Long Beach--Developers In The Driver's Seat

With the success of Douglas Park, the former 717 production facility and other property that has been transformed into new office buildings, warehouses, and other commercial space, developers now have their sights on the former C-17 production site on the West side of the airport. Changing the current direction is a long shot, but using part of the property for a new museum is still something to consider. Read more in my letter published July 1st, in the Long Beach Press-Telegram, in the Opinion section. The web site is: http://www.presstelegram.com/opinion/20170701/why-long-beach-is-right-place-for-an-aviation-museum-to-land-guest-commentary

Former Alameda NAS--A Challenging Site

Much of the former airfield runway area will be dedicated to a wildlife refuge, to a VA clinic with a columbarium/cemetary and a possible sports complex. Many of the hangars and other buildings on the airfield have been designated as national historic structures and are being repurposed once cleared of any environmental problems. This includes a large hangar (Bldg. 41) directly behind the Naval Air Museum (Bldg. 77). Bldg. 41 is approximately 110,000 sq. ft. and is now occupied by Wrightspeed, a venture headed by a co-founder of Tesla to convert commercial vehicles to operate on electric power provided by batteries that can be recharged from an on-board turbine generator. As the city gave Wrightspeed a long-term lease, this hangar is no longer available for the Naval Air Museum to house aircraft in the future. Other hangars have also been leased to energy companies, including Makani, a recent Google purchase, developing a tethered flying wing with on-board generators to capitalize on the greater wind speeds available above the surface. Google has leased 65,000 sq. ft. and has an option to lease considerably more space when it becomes available. The largest building on the field, Bldg. 5, includes 263,000 sq. ft. of hangar space, but is still undergoing environmental remediation. This would be a good minimum size for a large, new museum, although additional space would still be required for restoration work and parking.

Site 'A' (68 acres) directly East of the Naval Air Museum is outside the Historic District and plans for its development have recently been approved by the city. Plans include a new ferry terminal, new residential housing, restaurants, retail shops, and road improvements. A new operations and maintenance facility for the emergency transportation ferry system also recently broke ground. This will be located just East of the Hornet. There is no mention in the Site 'A' plans about expanding the Naval Air Museum, only that the museum will lose part of its parking to support the new ferry terminal. The remaining area Northeast of the Hornet is designated as Site 'B' (82 acres). This area is slated for commercial use and plans are not yet finalized.

Since the base closure, the city has focused on developing the property, generating lease income and creating jobs. Expanding the existing Naval Air Museum doesn't appear to be a priority for the city. Even if the city did rally behind the concept of a large, new museum, significant issues, such as the response of this area (much of which is on man-made land fill) to a major earth quake and to potentially rising sea levels, could impact the long term (think 100 plus years) viability of the site. Near term problems caused by the additional traffic from a major museum due to the lack of ready access to BART (although, Alameda could eventually be the terminus for a new transbay tube) would have to be resolved. For now, at least the Hornet may benefit from the new ferry service and if visitors have any energy left, they may visit the Naval Air Museum--a nice little museum--low tech, but with interesting photos and other artifacts telling the story of the NAS and China Clipper.

Moffett Field Update

Just looking at the availability of space (land) at this location, it looks like this would be an issue for a large, new air and space museum. As part of Google's (Planetary Ventures) contract with the government to operate and manage the airfield, they naturally want to use the large hangers for internal (business) use. The area between Hwy. 101 and the field is NASA Ames and the NASA Research Park. Space (buildings) in the Research Park is being leased to various start-ups and universities. The long term plan is to continue to share this area and improve the park. In the lease proposal, Google committed to build an educational/conference/museum facility of approx. 90,000 sq. ft. Congratulations to the many people who dedicated their time to this concept, along with saving Hangar One. Unfortunately, the current plan doesn't provide enough space for a truly grand air and space museum, which is the goal discussed here and via a new Facebook website. And, sites for a large, new museum elsewhere are also disappearing at a rapid rate as developers want the space for commercial/residential use. This is the case with the Great Park in Orange County, property next to Long Beach airport and the former Naval weapons depot in Concord, CA. We are still optimistic, though.

Local Politics, the FAA and Rents

I have just returned from a trip to the Seattle/Everett area, where one museum--Historic Flight--has run into some local head winds. A county council actually turned down a proposal to expand the museum. The county argued that an expanded museum, which is located on the airport, would interfere with future hanger development and rental income would be lost. The fact that the proposed expansion would generate increased tourism in the area did not sway the council, at least for now. A related issue is the pressure put on airport management by the FAA to charge equal rents to all airport tenants, whether a non-profit or not. One other museum director has told me he may be faced with a similar situation in the future. While being able to ferry flyable airplanes to a museum located on a public airport certainly is easier than having to disassemble and truck them over a highway, an off-airport location (or a private airport) for a new museum may have to be given serious consideration.

New Southwest Air and Space Museum

The Air and Space Museum in Washington D.C. is a place where children and grownups alike have the opportunity to explore the wonders of flight. Aircraft and spacecraft of all kinds are on display, along with their histories. Theaters and various audio-visual displays further bring the story of flight to life. The museum is a major tourist destination. In fact, it is the most visited of all the Smithsonian museums, drawing over 8.9 million visitors in 2011 between its Capitol Mall location and its satellite location at Washington Dulles Airport. Contributing factors are its proximity to mass transit and free admission.

Other aviation museums are located across the country. A few are well funded and have historic collections housed in acceptable facilities, a fine example being the National Museum of the Air Force near Dayton, Ohio. However, most are small operations, housing their collections in old facilities or worse, outdoors, where they are at the mercy of the weather. Many of these museums are located on small airports, away from any major city. As a result, visitors are not attracted to them as a destination.

Recognizing the rich aerospace history of the Southwest, and now, the dawn of private spaceflight, I believe the time is right to consider a sizable, new, high caliber museum in this part of the country. The vision of the museum would be to preserve the legacy of aviation, to stimulate an interest in aerospace as a profession for young people, and to allow those who visit the museum to experience the wonders of flight. Due to the scarcity of funds and the limited availability of historic aircraft, I propose that three areas be considered for a single, final site. The best suited areas, I believe, are: the San Francisco Bay area, the Los Angeles/Orange County area and Las Vegas. All three are major tourist draws, with the first two having the additional advantage of large permanent populations (Phoenix was not considered because the number of visitors is less than half that of Las Vegas, nor Tucson, which already has several fine air and space museums). Costs, of course, would be considerable. Space on a former military base may be one way to ease the land acquisition/lease costs. Even better, would be a location near an active airport allowing visitors to view aircraft in flight from an observation area. Then, there is the cost of constructing new facilities or renovating older, existing facilities. Building the aircraft collection itself would be ongoing, and require considerable luck. A private museum also would not have the benefit of its daily operating costs being subsidized by the Federal Government.

Despite these costs and challenges, I have learned to never underestimate the generosity of people for a worthwhile cause, especially one that captures the imagination of the public. Consequently, an abbreviated version of this letter has been forwarded to local newspapers, along with a reference to this blog. This blog is intended to start an ongoing discussion on the subject. Although many other pilots share the dream of a new museum, the involvement of non-pilots is critical, and the pilot population needs to reach out to them.