Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a huge donation, and Auto Museum is a really cool place (and this coming from a person who mostly bikes and owns a disused 2000 Civic) in dire need of a modern building, so I can't help but be a little excited. The natural history museum--well, I'll just hope they have the money to make something out of it that isn't just stuffed, possibly-unethically-hunted animals.
Regarding location, I admit that in an ideal world where friggin I-5 didn't chop the riverfront into tiny bits, it would be great to have these two planned museums, the Crocker, Old Sac, the future Powerhouse Science Center, the arena, the convention center, etc, within walking distance. But I-5 is where it is, so there aren't many other riverfront locations that would work. The space immediately north of the I St bridge is slated for a replacement bridge at some point, so that's out. I could see it working out in the Railyards, maybe near the future railroad technology museum, but, honestly, if I were rich and 86, and wanted to see my money put to good use before I kicked off, I probably wouldn't want to wait on the Railyards either. As it is, the location is okay, and maybe it will help get the Docks project happening going.
This is a huge donation, and Auto Museum is a really cool place (and this coming from a person who mostly bikes and owns a disused 2000 Civic) in dire need of a modern building, so I can't help but be a little excited. The natural history museum--well, I'll just hope they have the money to make something out of it that isn't just stuffed, possibly-unethically-hunted animals.
Regarding location, I admit that in an ideal world where friggin I-5 didn't chop the riverfront into tiny bits, it would be great to have these two planned museums, the Crocker, Old Sac, the future Powerhouse Science Center, the arena, the convention center, etc, within walking distance. But I-5 is where it is, so there aren't many other riverfront locations that would work. The space immediately north of the I St bridge is slated for a replacement bridge at some point, so that's out. I could see it working out in the Railyards, maybe near the future railroad technology museum, but, honestly, if I were rich and 86, and wanted to see my money put to good use before I kicked off, I probably wouldn't want to wait on the Railyards either. As it is, the location is okay, and maybe it will help get the Docks project happening going.
Your thoughts?
The Humane Society is opposed to it. Someone will sue and an environmentalist lawyer will take the case and drag it out for 5-10yrs. Another attraction-development doomed to fail in "anti-everything" Sacramento. We should put it on the ballot and let Sacramenntans vote it down. Can't wait to hear the other million reasons why it shouldn't be built.
I'd like to see this happen, I've lived in a few cities with world class museums and they are always enjoyable for me and my family. A 180,000 sq ft museum isn't too bad, but I can see that going to 250-300K if they'd be willing to go multi level. I believe the Field Museum in Chicago goes about 500,000 square ft, while the Museum of Natural History in Cleveland is about 200,000 square ft and undergoing an expansion which should add another 100,000 square ft.
Growing up in Philadelphia and subsequently living for some time in Washington DC and Cleveland we got to see some great museums. Also, we liked to visit Chicago and New York City, so we saw some of the best in the country.
The Humane Society is opposed to it. Someone will sue and an environmentalist lawyer will take the case and drag it out for 5-10yrs. Another attraction-development doomed to fail in "anti-everything" Sacramento. We should put it on the ballot and let Sacramenntans vote it down. Can't wait to hear the other million reasons why it shouldn't be built.
The various news articles said that the museum would also house the Snider's "collection." Their collection was obtained by traveling all over the world and killing various leopards, tigers, etc. and having them stuffed.
The Humane Society is trying to make a point that being rich enough to hunt down and kill endangered animals doesn't "natural history" make.
I'm still somewhat blown away that Snider Volkswagen, that was supposed to be your wonderful friend and sell you the cheapest car possible, was apparently so lucrative that they could afford all this crap?
And people compain about how much money WalMart has.
I'd like to see this happen, I've lived in a few cities with world class museums and they are always enjoyable for me and my family. A 180,000 sq ft museum isn't too bad, but I can see that going to 250-300K if they'd be willing to go multi level. I believe the Field Museum in Chicago goes about 500,000 square ft, while the Museum of Natural History in Cleveland is about 200,000 square ft and undergoing an expansion which should add another 100,000 square ft.
Growing up in Philadelphia and subsequently living for some time in Washington DC and Cleveland we got to see some great museums. Also, we liked to visit Chicago and New York City, so we saw some of the best in the country.
Good post, I agree. I've been to all those museums except the one in Cleveland.
The various news articles said that the museum would also house the Snider's "collection." Their collection was obtained by traveling all over the world and killing various leopards, tigers, etc. and having them stuffed.
The Humane Society is trying to make a point that being rich enough to hunt down and kill endangered animals doesn't "natural history" make.
I'm still somewhat blown away that Snider Volkswagen, that was supposed to be your wonderful friend and sell you the cheapest car possible, was apparently so lucrative that they could afford all this crap?
And people compain about how much money WalMart has.
I'll count your post as the first to find criticism, reject, or oppose another positive attraction for Sacramento.
Wow Chimerique, you've become such a naysayer already! With that kind of negative attitude, maybe a move to Bakersfield is in order?
I like the idea that their plan is to use private money to purchase land from the city for this museum--the CAM is already privately funded. It also sets a good precedent of local wealthy folks spending their own money on local civic amenities--Sacramento has a notoriously poor track record for private altruism of this sort, outside of a few major projects like the Crocker that are municipally owned. A lot of old-school "natural history museums" as well as art museums (including the Crocker) started out as rich guys' private collections of paintings, artifacts, stuffed animals and other assorted things. I'm curious to hear more about their long-term business model (does he plan on providing an endowment for long-term operations, or just funds for constructing the initial museum? Will they have a direct educational outreach program, tie-ins with other museums and facilities? What other materials or displays do they plan on using? Will they have touring exhibit space or just a static collection?) and more interested in seeing a permanent facility for the CAM. It's also a good sign for the Docks, the site right next door to the existing CAM just finished a major toxic-remediation cleanup.
Plus, I just like the CAM. One thing I hope for is that, someday, an elderly docent in a gas station attendant uniform will have to explain to children what a "gas pump" is, and how it was used to pump a flammable liquid that once was used to power these lovely old-fashioned "automobiles."
Wow Chimerique, you've become such a naysayer already! With that kind of negative attitude, maybe a move to Bakersfield is in order?
I like the idea that their plan is to use private money to purchase land from the city for this museum--the CAM is already privately funded. It also sets a good precedent of local wealthy folks spending their own money on local civic amenities--Sacramento has a notoriously poor track record for private altruism of this sort, outside of a few major projects like the Crocker that are municipally owned. A lot of old-school "natural history museums" as well as art museums (including the Crocker) started out as rich guys' private collections of paintings, artifacts, stuffed animals and other assorted things. I'm curious to hear more about their long-term business model (does he plan on providing an endowment for long-term operations, or just funds for constructing the initial museum? Will they have a direct educational outreach program, tie-ins with other museums and facilities? What other materials or displays do they plan on using? Will they have touring exhibit space or just a static collection?) and more interested in seeing a permanent facility for the CAM. It's also a good sign for the Docks, the site right next door to the existing CAM just finished a major toxic-remediation cleanup.
Plus, I just like the CAM. One thing I hope for is that, someday, an elderly docent in a gas station attendant uniform will have to explain to children what a "gas pump" is, and how it was used to pump a flammable liquid that once was used to power these lovely old-fashioned "automobiles."
That elderly docent has likely not yet been born.
The CAM, previously known as the Towe Auto Museum, has a great collection, and I'd like to see it housed in a first class building. I had the good fortune to see the Staluppi classic car collection last year in West Palm Beach before it was sold off, and the way he had the museum set up would be a great model for the new CAM.
Wow Chimerique, you've become such a naysayer already! With that kind of negative attitude, maybe a move to Bakersfield is in order?
I like the idea that their plan is to use private money to purchase land from the city for this museum--the CAM is already privately funded. It also sets a good precedent of local wealthy folks spending their own money on local civic amenities--Sacramento has a notoriously poor track record for private altruism of this sort, outside of a few major projects like the Crocker that are municipally owned. A lot of old-school "natural history museums" as well as art museums (including the Crocker) started out as rich guys' private collections of paintings, artifacts, stuffed animals and other assorted things. I'm curious to hear more about their long-term business model (does he plan on providing an endowment for long-term operations, or just funds for constructing the initial museum? Will they have a direct educational outreach program, tie-ins with other museums and facilities? What other materials or displays do they plan on using? Will they have touring exhibit space or just a static collection?) and more interested in seeing a permanent facility for the CAM. It's also a good sign for the Docks, the site right next door to the existing CAM just finished a major toxic-remediation cleanup.
Plus, I just like the CAM. One thing I hope for is that, someday, an elderly docent in a gas station attendant uniform will have to explain to children what a "gas pump" is, and how it was used to pump a flammable liquid that once was used to power these lovely old-fashioned "automobiles."
I agree. Good point about a precedent for wealthy folks leaving some money locally. The scope of his wealth surprised me a little, but if you've had a large, consistently profitable business for 50+ years, I could see building up quite a bit of coin.
I had the same thought about long-term operations. While I'm happy to be a taxpayer that supports the art, it's obviously preferable if the city never has to contribute anything towards operations.
The idea of displaying your personal collection is an old idea, with a good grounding in narcissism, but whatever. I'd love to see a good natural history museum here.
One thing I'll miss about the fancy new CAM is that they might not let me look at the cars while I drink beer. Fully 2 of the 3 times I've been there have been in that context: once for my fiancee's work party (quite a nice place for a big gathering, actually), and once for a mini beer festival during beer week last year. I'll be sure to write my councilmember to ensure we can still look at cars while drinking beers.
The CAM isn't a city-run museum, they are privately owned, so they would not be entitled to any city support, nor would your council member have much control over musem beer/wine policy. Typically, museums operate via private endowments and solicited donations, along with grants and other funding sources--basically no museum stays open via admissions alone. Beer and wine at evening events held at museums is pretty standard--I have attended evening events at the California State Railroad Museum (state-run) where beer and wine was served in the main roundhouse among the cars and locomotives in the collection, and there was plenty of beer in evidence at the Crocker's monthly evening event last night (city-run.) So I wouldn't worry about losing the right to drink beer while checking out the wheels at late-night events. In fact, considering that museums generate a lot of revenue by renting themselves out as special event centers, expect more opportunities to do so in an expanded facility that costs more than $1 a year to lease...
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
