Back to the Future, Today’s Big Issues
On Monday I outlined the Presidio’s history and its relationship to national and world events. There is an arc of history here, a trajectory, that we need to consider as we select projects to undertake. The point is to suggest that the Presidio has always been a place where people have responded to the major issues of the day. The future will be no different. Due to its location and relative spaciousness it is well-suited to respond to future needs. What will those future needs be? Here are some thoughts.
- Emergency response. Disaster relief. The Presidio has already served this role during the 1906 earthquake and fire. I’m sure it will in the future. We could actually plan for such contingencies and make the Presidio ready to respond in case of a major emergency.
- Food supplies. The Presidio once contained victory gardens to supply those on site. Could we imagine the Presidio offering demonstration gardens to show people how to live sustainably in San Francisco? Could we imagine farmer’s markets to bring people together, share ideas, provide needed food from area local farmers. The farmer’s market at the Ferry Building brings 10-15,000 people on a Saturday. Clearly, there is demand.
- Parking and transportation. Shouldn’t we be working on these problems at the Presidio rather adding to them? Can we imagine pilot projects of all kinds that would showcase new ideas and test them? Instead of designing for an influx of cars and parking areas, shouldn’t we be thinking of new ways of getting around?
- Energy. Peak oil. We use, as a country, roughly 21 million barrels of oil per day, approximately 25% of world production or 85 million barrels per day. That means, the United States uses around 7.7 billion barrels of oil per year. We hear a lot about drilling in ANWR. That site could provide, by some estimates, as much as 10 billion barrels of oil. Wow. An entire year and a half of oil. Oil prices are going out of sight and will continue to go out of sight because we will soon not have access to easy and cheap energy. We have, by some estimates, reached Peak Oil. Shouldn’t we pay attention to energy use, particularly at this national park? Shouldn’t we examine the use of alternative energy here?
These are some of the major issues of our day. There are other pressing problems…un-ending wars, water quality and supply, health care, poverty. In the context of these major issues and how the Presidio has responded in the past, how does installing a contemporary art museum fit in that picture?
Doug, As a person who spent several years in the world of museum management, I applaud your vision of a Presidio where the programs relate to the world and world issues. The Presidio HIstorical Association introduced a proposal for a “History Center at the Golden Gate” located on the Presidio that would weave themes of cultural changes, economic uniqueness of the West of Sierras region to the rest of the U.S., American role on the Pacific Rim, and environmental consequences into a story of the Golden Gate and the Presidio. It would be a history of our remarkable region of the world and the many ties the Presidio has with that history. For example, did you know how rich wildlife was when the first Europeans arrived? The first white man in a canoe paddling up the Sacramento River had to post an Indian on the bow with a stick to beat a path through rafts of water fowl, for example. Did you know that America’s first reach for empire in Asia was based at the Presidio in the Spanish American War to seize the Philippines, our first permanent presence in the Asia/Pacific region, and our first overseas “counterinsurgency’ war against residents of a land who resisted our permanent occupation?
Doug, just replied to an article in today’s Examiner (12/8) regarding an update on the problems facing the Presidio in case the proposed museum does happen. As a walker (and lifetime rider of public transportation) I have sometimes feared for my life trying to cross curvy and busy Presidio streets while trying to get back on a pedestrian trail, and can imagine how much worse it could get for hikers with added cars in this area. Here’s the reply — just passing it on.
“Hi Katie –
Re the very interesting article on the ongoing Presidio museum controversy, the SFMTA source got it wrong–it’s three MUNI buses that serve the Presidio, not two. The #28 and #29 go to and from the Golden Gate Bridge-viewing area (the #29 stops near Baker Beach also), and the #43 MUNI stops near near the Letterman Digital Arts Center. But the latter is close enough to the Main Post area to easily walk to, so one could take the #43 to a stop nearest the proposed museum.
I’ve taken all three of these buses many times in and out of the park. Then there are the PresidiGO buses — which don’t run often enough.
If one wants to ascertain all the stops within the Presidio for MUNI, the information should be online.
I do agree that all these lines should run more often. There is always so much vehicle traffic at the Golden Gate Bridge area and sometimes the buses and cars are bumper-to-bumper around here, just inching along.
We certainly do NOT need more vehicle traffic in the Presidio. It is also quite dangerous for pedestrians. Cars speed around the curvy Presidio streets much too fast and too often for the safety of walkers trying to cross the streets. While I prefer to stay on hikers’ trails, it’s still sometimes necessary to cross one of the busy vehicle streets.
Thanks for a great article! I’m NOT in favor of the museum in this area myself, but if one IS eventually built here, or for any other attractions that will draw large numbers of visitors, I think there should be a MUNI line that runs directly to the location, as now exists with the Bridge-viewing area. Better more buses than more cars!
Tony, San Francisco”