The California Academy of Sciences
This San Francisco museum designed an iconic, sustainable building to attract visitors and
deepen their connection with the natural world.
CASE
STUDY
2
Organization
The California Academy of Sciences
Location
San Francisco, California, USA
Construction Type
New construction
Opening Date
2008
Project Area
410,000 sqaure feet
Project Cost
$488 million
S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation Investment
$2.5 million
Executive Summary
United States of
America
e California Academy of Sciences (the Academy) is a scientic
and educational institution in San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park.
Founded in 1853, the Academy conducts research and operates
a museum that educates visitors about the natural world. Over
decades, a series of ad hoc additions to the original facility created
physical separation between museum departments and exhibitions,
inhibiting cross-disciplinary research and preventing visitors from
experiencing the full breadth of the Academy’s oerings. Following
years of waning attendance and the eects of a devastating 1989
earthquake, the Academy launched an eort to renovate its damaged
aquarium. However, strong support from its local community and
private donors encouraged the Academy to think bigger—leading to a
decision to reconstruct the entire facility.
e Academy recognized that this capital project held potential
to amplify the organization’s mission and establish it as a leader in
environmental sustainability. By developing an environmentally-
friendly building and interactive exhibits, the Academy sought to
respond to contemporary conservation issues while inviting visitors to
explore, learn about, and protect the natural world.
e project team chose Renzo Piano, a world-renowned architect,
to design an iconic facility that would be a symbol of sustainability.
e signature element of Piano’s concept was a living roof with
undulating hills echoing the landscape surrounding the museum. A
pair of impressive three-story domes, each 90 feet in diameter, would
contain the museum’s rainforest exhibit and planetarium. While
this ambitious project vision contributed to dramatically increased
construction and overall project costs, the innovative green design
also attracted donors who supported the expanded scope.
Today, the Academy houses an aquarium, planetarium, and natural
history museum, as well as scientic research and education programs
under one roof. It is the world’s rst LEED
i
Double Platinum
museum, and the largest Double Platinum building on the planet.
Visitor attendance has nearly doubled since the building opened,
with guests of all ages beneting from engaging learning experiences.
e new facility has also enabled better collaboration across sta
departments, and inspired the Academy to focus its research on
critical environmental concerns. is project inuenced the Academy
to evolve its mission, from “explore and explain the natural world” to
“explore, explain, and sustain life on Earth.”
is case study is based on research conducted by MASS Design
Group in November 2015. Funded by the S. D. Bechtel, Jr.
Foundation, this case illustrates how a capital project can require a
balance between an organization’s internal sta needs and external
aspirations—and how a visionary design can bring both benets and
risks. It also demonstrates how a temporary space can help leaders
advance operations and program changes prior to moving to a new
building.
i LEED, or Leadership in Energy & Environmental Design, is a
globally recognized symbol of excellence in green building. Source: http://
www.usgbc.org/articles/about-leed.
3
Capital projects often bring lasting benets to nonprot organizations and the people they serve.
Given this opportunity, foundations grant more than $3 billion annually to construct or improve
buildings in the United States alone.
ii
Each capital project aects an organization’s ability to
achieve its mission—signaling its values, shaping interaction with its constituents, inuencing its
work processes and culture, and creating new nancial realities. While many projects succeed in
fullling their purpose, others fall short of their potential. In most instances, organizations fail to
capture and share lessons learned that can improve practice.
To help funders and their nonprot partners make the most of capital projects, e Atlantic
Philanthropies and the S. D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation commissioned Purpose Built—a multi-
faceted study by MASS Design Group, a nonprot architecture and research rm. In 2015 and
2016, MASS conducted interviews, reviewed literature, and examined a diverse set of completed
projects around the world; each project was supported by one of the above funders.
e study generated a set of core principles as well as tools for those considering or conducting
capital projects:
See the full Purpose Built series online at www.massdesigngroup.org/purposebuilt.
ii Foundation Center, Foundation Maps data based on grants made in the United States, 2006-2015.
Purpose Built Series
Introducing the Purpose Built Series is an overview of the study and its core
principles.
Purpose Built Case Studies report on 15 projects to illustrate a range of
intents, approaches, and outcomes.
Charting Capital Results is a step-by-step guide for those evaluating
completed projects.
Planning for Impact is a practical, comprehensive tool for those initiating
capital projects.
Making Capital Projects Work more fully describes the Purpose Built
principles, illustrating each with examples.
4
Introduction
A STORIED HISTORY AND CONNECTION TO COMMUNITY
e California Academy of Natural Sciences was established in
San Francisco in 1853 during the Gold Rush years. Its stated aim
was to systematically survey the new state of California and collect
“rare and rich” natural specimens.
1
Two decades later, the renamed
California Academy of Sciences (the Academy) opened as the city’s
rst public museum.
2
Since the end of the 19
th
century, the Academy
has conducted scientic research while also operating a museum to
educate visitors about the natural world.
After the Great Quake of 1906 destroyed the Academy’s original
structure in downtown San Francisco, the museum moved to Golden
Gate Park—opening there in 1916. With funding from the estate of a
prominent local banker, Steinhart Aquarium was added to the facility
in 1923.
3
During this era, an important and enduring relationship
between the City of San Francisco and the Academy took shape, with
the City providing land and contributing to maintenance of facilities
constructed by the Academy and its donors. Over decades, the
Academy expanded to include North American Hall, Simson African
Hall, Science Hall, Morrison Planetarium, and other components.
4
Featuring accessible content, low-cost admission, and a prominent
location, the museum catered to children and families throughout
the 20
th
century, reecting an egalitarian quality lacking in many peer
cultural institutions. As one respondent said, during this era, “almost
every child” in San Francisco experienced the Academy.
IMPLICATIONS OF GROWTH AND FINANCIAL CHALLENGES
Over many decades, the museum constructed a dozen additions
to its Golden Gate Park facility. en Director of Exhibit Design
and Production Scott Moran described these additions as “very
much separate buildings connected by hallways and doorways.”
is growth took place without a master plan, and physical distance
created departmental silos that made collaboration among researchers
dicult. e lack of a cohesive work culture slowed the Academy in
advancing its research and museum programs.
e public perception of the Academy reected the disjointed nature
of the institution. Although visitors valued the museum as a beloved
cultural institution, individually they were often unaware of the
Academy’s full range of oerings. As Moran explained, “Many people
didn’t know of the Academy as the California Academy of Sciences—
they knew of it as the Steinhart Aquarium [or the] Morrison
Planetarium.” e separation of exhibitions and the buildings’ lack of
exibility also inhibited the Academy’s ability to address marketplace
“A lot of natural history
museums are good at
telling what was, but [we
were] trying to shift to
telling what could be or
what should be.”
—Staff member,
California Academy
of Sciences
Above. Circular skylights in the museum’s living roof provide
natural light to the rainforest exhibit.
Cover. The museum’s stunning living roof mimics the seven hills
of San Francisco.
N
0 0.5 1 mi
5
The Exploratorium
Museum of
Modern Art
Fisherman’s Wharf
The Presidio
The Legion
of Honor
de Young
Museum
California
Academy of
Sciences
Aquarium of the Bay
Golden Gate Park
changes and respond to heightened visitor expectations for museum
experiences that were entertaining, interactive, and relevant.
Sta reported that attendance was dropping by about 4 percent
annually in the 1990s, and admission income alone was far from
sucient to meet the museum’s nancial needs. As one sta member
explained, the Academy “didn’t have enough money, no matter what
the attendance was. . . . [ere was an ongoing need to] cut and cut
to work within the existing budgets.”
A DEVASTATING EARTHQUAKE LEADS TO A NEW START
In 1989, the 6.9-magnitude Loma Prieta earthquake
5
shook San
Francisco, causing irrevocable damage to the Steinhart Aquarium and
forcing Bird Hall to close.
6
e Academy’s useable exhibit space was
reduced by about 25,000 square feet, and the safety and function of
some facilities were severely compromised. One sta member recalled
that conditions were so poor that employees had to wear hard hats
in some oce areas due to concrete falling from the ceiling. e
extensive damage made it clear that the Academy would need to
nd funding for massive infrastructure improvements. In 1995, the
Academy approached San Francisco voters with a bond measure for
$29.2 million to rehabilitate the aquarium. e measure passed with
the required two-thirds majority vote.
7
While these funds would cover the aquarium’s pressing structural
problems, they would not help the Academy address its broader
needs for improved exhibit spaces and greater internal cohesion across
departments. e strong support of residents expressed through
the bond vote encouraged the Academy to expand its vision and
consider the potential for a larger capital project that would advance
the institution in a more holistic way. With an intent to replace
and rebuild the museum completely, the Academy returned to San
Francisco voters in 2000 with an additional request for $87.4 million.
e community also approved this measure.
8
e bond measures provided the Academy with the capital needed to
begin a large-scale project, and gave the organization’s board members
condence that the new building would be nancially viable. In the
words of one board member, “the bonds meant that we could aord
to dream. ere was a belief that, if we’re going to do this, we have to
do it big and grand.”
Project Mission
e Academy approached this capital project as an opportunity to
examine and elevate its organizational mission. While the museum’s
role had historically been to educate visitors about the past, the
Academy now hoped to teach people about the future. As one sta
member explained, “A lot of natural history museums are good at
telling what was, but [we were] trying to shift to telling what could be
or what should be.”
In particular, the Academy felt it could play a valuable role at a
Above. Located in Golden Gate Park, the Academy is near several other
attractions within San Francisco.
6
time of increasing international attention on climate change and
conservation. In preparing for this capital project, the Academy
expanded its organizational mission—its historic focus on exploring
and explaining the natural world would now include an emphasis
on protecting life on Earth. Project leaders aimed to create an
environmentally sustainable building that would serve as an attraction
for visitors, drawing them to the museum, creating a stronger revenue
stream for the institution, and educating new generations about
contemporary global issues. ey also set out to achieve a unied
design that would connect the Academy’s research sta, enhancing
their collaboration and improving their quantity and quality of
scientic outputs.
Process
ENGAGING PROJECT LEADERS AND CITIZEN ADVISORS
e capital project would be instrumental to the future of the
Academy and called for strong leadership from its board of trustees.
Board members were engaged throughout the process; several had
expertise that was directly relevant to the project. Wall Street nancier
Dick Bingham served as board chair for the duration of the eort to
plan and construct the facility. e Academy also beneted from the
experience of board member Bill Wilson, a local developer and owner
of a construction company.
Since the City of San Francisco was a signicant investor through its
bond measures, the Academy formed a Community Advisory Group
of about 15 individuals from neighborhoods and interest groups.
Interactions with these advisors helped the Academy gain critical
feedback and anticipate community concerns. It also nurtured buy-
in—through the Advisory Group, the Academy built relationships
with residents who would become advocates for the project at City
hearings and in their neighborhoods.
SEEKING AND SELECTING A RENOWNED ARCHITECT
e Academy board wanted an architect whose stature would reect
the project’s ambitious vision. e museum hired a former executive
director of the Pritzker Architecture Prize, the eld’s most prestigious
award, to conduct the search. Out of six nalists, the board ultimately
selected Renzo Piano Building Workshop after an interview with the
rm’s founder that became legendary at the Academy. While many of
the prospective architects presented polished models and renderings
of their proposed buildings, Renzo Piano brought only a notepad and
rearranged chairs in the interview room to form a circle. Rather than
presenting an idea for the building’s design, he opened the interview
by asking the board about the Academy’s mission and institutional
goals. On the spot, Piano sketched out a design in response to the
board members’ answers. As one sta member recalled, this interview
was “one of the [primary] reasons they selected him—because it was
a conversation.”
DESIGNING A SUSTAINABLE, ACCESSIBLE BUILDING
e selection of Renzo Piano fueled the Academy’s high aspirations
for the museum’s architecture and solidied its commitment to
creating a sustainable building. Piano’s design began with a living
roof concept, which he described as “[lifting] up a piece of the park
and [putting] a building underneath.”
9
e roof would feature a eld
and seven rolling hills to mimic San Francisco’s landscape. e roof
would be visible from the Music Concourse, an open-air plaza within
Golden Gate Park.
Below. Domes on each end of the museum house the planetarium and rainforest
exhibits.
Above. Piano’s design represented a bold vision for the Academy that
resonated with many donors.
Right. The building
consolidates several
exhibits under one roof;
these offerings were
formerly distributed
across multiple
structures.
Office Space
Planetarium
Aquarium + Swamp
African Hall
Earthquake!
Rainforest
Basement
Lower Level
Level One
Level Two
Level Three
Living Roof
7
8
To make the museum more welcoming and transparent, glass exterior
walls would visually connect visitors inside the Academy to the
surrounding park. Piano described the approach as a reaction to the
prior Academy and its solid walls; that structure was “in the middle of
Golden Gate Park, one of the most beautiful places in the world . . .
[yet visitors] had no sense of what was there.”
10
Under two of the hills on either end of the museum, 90-foot diameter
domes rising three stories would anchor the Academy’s entrance
oor. Separated by a central piazza, these impressive domes would
house a rainforest exhibit and planetarium, with the aquarium
located on the oor beneath. is design would provide visitors on
the rst oor with sightlines of these three signature aspects of the
Academy. e aquarium tanks would be seen from many angles—a
contrast from the one-sided views in the original Steinhart facility.
Nonlinear, interactive exhibits would encourage visitors to engage
with educational materials rather than tour the museum as passive
onlookers. Overall, the design intended to spark visitors’ curiosity
through an exploratory environment and bring them into contact
with science and important environmental issues. To improve internal
operations, including research collaborations, all sta would be
consolidated in open-plan oces at the rear of the museum.
As the design developed, LEED certication was gaining national
notice and many donors were attracted to the Academy’s LEED
Double Platinum ambitions. e building would reect the
Academy’s commitment to sustainability through features including
its living roof, ENERGY STAR® appliances, clean energy sources, and
low-emission and ozone-friendly heating systems, ventilation, and air
conditioning. e living roof and an accompanying “Building Green”
exhibit would educate visitors and highlight the building’s sustainable
features. Weather stations on the roof would monitor wind, rain, and
changes in temperature so that the building’s automated systems and
retractable skylights could respond accordingly. e roof’s hills would
be edged by solar panels and lined with 50,000 porous, biodegradable
vegetation trays, and native plants would provide a habitat for a
variety of wildlife.
11
CREATING A LARGE PROJECT TEAM—AND TENSIONS
Working with Europe-based Renzo Piano required the project team
to engage a local architect of record, and Stantec Architecture was
selected for this role. Along with several exhibit design rms, Stantec
developed the building’s nal design with input from the Academy’s
sta, board, and local community members.
To address the complexities of working with a large project team and
myriad stakeholders, the Academy hired Don Young & Associates to
manage the overall eort. Young acted as a liaison between the various
design consultants and the board. Communications were centralized
through Young to help streamline the overall process. However, this
approach limited direct communication between project players and
created gaps in coordination. Designers described situations in which
critical exhibit components, such as drains in the aquariums, had not
been included in the architect’s plans—requiring last-minute changes
during construction.
Some exhibit designers felt that the Academy’s prioritization of the
building’s living roof overshadowed their perspectives, forcing them
to adapt to Piano’s vision in ways that compromised other parts of the
building and its exhibits. ey pointed to the exhibits at either end
of the building as creating a “somewhat disjointed visitor experience.”
One expressed concern that the Academy had “[fallen] too madly in
love with the building as an icon” during the design process.
ESCALATING COSTS, FUNDRAISING, AND FINANCING
Piano's design came at a high price. Eventually totaling $488
million, the construction of the new Academy was signicantly more
costly than other major capital projects in the region. For instance,
the reconstruction of the de Young Museum cost $202 million in
2005 following the Loma Prieta earthquake.
12, 13
e Monterey Bay
Aquarium was constructed or renovated in phases from 1984 to 2005
and cost $133 million.
14
Factors unique to the Academy project contributed to the colossal
price tag. Some expenses were driven by the Academy’s aim to
become a visible symbol of sustainability—for example, the project’s
living roof cost about $30 per square foot, whereas a standard green
roof is about $18 per square foot.
15
Other costs stemmed from
the nature of the nal design—for instance, the sloping roof and
glass domes called for custom glass and metal structures, and their
Above. Visitors travel on a ramp through the rainforest exhibit.
9
construction requirements led to costly rearrangement of typical
building phases. Still other expenses resulted from unanticipated
external forces —the price of steel and concrete on the global market
spiked
16
in 2001 following the September 11 attacks and again in
2004 after Hurricane Katrina.
Between 2001 and 2005, the Academy increased the project budget
by more than 25 percent, from $388 to $488 million, even as it
modied plans to reduce the building’s size to decrease costs.
17
Increases came on seven occasions, and the project process was
paused at points due to nancial concerns. e nal gure included
all design and management fees as well as public engagement, site
development, building construction, and exhibit and sta transition
costs—including the expense of operating a temporary space for four
years.
18
While the ambitious project vision brought a signicantly higher
price tag, it also attracted donors. eir support allowed the Academy
to increase the project’s budget rather than abandon its design vision
or LEED certication goals. Each of these elements had its own
proponents. Director of Foundation and Government Relations
Katharine Greenbaum explained, “Renzo captured people’s attention,
especially people who liked art more than science.” Drawings and
renderings of the building were essential to its fundraising appeal,
and the Academy regularly highlighted Piano in communications,
including featuring him on the rst page of the building’s post-
completion report. e facility’s sustainable elements drew the notice
of donors interested in the museum’s contributions to environmental
conservation or science education, and some sta members believed
that the Academy’s ambition to be the greenest museum in the
world had a greater impact on the team’s ability to fundraise than the
glamorous draw of a “starchitect.”
In addition to securing private donations and municipal bond
revenue, the Academy was able to take advantage of bond nancing
through the California Infrastructure and Economic Development
Bank. e bank provides low-cost, tax-exempt nancing to nonprot
organizations for acquisitions and/or improvements of facilities
and capital assets. is resource allowed the Academy to access an
additional $281 million in July 2008, which was used to refund
previously issued bonds and to nance construction.
19
MAKING THE MOST OF THE TRANSITION PROCESS
While construction was underway, the Academy housed its exhibits
in a facility on Howard Street in downtown San Francisco. A move to
this space was in itself an accomplishment, as it required transferring
the marine life in the Steinhart Aquarium as well as other museum
collections. e team treated this temporary site as an opportunity
to test exhibit designs and programs and prepare sta for the coming
transition to a major new building. rough its four years on Howard
Street, the Academy succeeded in keeping the public involved and
invested in its work, while setting the stage for greater success in
its future home. According to Bart Shepherd, the director of the
Steinhart Aquarium, “We invested in [the temporary] building
heavily, because we knew it would be an important learning space.”
At the temporary site, scientists constructed a mock-up coral reef tank
to assess sunlight levels and procedures for divers. Sta built scale
models of the penguin exhibit and a tide pool touch tank that would
be installed in the new building. ey piloted programs to engage
visitors who were in their 20s and 30s—an underserved demographic
for the Academy. A weekly “NightLife” event brought these young
adults into the Academy; each evening featured food, drinks, and a
special theme. is series has continued and become a popular feature
in the new Academy space.
To prepare for smooth operations in the new building, leaders tested
open-plan oce congurations and helped sta adjust to new ways
of working. In a 2008 interview, Moran explained, “By modeling the
temporary facility as much as possible on what was being proposed
for the new building, we were able to help people overcome their
initial resistance to some ideas.”
20
Operating the temporary site
required fewer sta members; the Academy downsized its operations
for these interim years. Positions were then added as the new
facility opened, with the institution hiring to match its expanded
opportunities and future needs.
Above. Glass walls create a visual connection to the surrounding Golden
Gate Park, helping the Academy feel open, welcoming, and connected to its
surroundings.
10
Impact
INCREASING THE NUMBER OF VISITORS AND MEMBERS
On September 27, 2008, the new Academy had a huge opening day.
21
According to a sta member, a line of 16,000 visitors stretched for
more than a mile outside the entrance, with trac managers placed
at the door to limit crowd size in the facility. Chief of Sta Alison
Brown lamented the opening day lines, saying, “Probably the greatest
challenge that we still have [is that] people think we’re too crowded to
come visit.” Nevertheless, Brown said the rebuilt Academy welcomed
over two million guests during its rst year.
As of fall 2015, annual attendance had settled at 1.4 million visitors,
almost double the gure in the prior facility. Sta members view
the increase in visitors and household memberships as the largest
indicators of success for the project. One sta member stated, “We
have 55,000 member households, which is huge for an institution
our size. And I think that’s reective [of] people’s love for the place;
they just love coming here.” In addition to better marketing, an
enhanced visitor experience, and expanded programming, some of
the attendance gains can be attributed to the Academy’s new building,
with surveys suggesting that as many as 20 percent of guests come to
the museum to see the building itself.
As trac grew, the museum shifted toward a business model driven
by admission revenue and made the decision to increase its ticket
prices. While the higher cost of admission makes the Academy
less economically accessible to some potential visitors, many sta
members strongly defended this change. ey pointed out that the
Academy’s increased annual operating budget allows the institution
to provide more free admission days and reduced-price educational
programs, helping it serve more people overall. Additionally, one
sta member reected on the business model for the institution,
saying:
If [the Academy] is all going to be paid for by public
funds—like many of the European museums—then it
should be free, but it's not. . . . We’re a private nonprot
and we get some money from the City of San Francisco . . .
but the rest of it is all private funds and admission.
RESPONDING TO NEW ECONOMIC REALITIES
Shifts in the Academy’s business model have had mixed results to
date. On the one hand, the museum now benets from a signicantly
higher and more sustainable source of earned income: annual revenue
from admissions and membership fees. is combined income source
was under $2 million annually prior to opening the new Academy in
2008. at amount skyrocketed to $28 million in the new facility’s
rst year, and has remained above $23 million annually since (see
g. 1). One board member explained, “We were all aware that if you
don’t bring the public in, if you don’t have an attraction, you can’t
support the science.”
Above. Visitors experience the coral reef aquarium from many angles; the new
facility includes views from within as well as above the exhibit.
11
However, admission and membership revenue has not been able
to keep pace with substantial expense increases in the new facility.
Between 1998 and 2008, the Academy’s total annual expenses
remained at or below $44 million, while the total since the move
has uctuated between $70 and $90 million per year (see g. 2).
Between 2004 and 2015, as the institution planned and implemented
its expansive vision in the new space, operating expenses (sta and
program) increased threefold, accounting for 80 percent of total
expenses in 2015. Meanwhile, annual facility costs doubled.
e Academy secured bond nancing from San Francisco and
California to support the project, and chose to invest a portion of the
bond revenue with the hope that it could generate returns and extend
use of these funds. According to Moran, the capital project “created
a foundation for new ways of thinking. We completely reinvented
ourselves . . . and tried to use a for-prot approach to a nonprot.”
While this strategy provided additional revenue (investments resulted
in net gains of about $20 million or more in 2007, 2011, and 2014),
it introduced greater economic volatility as well by making the
Academy’s annual income subject to uctuations in nancial markets.
e Academy incurred net investment losses greater than $10M in
2008, 2009, and 2012 (see g. 1).
ADVANCING THE ORGANIZATION’S MISSION
Prior to beginning this capital project, the Academy’s mission
was to “explore and explain the natural world.” As it examined the
opportunities inherent in creating a new facility—in the context of
increasing global concern regarding the environment—in 2005, the
institution changed its mission to “explore, explain, and protect the
natural world.” In 2013, ve years after occupying its new facility, the
mission further evolved to “explore, explain, and sustain life on Earth.”
Executive Director Jonathan Foley said he hopes the Academy will be
known as “the rst sustainability museum.” ough the Academy’s
expanded mission statement was not solely the product of the capital
project, many sta members believe that the building played a
signicant role in the mission’s evolution. Foley remarked that “the
building made it an entirely new Academy.”
e new building also facilitated the organizational and cultural
changes its leaders sought, co-locating the Academy’s research
departments to focus on critical conservation issues. Sta members
now work across disciplines, and this integrated approach is reected
in exhibits that connect visitors to the interrelated challenges facing
the natural world. Open-plan oces along the southeast of the
building foster a more collaborative workplace, while the new, iconic
architecture of the Academy helps attract scientic talent.
e building is a symbol of the Academy’s values. As the world’s rst
LEED Double Platinum museum and the largest Double Platinum
building in the world, the Academy is known for its commitment
to environmental sustainability.
22
e roof alone is a remarkable
Figure 1. California Academy of Sciences Revenue Mix
Temporary Facility
($40)
($20)
$0
$20
$40
$60
$80
$100
Millions (USD)
Admissions &
Memberships
Contributions
Net Investment
Income
Government
Grants
Net Investment
Gains/Losses
2000 2005 2010 2015
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
“e building made it an entirely
new Academy.”
12
achievement: it prevents the release of 405,000 pounds of greenhouse
gases per year, keeps the museum’s interior temperature 10 degrees
cooler than a standard roof system would, and absorbs enough
rainwater to prevent 95 percent of potential storm water runo.
23
DELIVERING MEANINGFUL LEARNING EXPERIENCES
e new building is home to a deeper and richer set of experiences
for visitors. In addition to engaging exhibit designs, the Academy has
added docents and scientists in public spaces. One visitor noted, “It
was obvious when we came to the building that the Academy wanted
to provide a dierent service to people.” A school teacher commented
on the changed educational style, saying, “Previously, the Academy
was more teacher-directed because it wasn’t as interactive.”
Citing the impact of the facility on visitors, one sta member
explained:
[e building] helps you understand the world better.
Being able to go up into the rainforest, then come down in
a rainstorm and end up under the Amazon, you look and
see how things are distributed. It ows like an ecosystem.
at is new, and I think that is a wonderful way that the
new Academy helps people learn about the environment.
Sta members indicated that the interactive quality of the Academy
has increased visitor satisfaction and compelled guests to stay longer.
Data collected via a self-administered kiosk survey revealed that
visitor satisfaction increased from 64 percent in 2004 to 73 percent in
2014. Academy sta reported that visitors are staying at the museum
for three and a half to four hours, compared to one to two hours
in the prior facility. ey commented that this increased time has
positively aected visitors’ learning experiences, although it has also
posed some challenges in crowd management.
Community members described the Academy as an essential resource
for local education, and some suggested that the museum has
improved the quality of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
math) education in the San Francisco Unied School District.
STRENGTHENING A CITY’S IDENTITY
For many in San Francisco, the Academy reects the city’s ambition
to be sophisticated, worldly, and environmentally conscious. One
local teacher explained, “ere is a sense of pride in the community
that we have a building like this—that this is our museum.” Because
San Francisco residents were instrumental in nancing the project
(local bond revenue made up about 25 percent of the project’s total
funding), the museum strove specically to deliver on the impact
it had promised to the community. Sta members said that the
Academy’s increased volume of visitors and memberships indicates that
this goal has been achieved and conveys residents’ “love for the place.”
“ere is a sense of pride in the community
that we have a building like this—that this
is our museum.”
Figure 2. California Academy of Sciences Expense Mix
Total Expenses
Temporary Facility
Millions (USD)
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
2000 2005 2010 2015
3x
2x
Operating Expenses
Facility Expenses
$90
Costs associated with
transitioning to the new
building caused a
temporary spike in
facility expenses.
Fiscal Year Ending June 30
13
Conclusion
When structural damage from an earthquake precipitated the need
for a new building, the California Academy of Sciences embraced this
challenge to increase its visibility, dramatically grow its attendance
and memberships, expand and enrich its programs, and demonstrate
its leadership in sustainability. ese changes were accompanied by
an evolution in mission that moved the Academy beyond a historical
focus on exploring and explaining the natural world to an expressed
intent to help sustain life on Earth as well. Guided by the inspiring
design of a world-renowned architect, Academy leaders and donors
were emboldened to pursue an elevated vision and scale of programs
for the institution, and to nance capital project cost increases that
brought an already large $388 million budget to an eventual total of
$488 million.
Important elements of the project process included knowledgeable
board leadership, active connections to the local community, and
purposeful use of four years in a temporary facility to test approaches
and prepare for success at the new Academy. Public support was
evident in the passage of two bonds that helped initiate and nance
the project, and in community participation and pride in the new
facility.
In addition to cost increases that hampered project progress, the
number of project participants and division of roles created tensions
and some missteps during the design and construction process. Once
completed, the design and programs of the new facility generated
dramatic growth in admission fees and memberships, boosting the
Academy’s earned income. However, new revenues are still falling
short of increased expenses in the new facility. While economic
challenges persist, and the organization carries signicant debt related
to project nancing, the new Academy continues to garner support
and serve its stakeholders. In the words of Scott Moran, director of
exhibit design and production, this ambitious capital project created
“a new era for the California Academy of Sciences that will also help
change many other museums and institutions.”
Videos
For additional information on this case study, see the following videos
available at www.massdesigngroup.org/purposebuilt:
Finding the Right Architect
Raising the Museum’s Prole
e Mission of the Building
Below. Hills on the living roof mimic the seven hills in San Francisco.
14
Commit to planning to set the right scope.
Visionary design carries reward and risk: Due to costs inherent in aspects of the nal
design, unexpected changes in material costs, and other factors, the Academy expanded the
budget for its new building by more than $100 million over the course of the project. When
faced with escalating costs, leaders opted to increase the project’s budget, rather than eliminate
major elements of the design.
Donors were attracted to the project. ey responded to the boldness of the architect’s vision
and the inspiring approach to environmental sustainability reected in the building concept,
despite the costs involved. Not all capital projects can achieve this level of deep and expansive
donor commitment. Every project must weigh nancial and design considerations; in this
case the trade-os were largely manageable.
Still, the ambitions of this project created debt for the Academy, as well as signicantly
increased operating and facility costs. With advantages including a supportive donor base,
large numbers of visitors and members, and building maintenance contributions from
the City of San Francisco, the Academy may be able to oset these costs and achieve solid
nancial footing for the long term.
Combine inside knowledge with outside expertise.
Big ideas call for coordination, balance: e visually stunning and environmentally
innovative work of a “starchitect” brought high visibility and attracted nancial support
to this project. Renzo Piano’s design, as well as his European location, also contributed
complexity to this large, multifaceted eort. e project team included a San Francisco
architect and many local designers to complete key aspects of the new facility. A construction
project management rm was put in charge of coordinating communications between all
design consultants and the Academy’s sta and board.
is structure streamlined project implementation, but created gaps in needed coordination
between project players. Some felt that the overall commitment to Renzo Piano’s vision
compromised the design of some exhibits, with exhibits needing to t the overall architectural
approach rather than vice versa. In addition, essential alignment between designers was missed
at points—including missteps related to aquarium drains that had to be corrected in the
construction phase of the project.
Lessons from the California Academy
of Sciences
15
Be ready for organizational change.
Interim space is a place to prepare: When the Academy began the process of replacing its
museum, it had to move exhibits into a temporary o-site space to remain open to the public.
Unlike many natural history museums, the Academy featured living marine exhibits, which
made the move logistically complex.
e Academy not only handled the transition smoothly, it used the temporary space as
a learning laboratory to test many ideas for its new facility. Sta members constructed
mock-ups of the coral reef tank and tested sunlight levels and dive-show procedures, built
scale models of penguin exhibits and touch tanks, and grew their collection in preparation
for expanded exhibits and operations. e Academy also piloted NightLife, a program that
continued following the move as a means to bring younger adults into the institution.
In addition, Academy leaders used the move to temporary space, which required fewer sta
to operate, as a time to rethink their operating structure. Sta reduction for the four-year
interval was followed by adding positions in the new facility that matched the organization’s
evolved mission and future intent. At the same time, more collaborative, cross-disciplinary
approaches to research, and to public programs, were introduced in the temporary space and
carried over into the new Academy.
is approach to the interim years allowed the Academy to open the new facility in ways that
reected its ambitions, and that avoided many of the change-management issues that often
accompany the move to new physical environments.
Lessons from the California Academy
of Sciences
16
End Notes
1. California Academy of Sciences. “About Us.” http://www.
calacademy.org/about-us.
2. Ibid.
3. Wels, S. & Piano, R. California Academy of Sciences: Architecture
in Harmony with Nature. Chronicle Books. 2008.
4. California Academy of Sciences. “Our History.” http://www.
calacademy.org/our-history.
5. Nakata, John K. et al. “e October 17, 1989, Loma Prieta,
California, Earthquake—Selected Photographs.” United States
Geological Survey. 1999. http://pubs.usgs.gov/dds/dds-29/.
6. “Our History,” op. cit.
7. Wels, S. & Piano, R., op. cit., p. 38.
8. Roberts, Katherine. “Prop. B Seeks Funds to Repair Academy
of Sciences / Con / Cost to S.F. Residents Too High.”
SFGate. February 17, 2000. http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/
openforum/article/PROP-B-SEEKS-FUNDS-TO-REPAIR-
ACADEMY-OF-SCIENCES-2775455.php.
9. Milvy, Erika. “Natural Wonder.” Los Angeles Times. September
28, 2008. http://articles.latimes.com/2008/sep/28/travel/tr-
academy28.
10. Wels, S. & Piano, R., op. cit., p. 53.
11. California Academy of Sciences. “Living Roof.” http://www.
calacademy.org/exhibits/living-roof.
12. de Young. “Architecture and Grounds.” https://deyoung.famsf.
org/about/architecture-and-grounds.
13. “de Young Museum, San Francisco, CA, United States of
America.” designbuild-network.com. http://www.designbuild-
network.com/projects/de_young/.
14. Monterey Bay Aquarium. “Monterey Bay Aquarium Overview
– 2000.” 2011. http://storage.montereybayaquarium.org/
storage/pressroom/presskit/pdf/2011%20monterey%20bay%20
aquarium%20overview.pdf.
15. Green, Jared. “ree Years Later: San Francisco’s Academy of
Sciences Living Roof Also Educates the Design Community.”
e Dirt. October 13, 2011. https://dirt.asla.org/2011/10/13/
three-years-later-san-francisco’s-california-academy-of-sciences-
living-roof-also-educates-the-design-community/.
16. Coté, John. “Rebuilding Academy of Sciences No Walk in the
Park.” SFGate. September 21, 2008. http://www.sfgate.com/
science/article/Rebuilding-Academy-of-Sciences-no-walk-in-
park-3268556.php.
17. California Academy of Sciences. “Building Budget
Comparisons.” December 2015.
18. California Academy of Sciences. “Rebuilding Project Fact
Sheet.” https://www.calacademy.org/press/releases/rebuilding-
project-fact-sheet.
19. California Academy of Sciences. “Audited Financials.” 2015.
20. ArchNewsNow. “A Bridge Between: California Academy
of Sciences and Steinhart Aquarium Transition Facility by
Melander Architects.” ArchNewsNow.com. February 5, 2008.
http://www.archnewsnow.com/features/Feature245.htm.
21. Perlman, David. “Mile-long line for Academy of Sciences
opening.” SFGate. September 28, 2008. http://www.sfgate.
com/bayarea/article/Mile-long-line-for-Academy-of-Sciences-
opening-3267874.php.
22. “Cal Academy of Sciences Receives Second LEED Platinum
Rating from USGBC.” USGBC Northern California.
September 27, 2011. http://www.usgbc-ncc.org/resources/
blog/11-green-building-news/624-cal-academy-of-sciences-
receives-second-leed-platium-rating-from-usgbc.
23. Green, op. cit.
Image Credits
Cover courtesy of Wikimedia Commons. Accessed online: www.
commons.wikimedia.org. “Building Exterior.”
p. 6 Image taken from Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Accessed
online: www.rpbw.com. “Concept Sketch.”
p. 6 Image taken from Renzo Piano Building Workshop. Accessed
online: www.rpbw.com. “Building Section.”
All other images courtesy of MASS Design Group.
