Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
August 22 Public Meeting About NUQ Hangar One  
User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Posted (1 year 1 week 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 4662 times:

The Navy continues its decade long refusal to work with Bay Area communities' ongoing fight to save and re-use historic Hangar One at Moffett Field in Mountain View. After almost a decade, the Navy still refuses to do the right thing regarding this historic structure. Their latest communication http://www.bracpmo.navy.mil/base_doc...alProposedPlan_Hangar1_Jul2013.pdf proposes a “Remedial Action Alternative” that does not provide for the restoration of the hangar. I object to this proposed “alternative” and propose a third alternative, the “Restoration Alternative”, in which the measures proposed in the “Remedial Action Alternative” would be combined with commitment to restore Hangar One to its as-built appearance.

Since the summer of 2005, the Navy's position concerning Hangar One has been made clear at many public meetings in the Mountain View area. For the past eight years, the reaction from the public continues to be strongly in favor of restoring the Hangar. Despite overwhelming public support for the hangar, a federal buck-passing exercise has been going on for almost a decade. Both the Navy and NASA have been metaphorically tossing the restoration of the hangar around like a hot potato. Everyone gives lip service to restoring the hangar but nobody wants to pay for it. It’s a national disgrace that NASA and the Navy have been blowing off fixing Hangar One.

An offer by the H211 to step up to preserve the hangar should have removed the cost argument from the discussion. You’d think that NASA would jump at the chance at free money to make this PR nightmare go away but you would be wrong.

NASA’s behavior sums up what’s wrong with government. An offer was made for private funding to re-skin the hangar. Paying for the re-skinning was the sticking point in the discussions Then money comes along, and what does NASA do? Stall, diddle and procrastinate. This is why people hate government.

A proper Restoration Alternative would involved re-skining Hangar One in addition to all of the environmental work described in Alternative 2-Implementation of Institutional Controls. As described in their July 2013 newsletter, the Navy's Alternative 2 is fundamentally flawed. It justifies an already-reached conclusion by ignoring the community's strong desire to see the hangar preserved as stated at numerous public forums. It's time to discard Alternative 2 and prepare Alternative 3 that meets the joint goals of protecting the environment and preserving history. These goals need not be mutually exclusive.

If you live in the Bay Area, please attend this meeting and support the restoration alternative:
August 22, 2013
266 Escuela Ave.
Mountain View, CA 94040
Time: 1930

If you can't make the meeting, send comments to:
Scott Anderson
Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Coordinator
1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 619-532-0938
Fax: 619-532-0940
Email: scott.d.anderson@navy.mil

Thanks.

[Edited 2013-08-18 20:45:49]

17 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinen53614 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4558 times:

I will do my best to be there. It's disgusting what's happened to Hangar One.


B722 B732 B733 B734 B735 B73G B738 B739 B742 B752 B772 A320 A319 CRJ2 DHC8 E135 E140 E145
User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 4490 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

reading through the literature, I have difficulty seeing any reason why an overburdened state and federal governments would want to keep the building at all. there seems to be a lot of throwing money down a hole and expecting something to return. it seems to have no commercial value, questionable institutional value, yes it is a big historic empty frame.. however do we save all big empty hangers? and for what reason.

User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13999 posts, RR: 62
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 4473 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 2):
. it seems to have no commercial value, questionable institutional value, yes it is a big historic empty frame.. however do we save all big empty hangers? and for what reason.

This seems to be a very American attitude. If something doesn´t have an immediate commercial value, tear it down and scrap it. NSA scrapped the launch tower of Apollo 11 as well.
Over here we tend to appreciate our history, e.g. in the Saar region they kept a whole steel mill, including blast furnaces, as a museum of the now gone heavy industry era.
There are plenty of old medieval castles around and nobody would think of flattening them.
Yes, and we also remember and preserve the memory of the nasty parts of our history, e.g. several former concentration camps.
I just visited a Maginot line underground fortress across the border in France, which is lovingly being restored by a group of volunteers. They try to get all equipment working again, and so far have one gun turret, one of the big powerplant diesel generators, the ammunition lift and the kitchen, which catered for the 200+ soldiers back in the 1930s, working again.
Same about the QE2 discussion, let the ship be scrapped, since it doesn´t have any commercial value, except as scrap material, and let it live in the memories of those who sailed on her. Big news: The people who remember her as an ocean liner are dying out fast. Knowing of the ship simply from books and pictures is different. Why does e.g. the Commemorative airforce or the aircraft museum in Duxfort attract so many people? They want to see, hear and feel the machines. The hangar at moffet field could e.g. house and exhibition about airships. It could house a few blimps or a Zeppelin NG and it would give anybody an idea how big those 1930s airships really were (my grandfather, as a young soldier, was once ordered to be part of the ground crew for the Graf Zeppelin at Tempelhof airfield and he said the airship was huge, standing beneath it, it appeared to stretch from horizon to horizon).

Jan


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4461 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Yes it's a catch 22.. a big hanger needs $35M to recover, the community doesn't have the money, It will cost another $500K more or less a year to maintain and few if any museums take in that amount. Volunteers are becoming scarce. There are 2 others in the US.. do we need 3? there are numerous blimp hangars as well.

The big issue is with limited budgets, and many structures on the "must save", is this one of broad enough appeal and historic value to retain. If the community says yes, put up the money. You want to store airships in it.. who pays for them? But don't expect the taxpayers to fund it. Now if Amazon decided to use the frame and put in a regional distribution center you would have the visual but with no access.

I worked on a school remodel years ago and we had letters demanding we save everything because of the memories, however under closer examination, these people had moved across country and had no intent to come walk the halls again. We saved the main entrance only. There are a lot of rationalizations in building preservation.. the hardest issue is determining what is really important and what would just be nice, and what is emotional baggage.


User currently offlinen53614 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 248 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 4458 times:

This particular big, empty hangar is a National Historic Monument.

There was a time when Silicon Valley was known as the Valley of Heart's Delight. It's hard to believe, but the South Bay was almost entirely orchards/fields. Then the Navy built Hangar One and what would eventually become NAS Moffett Field. Practically everything here has changed since 1933, with few exceptions; one of them, Hangar One.

I'd really like the history of my region preserved.



B722 B732 B733 B734 B735 B73G B738 B739 B742 B752 B772 A320 A319 CRJ2 DHC8 E135 E140 E145
User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 4438 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 2):
reading through the literature, I have difficulty seeing any reason why an overburdened state and federal governments would want to keep the building at all. there seems to be a lot of throwing money down a hole and expecting something to return. it seems to have no commercial value, questionable institutional value, yes it is a big historic empty frame.. however do we save all big empty hangers? and for what reason.

You need to read my post again. There was an offer by the H211 group to step up to preserve the hangar should have removed the cost argument from the discussion. H211 is some of the high rollers behind google, so you know it
is serious $$$. You’d think that NASA would jump at the chance at free money to make this PR nightmare go away but you would be wrong. An offer was made for private funding to re-skin the hangar. Paying for the re-skinning was the sticking point in the discussions Then money comes along, and what does NASA do? Stall, diddle and procrastinate. This is why people hate government.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 4432 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

However Google went elsewhere.. so what is the new occupant?

User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 4373 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 7):
so what is the new occupant?

Not sure if there is one lined up right now. Point is, who wants to deal with NASA given the way that agency operates? The H211 offer was on the table for about a year before they decided to go to SJC/Atlantic.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 4366 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

One needs to remember that regardless of the local enthusiasm, NASA has both many projects to fund on a shrinking budget and they need congressional approval to deviate from their charter. Yes they appear disinterested, however they have guidance to follow and can not deviate. Plus you are not the only community trying to tap the Federal trough. I was reading a novel recently about a society that devoted all it's resources to preserving the past and had none left of maintaining services and infrastructure.. the society was declining, technology was being lost, etc. So when we look at one community's pet project, we need to consider that in a larger scope.. and quite honestly many fall short in-spite or vehement support.

Personally, I'm surprised they have done as much to the structure as they have.

I can see their concern of spending scarce resources and ending up with an iconic shell with endless maintenance expenses.


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4350 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 9):
NASA has both many projects to fund on a shrinking budget and they need congressional approval to deviate from their charter.

Please re-read what I wrote above. A source of PRIVATE funds came forward with proposal to re-skin the hangar. Instead of working with H211, NASA sat on their hands and let H211 give up and go to SJC. I don't know if there's any H211 money still available for NUQ. NASA's behavior in this matter is a disgrace, yes, maybe public funds should not be spent for Hangar One, but don't spit on a private offer to restore it.


User currently offlineKiwiRob From New Zealand, joined Jun 2005, 7275 posts, RR: 5
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4325 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 4):
Yes it's a catch 22.. a big hanger needs $35M to recover, the community doesn't have the money

Which the google guys were willing to pay for if they were allowed to hanger there jets in it.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4309 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting kanban (Reply 9):
NASA has both many projects to fund on a shrinking budget and they need congressional approval to deviate from their charter.

I repeat.

Quoting psa188 (Reply 10):
NASA's behavior in this matter is a disgrace, yes,

Things are always a disgrace when we don't get what we want.. However they may have had their hands tied by congressional control.. They are not free to make many decisions without oversight. And communities do this "I want, I want" song and dance like they were an only child.

I also note there were only 3 congress people working on the issue, that's out of all the members who are also pushing special favors.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 11):
Which the google guys were willing to pay for if they were allowed to hanger there jets in it.

and they chose something elsewhere.. as a tax payer, I'd be leery of some currently big companies that ride the technological/social media surf board.. they may not survive the next iteration..


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 4229 times:

Quoting kanban (Reply 12):
they chose something elsewhere

And who can blame them? NASA and the Navy continue to do everything they can to thwart restoring the Hangar, even if someone is willing to pay for it. The H211 episode shows the government was lying when they said the issue was cost.

As for H211/Google, who can blame them for getting fed up and decamping to SJC?


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 week 21 hours ago) and read 4227 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting psa188 (Reply 13):
he H211 episode shows the government was lying when they said the issue was cost.

No, it shows they didn't have the authority..


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Reply 15, posted (1 year 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 4086 times:

Well, the meeting has come and gone. The SJ Mercury did a pretty good recap of the public comments; in my case they spelled my name wrong but got the quote right.
http://www.mercurynews.com/breaking-...l-navy-maintain-protective-coating

You still have another week to send comments to
Scott Anderson
Base Realignment and Closure Environmental Coordinator
1455 Frazee Road, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: 619-532-0938
Fax: 619-532-0940
Email: scott.d.anderson@navy.mil

Deadline is August 30th.


User currently offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3497 posts, RR: 27
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 4031 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The article shows why the offer languished.. no clear ownership.. had NASA approved, it would have trumped the Navy's position and NASA would pay.. If the Navy approved the lease, their case of NASA paying would disintegrate.

But further down the road.. the coating might be good for 30 years.. then what? An open skeleton could be touched up, but a skinned building would need to be peeled first and resided.. plus anything inside would need to be weather proof if not attached to the frame or removed for re-coating. Now you need $40-80 Million every 30 years for frame maintenance peeling and re skinning besides general building maintenance..

If you want to keep it as a seagull roost, consider donating to a museum as an outdoor sculpture garden.. and hang mobiles off it.


User currently offlinepsa188 From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 513 posts, RR: 18
Reply 17, posted (11 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 2379 times:

The NUQ/Hangar One saga continues. The Mountain View Voice just published this account:
http://www.mv-voice.com/news/2013/09...acres-may-be-sealed-by-next-month-

The article points out that "In what could have a huge impact on the region, several different groups are making moves in a bidding war for Moffett Field's runways and massive hangars."

One thing's for sure: we don't want to lose the Federal airfield adjacent to Hangar One. The MV Voice reports that "Siegel has long advocated for Moffett's runways to be torn up and redeveloped with 'badly needed' transit-oriented housing." I respectfully disagree. Keeping NUQ open for NASA, Air National Guard and emergency flights as it is now is a fair compromise between "no growthers" and aviation advocates. It's virtually impossible to build new aviation capacity in this country so let's not destroy what we have.

This should have been settled years ago. NUQ has lots of restrictions on flight operations which no one is seriously contesting. Air cargo is down in North America. On August 26, Aviation Week reported, "North America and the Asia-Pacific area proved to be the weakest regions in terms of international AFTKs (Available Freight Tonne Kilometers) and cargo demand in the first half of the year, contracting by 2.7% and 2.9%, respectively."

So, please, let's not try to scare people into believing that fleets of air freighters are about to descend on NUQ if only those pesky restrictions were lifted, it's NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. Just drive down to SJC at 7:00 PM and watch what's left of the cargo "rush." I'll save you the time, it's down to two Fedex and one or two (depends on day) UPS flights. This region does not generate the same small amounts of air freight that it did in the 1990s and SFO, OAK and SJC can handle it for years to come.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic August 22 Public Meeting About NUQ Hangar One
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
NUQ: Hangar One To Be Saved? posted Mon Mar 11 2013 15:20:20 by psa188
Crunch Time For Moffett's Hangar One posted Fri Aug 1 2008 14:00:17 by Psa188
Save Hangar One Committee Formed posted Sat Sep 3 2005 00:13:32 by Psa188
Save Moffett Hangar One posted Tue Aug 9 2005 00:00:27 by Psa188
F-22: All In One? posted Sun Oct 14 2007 15:10:56 by Blackbird
The F-22 Is One Incredible Fighter posted Mon Jun 11 2007 10:51:26 by AndesSMF
Let's Talk About The F-22 With Pics ; posted Sat Apr 21 2007 04:00:18 by TedTAce
HOW About Building AN FB-22? posted Wed Jun 19 2002 01:52:28 by AvObserver
What's The Latest News About The F-22 And RAH-66 posted Fri Apr 5 2002 23:04:55 by Planelover
Nice Video Of F-22 Kill posted Tue Jun 18 2013 21:36:47 by tommytoyz

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format