Quote:
Originally Posted by wakamesalad
Proof?
|
there's no proof to be had. we know that garcetti offered the land at USC, we know that LA will have no permit restrictions (treasure island location will require reducing the museum's size by 1/3, plus traffic is impossible to work out so will require a ferry system, with LA site will allow full size and is right off a freeway). we also know that construction costs will be higher at treasure island due to soil and scheduling with the other build out, along with risk of big costs in contamination beyond what the navy was required to remove, and the simple fact that labor at all levels costs more here than LA. the museum will see much higher attendance in LA (much larger catchment area, more tourists, better cultural fit) so that long term, it's a more sustainable locale. finally, LA doesn't have a bad history with lucas (i realize it's the presidio that fucked him last time, but whatever) and doesn't have a poked cat cadre of nimbys willing to challenge the use of the USC campus the way we have people who'd go after him here for the traffic to treasure island.
all of that makes a comment like this seem highly credible (beyond the fact that it's posted by a very credible user):
Quote:
Originally Posted by sentinel
I just spoke to someone at VOA who worked on the museum for over 2 years; They and others on that team were told that there will be layoffs next week, mostly because of this project being taken away.
They also mentioned that the museum will most likely be going to LA, based on internal scuttlebutt.
|