Out here in San Francisco for Wordcamp 2009, I was excited to visit the Steinhart Aquarium in its new home in Golden Gate Park. The old aquarium was a serviceable Victorian-style institution, with most of the tanks being a standard size. The new aquarium occupies the lowest level of the $500 million (source) California Academy of Sciences building. How does the experience differ from the old version?
Noisier.
Aquariums attract screaming kids. Concrete walls and ceilings reflect screams, as does an acrylic aquarium. Standard acoustical treatment would involve two-inch fiberglass insulation covered in fabric stuck on the walls. As these are standard building supplies, the cost is minimal. Why the architects of this $500 million building didn’t think of sticking some acoustic tiles on the ceiling is hard to, uh, fathom.
How about the rest of the building? Most of it is given over to big photos and signs. Imagine a book or Web site about the environment printed out really big and mounted vertically. Instead of sitting in a chair reading this book or site, you stand around with other tourists reading text and looking at still photos. It is difficult to understand how the new building is more effective educationally than the old (paid-for) one.
Your cost for this experience? $25 per adult.
[The building is supposed to be a showcase for environmentalism, yet nothing could be more destructive to the environment than tearing down a perfectly functional building and replacing it with one the same size. Had they remained in the old building, the California Academy could have completely funded Tesla Motors’s new electric sedan factory and still had $200 million left over to pursue other projects to promote energy conservation.]
[Another way to help understand what it means to spend $500 million on a 400,000 square foot building in the middle of an open field just a couple of miles from an Interstate highway is to look at the recently completed New York Times headquarters in Manhattan. The design is by Renzo Piano, coincidentally the very same architect of the California Academy. It was built in New York City, presumably requiring payoffs to unions, politicians, and the Mafia (NYC has for decades been the most expensive place in the U.S. for doing construction and the logistics simply to get materials to the site are daunting). The Times building is 52 stories high and contains more than 1.5 million square feet of space. It cost $600 million.]
It is disappointing. The layout is poor. The exhibits are from dullsville. And what’s up with putting the live penguins in the same (largely empty) room with all the stuffed animals?
The food is good, though!
I was there just Tuesday of this week, since I was in town for Google IO. The aquarium may be noisy, like you said, but come on. This is the one thing you get from this visit?
They should have lost the penguins for sure, it is out of place. The rest of the building is stunning, especially the roof. The green message is alright, but could be improved (some of the simple thing you can do were ludicrous).
The planetarium was good, the layout is interesting. I’ll have to go back 1 or 2 times before I’m sure I like it more or less than traditional layout.
Now as the 500 millions $ price tag. I went, because it was a new building, in fact we were 2 from my company who went. We will go back with our children next time we bring the family to San Francisco. Had it not been a new green building, I don’t think we would have gone.
Finally, just to second Rob, the food was good indeed and reasonably priced for a museum cafeteria.
So really the only thing you had to say, was too expansive and too noisy because of the childs. You know how this sounds, right?
Jean-Francois: I’m glad that the new building lured you in. If we assume an average revenue per visitor of $12 (young kids are free, kids pay a reduced rate, members don’t pay per visit, school groups might not pay much, etc.), the museum would need to attract 42 million additional visitors in order to pay back the $500 million construction cost. Prior to the teardown/rebuild, the museum attracted 500,000 visitors per year. If we assume that the new building will result in a long-term 30 percent lift in visitation, it will take 280 years for the building to pay for itself (that’s assuming a 0-percent cost of capital).
The old building was seismically unsound and was damaged in the ’89 quake. It had to be torn down. The new building is fantastic, a work of art in itself. The new exhibits are at least as good as the old buildings were, although I admit the penguins got jobbed.
Lee: Seismically unsound? It was kept open from 1989 through 2005. Was the roof ready to fall in at any time on the patrons during those 16 years? It couldn’t have been strengthened for less than $500 mil?
I must be a curmudgeon, because every time I go to a science museum, I find myself wondering why it’s full of kids who clearly don’t appreciate what they’re supposed to be learning? (When I went to the Academy, we ended up entering the rain forest exhibit at the same time as a toddler in shoes apparently designed to squeak with each step, which was wonderful…) From what I gather, they have an event some evenings with cocktails for the over 21 crowd.
Surprisingly for a museum, the “moss room” (high-end restaurant) was actually very good, even by non-museum standards.
Did you make it to the De Young across the way? It’s the one that looks like a postmodern copper-clad aircraft carrier. They have a pretty good collection, but not what you’d expect from such a large building.
Philg: I admit $500 million is hefty, I think 12$ average is low and the building serves other purposes, but nonetheless it is hard to see when it will be repaid.
I would like to see a real ROI analysis before throwing stones. I think the return on 50 years could come pretty close to the price tag of the building.
I was a little disappointed with the new museum as well. There are some new things that have attracted a lot of attention and praise, as well as some old favorites that are now gone. The “roundabout” – a dark room where people stood in the middle of a circular tank full of fish swimming in an endless loop – was a local favorite that is now gone. The rock, geode, and gem displays are gone as well. I also know that people liked the courtyard between the front and back buildings.
The new academy is immensely popular, and there are a lot of good things about it. The rainforest and living roof are (probably) real achievements (though I don’t really know enough about these things to say). It has been praised a lot in the press.
Personally, I have a tough time thinking this was worth it. At $25 a head, it now costs a family of four $100 to go to the museum, which I think is out of range for a lot of folks. I’m not sure I’m behind spending $500 million to transform what was honestly a very pleasant and well attended museum into something so extravagant that it costs $100 for a family to visit.
I’m a little surprised there hasn’t been more criticism. Then again, San Franciscans have such a preservationist streak that they may sometimes go out of their way to praise the new, in order to show that they are able to embrace change.
By the way, it is very crowded, but it actually is a wonderful museum. Now that it’s been built, the only real question a visitor should ask is whether it’s worth the $25 admission (or, if you live here, is it worth the yearly membership fee). To that, I;d say, yes, if you like this sort of thing, it’s definitely worth checking out.
I couldn’t get a ticket without being a member. But Philip says a ticket is $25. The membership for our family of four was $160 and I get to write it off. So we got into a limited hour (members only on Sunday and Wednesday mornings) for $5 less per person.
My kids love penguins. But we spent almost all our time in the rain forest. We will return to see the penguins, the aquarium and the living roof (which I think might be like walking on a lawn, I’m not sure).
Here’s another way to look at it: you can cover a floor with $100 bills for $900 per square foot. The CAS building cost $1,250 per square foot, or almost 40% more than that. So as an underlayment to the $100 bills, throw in a layer of twenties, a layer of tens, a layer of fives, and a few layers of ones.
I think newspapers should be required to use this approach when discussing the cost of government buildings.
By the way, all these enormous projects use CAD/CAM software. Even if we assume nobody has the common sense to connect hard surfaces with unbearable noise, how hard could it be for someone to write an acoustics program that would let people not just see but hear the building before it’s built?
(Last night I had dinner in a church basement with miraculous acoustics: every sound carried except the voice of the speaker. How did it know?)
i went to the old aquarium many time i just went to the new one today and cannot believe what a disappointment .we went in past food area down three stairs and in about 15 minutes i realized we had seen the new aqaurium what a joke. the old one walk in to gators15 or more snakes and others all around get through that whick takes some time then left or right either side to enter aqarium anw walk around for easily an hour or more tanks on both sides huge area a ton of exhibits etc. now waited many years saw the temp one and now the new one. what a disappointment a joke would not recomend it to anyone. montery is much better than this. should have left the old one someone should be shot for this new mess you call stienhart aquarium.
I just went there for a “Nightlife” event last Thursday, and think your review is pretty much dead on. It’s a huge building with very little in it. I was amazed at how much real estate, both horizontal and vertical, was assigned to the lobby, cafe, hallways etc. and how little was containing actual exhibits. And the aquarium layout, stuck in a dark basement, was unimpressive, to say the least. The living roof is pretty cool – but you’d think they’d offer a walkway all around the building instead of a little platform in one corner.
I used to go to the old museum just to hang out. The building was beautiful, the displays amazing! AND yes, the gators and snakes… IT WAS TRULY AN AMAZING, Wonderous place.
HOW DISSAPOINTING!!!!! WHY DO I WANT TO GO TO RAIN FOREST? I WANT TO GO TO AN AQUARIUM!
BOO TO WHOEVER CAME UP WITH THIS ONE. I can remember many a school trip to that wonderful place… how sad it is all just a memory now to those of us that remember.
It sucks. Sorry, but theres no way around it. Its like a football field size greenhouse with a few crappy things thrown in it. Compared to the last aquarium, its a joke. I was a member of the San Francisco Aquarist Society and used to go all the time to buy/trade fish there. Now it seems they have 1/4 of the fish and tanks. For 500 million i expect a lot more. Many of the old exibits are gone, only to be replaced by global warming information signs every 15 feet.
Lots of hype, no content
I went to the old Steinhart at least once every year or two my entire life, starting in school, I even met McCosker briefly a time or two, so I guess I have the right to speak.
The Plus Side: The new tropical jumgle, the butterflies and birds and the rainforest as seen from underwater are just fabulous. So is the livin roof, though I wish they’d give us more room to walk around it.
The new Planetarium: amazing gear, beautiful effects. Howver, the show I saw was not that imaginative, they need something that really dazzles the viewer, and this program with a lot of global warming stuff was mediocre. Give us some real bagup Star Wars looks and turn those galaxy clusters up. I mean, I’ve seen some more amazing galactic material online. Kick it up some notches.
The California Coast tanks: very good, rivals Monterey.
Coral Reefs: Not too shabby. LIke scuba diving in Paradise. Loved it.
The Flops: like others have said, the acoustics are really terrible. Too many screaming kids. Parents need to be told in clear terms either keep children polite and quiet or don’t bring them. To truly appreciate these marvels, long, intense quiet contermplation is required for hours – scraming children don’t belong in such a sacred space. Acrylics are well intended, I like the effects, but sound reflection is awful. Get an acoustic reduction engineer in right now!
Price: way too high! Do you that once, long ago, the old one was FREE? I don’t expect that, but $25 is just too high.
Snakes: Terrible. Except a couple here and there, all of them are gone.
Minerals and gemstones: all gone. Used to have this fabulous giant boulder they’d pulled up from Big Sur, it’s gone. Beautiful geodes, gone. Why?
Too much written material. Yes, yes, we believe in global warming and the earth is threatened, but telling us every second smacks of propaganda.
Signs giving information about things are poorly lit, nearly impossible to read, the old facility had well lit up signs that really gave good information.
Restaurant: only found one, it was so-so. Can’t judge the other.
Gift shops: uninspired. Blah.
Really miss the old roundabout, why on earth did they remove it?
Overall: very good, but too many non aquarium items. Thsi place is about fish. As an ardent green myself, I don’t need constant bombardment.