Posted by admin on January 15th, 2009 in Community Involvement, Travel

We tried to visit this highly publicized museum twice before we actually succeeded.  The San Francisco area has been waiting for years to see the new museum emerge.  I was so excited I bought a family membership in the summer before it even opened.  I remember the old museum in Golden Gate Park where I would spend many hours wandering and enjoying the animals and learning tidbits of information.  So, I was anxious to share the same experience with my children in a new and “improved” venue.

We drove to San Francisco early (the last time we tried to visit we started too late  9 am is too late), and arrived to see a line about a quarter of a mile long – for members. It did move along but we still waited 30 minutes.  As members we had the place to ourselves (just a few hundred people) for about an hour.  The new museum is actually a combination of what used to be 3 museums: an aquarium, natural history museum and a planetarium.  The big difference about the new museum is the design.  It was designed using the latest in energy-saving methods.  In fact, they designed a “grass-top” roof to minimize heat loss and keep it cool in the warmer months.  Solar cells were used  in the glass panels (very decoratively too I might add) at the entrance.  You can read more about the technical details.   And, here.

There was an exhibit about climate change and we were able to calculate how our family measured up.   We discovered we weren’t too bad on the “carbon hogging” spectrum, in fact, we scored a great number.  Surprising, considering my son takes such long showers these days.  Funny…. we used to beg him to take showers – now he’s in there for hours.  Girls.  That’s the difference.

Food…always important.

The Cafe was good.  There were various cafeteria-style “bars” (noodle, meat, salad, dessert) where you could pick and choose your food and check-out fairly easily.  The menu list was in 6 languages which reminded me of the international visitors who make up the vast majority of the crowds.

Overall though, I was disappointed.  If each museum had been a “standalone” museum, it would have been very weak.  I like to see depth in a museum. The climate change exhibit was well-done, but that was a temporary exhibit.    The Natural History “part” was just one small hall with some stuffed animals.  Excuse me, but have you ever visited the Natural History museum in Washington D.C. or New York? Why bother if you can’t do it well?  The Aquarium was on the bottom level and was just OK.  When you have the world-famous Monterey Bay Aquarium just down the road, it’s hard to shine in the fish department.  The “planetarium” was just the theatre, designed to watch Imax-style movies about planets.  No other exhibits or information about space.

The roof-top was impressive…there was grass.  I like the idea and the next house I build, I’ll remember to put grass up there.  It makes sense. But, do you have to mow it?

It’s Still Worth a Visit.

I still think the Academy of Sciences is a worthwhile learning institution.  They have a fabulous lecture series for members as well as a hands-on learning “library” for the natural sciences.  Schools particularly can use the laboratories and large sample cases filled with bugs, skulls and research data for their research and knowledge.  I also like the fact they have an active roster of field researchers around the globe that are funded and return to the Academy to share their field work results with members.  And, as an innovative building of this size and scope – it is a definitely worth a visit.  More institutions would benefit from considering their long-term impact on the community – environmentally and physically.