Foremost, is whether a use unrelated to the historicity of the district is permissible. Obviously, the Trust feels it is, but in the end the National Park Service and the State Historic Preservation Office will make that determination. It’s not a slam dunk.

 

A second, and possibly more critical issue, is whether the Trust can “bank” square footage for new construction. In general, no new construction can occur within a historic district unless a similar amount of non-historic buildings are removed. In other words, for every square foot of non-historic building demolished, another square foot of new construction can occur. But beyond this, and here’s where it gets tricky, only buildings of roughly the same size as those demolished can be built; you can’t tear down two 10,000 square foot buildings and replace them with one 20,000 square foot structure. But that’s just what the Trust appears to be doing. Legal precedent doesn’t seem to favor that approach and my guess is that the legal challenge to CAMP, when it comes, will be predicated on the so-called one-for-one rule. 

 

Make no mistake. A suit in federal court to stop CAMP is coming. Whether you agree with CAMP or not, whether you like the revised design or not, whether you like Don Fisher or not, are completely immaterial issues. The question will be: is it legal to build on this location?

 

My guess (and admittedly I’m no preservation law expert) is no, it’s not. But even if I’m wrong, CAMP will be delayed for a number of years in the federal court system. And in the end, no one is served. No fantastic collection of modern art for the public to enjoy, no beautiful addition to our City’s already rich cultural life.

 

In truth, several other locations for the museum exist, both within and outside of the Presidio. But there has not been a full and public discussion of any of those other locations. Without question, the Presidio Trust has bumbled this process and what could have been an example of public consensus building has instead become polarized and divisive. Can the reset button be pushed? Can we return to some kind of civil public discourse that looks at all the alternatives? Or, like movie goers at an action film, are we required to sit and watch the perfect train wreck unfold?