News

Shifting politics boost Palo Alto's quest for a history museum

Majority of divided City Council calls for funding rehabilitation of the Roth Building

The City Council will consider a memo from three council members that urges immediate funding for rehabilitation of the Roth Building at 300 Homer Ave. on June 21, 2021. Photo by Gennady Sheyner.

Palo Alto's slow crawl toward establishing a new history museum at the Roth Building seems to have all the classic City Hall hallmarks: lofty goals, wishful concepts and years of discussion with little to show for it.

For nearly two decades, Palo Alto's elected leaders have touted the benefits of opening a museum to celebrate the city's history, both as a birthplace of Google, Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants and as a bastion of environmental activism and educational excellence. Under the long-simmering plans, the museum would occupy the historic Roth Building at 300 Homer Ave., a former Palo Alto Medical Foundation clinic that was built in 1932 and that today stands vacant and in disrepair.

The history of this effort has been one of indecision, missed deadlines, wavering directions and the gradual dilapidation of the city-owned building. Even though the City Council has been eyeing the site for years as the location of the new history museum, council members have been reluctant to pay for the needed improvements. And even though the nonprofit Palo Alto Museum has been the city's partner in the endeavor ever since 2007, when the council first approved its lease option with the museum nonprofit, council members have expressed frustration in recent years with the group's fundraising efforts and have flirted with the idea of selling the building or renting it out to another organization.

Now, despite the city's budgetary challenges, things appear to be looking up for the Palo Alto Museum. Next week, the City Council will consider a memo from three members — Vice Mayor Pat Burt and council members Lydia Kou and Greer Stone — that urges the city to sign a lease option agreement with Palo Alto Museum, a move that would both affirm the city's commitment to the project and allow the nonprofit to raise money toward the museum's construction.

Just as critically, the council is preparing to approve on Monday the expenditure of more than $4 million in impact fees — which are designated for improving parks and community centers — for the first phase of a long-awaited project: the $10.5-million rehabilitation of the Roth Building. The phase calls for seismically rehabilitating the structurally deficient 1932 building and make it possible for Palo Alto Museum to move ahead with the next step: making the building's interior suitable for the new museum.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

Rich Green, president of Palo Alto Museum, urged the council earlier this month to move ahead with this action, which he said would enable the museum to open its doors to the public in the summer of 2022. He emphasized that most of the costs of actually establishing the museum will be borne by the nonprofit, which has been applying for grants and soliciting private donations, and that none of it will be shifted from the general fund.

"We're not asking the city to fund the museum in any way — that will be funded under separate private sponsorship and donation. We're only talking about the city's rehabilitation of its own Roth Building," Green told the council at the June 7 meeting. "But still, we have received mixed signals from past city councils that have challenged our fundraising ability. All we want to do is bring this history museum to the community."

The new memo should give Green and other project supporters reasons for optimism. Mayor Tom DuBois has publicly supported the establishment of the history museum and his position — coupled with urgings from the memo's three signatories — all but ensures that the project will get support from the council majority. It is, however, expected to be the slimmest majority, with three of the seven council members recently signaling that they would rather not spend money on the Roth Building at this time.

The new memo from Burt, Kou and Stone suggests that it is critical to move the project forward as soon as possible.

"This project needs to move forward quickly to preserve this vulnerable historic building, take advantage of the existing permit, and move forward this construction season to avoid winter rains," the memo states.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

The position represents a sharp break from the recent past. In December 2020, council members chafed at the idea of spending significant funding on the Roth Building in the near future. During the council's Dec. 14 meeting, then-Mayor Adrian Fine opposed the idea of spending impact fees on the rehabilitation project, calling the proposed action an end run around the financial process. Former council member Liz Kniss, who in the past urged her colleagues to explore rezoning and possibly renting out the Homer Avenue property, bemoaned the lack of a clear avenue toward the establishment of the museum. Council member Alison Cormack said it would be irresponsible for the city to not consider selling the building.

The November election, which saw Burt and Stone replace Fine and Kniss, appears to have upended the political dynamic. While three council members — Cormack, Eric Filseth, Greg Tanaka — remain reluctant to spend money on rehabilitating the Roth Building, the other four members are poised to move the project ahead.

The new memo from Burt, Kou and Stone echoes the argument long made by Palo Alto Museum leaders: because the Roth Building is a city-owned asset, it should be the city's responsibility to at least fix up the hard shell of the building so that the museum could then move ahead with improvements to the building's interior.

In addition, the city is scheduled to receive multiple significant community assets and benefits that are outside of museum-based functions or obligations including: publicly accessible park restrooms, a cafe accessible to the park, community meeting spaces and resources for youth research and education, states the memo, citing the proposed features of the new museum.

If the council moves ahead with the recommendation of its Finance Committee, the city would allocate $2 million to the Roth Building project from its Stanford University Medical Center development agreement. It would also use $350,000 in park impact fees to improve the building, which is next to Heritage Park and which would have a bathroom that is accessible to park users. The city is also looking to use about $1.65 million in impact fees that are designated community centers, money that will likely be shifted from planned improvements to Rinconada Park.

In its June 7 budget discussion, which served as a likely preview for next week's budget adoption, the council majority signaled that it wants to see the Roth Building work begin sooner rather than later. DuBois said he believes impact fees and Stanford funds are appropriate funding sources for the project shortly before the council voted 4-3 to support the funding plan.

Cormack, Filseth and Tanaka all dissented, with Cormack saying she is hesitant to transfer fees from other community projects to the Roth Building rehabilitation. Tanaka questioned the need to move ahead with the history museum at this moment.

"Do we need to do it when we're in the second year of a budget crisis?" Tanaka asked. "I don't know if it's the most critical thing we should think about."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you city government news. Become a member today.

Shifting politics boost Palo Alto's quest for a history museum

Majority of divided City Council calls for funding rehabilitation of the Roth Building

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Jun 17, 2021, 11:28 am

Palo Alto's slow crawl toward establishing a new history museum at the Roth Building seems to have all the classic City Hall hallmarks: lofty goals, wishful concepts and years of discussion with little to show for it.

For nearly two decades, Palo Alto's elected leaders have touted the benefits of opening a museum to celebrate the city's history, both as a birthplace of Google, Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants and as a bastion of environmental activism and educational excellence. Under the long-simmering plans, the museum would occupy the historic Roth Building at 300 Homer Ave., a former Palo Alto Medical Foundation clinic that was built in 1932 and that today stands vacant and in disrepair.

The history of this effort has been one of indecision, missed deadlines, wavering directions and the gradual dilapidation of the city-owned building. Even though the City Council has been eyeing the site for years as the location of the new history museum, council members have been reluctant to pay for the needed improvements. And even though the nonprofit Palo Alto Museum has been the city's partner in the endeavor ever since 2007, when the council first approved its lease option with the museum nonprofit, council members have expressed frustration in recent years with the group's fundraising efforts and have flirted with the idea of selling the building or renting it out to another organization.

Now, despite the city's budgetary challenges, things appear to be looking up for the Palo Alto Museum. Next week, the City Council will consider a memo from three members — Vice Mayor Pat Burt and council members Lydia Kou and Greer Stone — that urges the city to sign a lease option agreement with Palo Alto Museum, a move that would both affirm the city's commitment to the project and allow the nonprofit to raise money toward the museum's construction.

Just as critically, the council is preparing to approve on Monday the expenditure of more than $4 million in impact fees — which are designated for improving parks and community centers — for the first phase of a long-awaited project: the $10.5-million rehabilitation of the Roth Building. The phase calls for seismically rehabilitating the structurally deficient 1932 building and make it possible for Palo Alto Museum to move ahead with the next step: making the building's interior suitable for the new museum.

Rich Green, president of Palo Alto Museum, urged the council earlier this month to move ahead with this action, which he said would enable the museum to open its doors to the public in the summer of 2022. He emphasized that most of the costs of actually establishing the museum will be borne by the nonprofit, which has been applying for grants and soliciting private donations, and that none of it will be shifted from the general fund.

"We're not asking the city to fund the museum in any way — that will be funded under separate private sponsorship and donation. We're only talking about the city's rehabilitation of its own Roth Building," Green told the council at the June 7 meeting. "But still, we have received mixed signals from past city councils that have challenged our fundraising ability. All we want to do is bring this history museum to the community."

The new memo should give Green and other project supporters reasons for optimism. Mayor Tom DuBois has publicly supported the establishment of the history museum and his position — coupled with urgings from the memo's three signatories — all but ensures that the project will get support from the council majority. It is, however, expected to be the slimmest majority, with three of the seven council members recently signaling that they would rather not spend money on the Roth Building at this time.

The new memo from Burt, Kou and Stone suggests that it is critical to move the project forward as soon as possible.

"This project needs to move forward quickly to preserve this vulnerable historic building, take advantage of the existing permit, and move forward this construction season to avoid winter rains," the memo states.

The position represents a sharp break from the recent past. In December 2020, council members chafed at the idea of spending significant funding on the Roth Building in the near future. During the council's Dec. 14 meeting, then-Mayor Adrian Fine opposed the idea of spending impact fees on the rehabilitation project, calling the proposed action an end run around the financial process. Former council member Liz Kniss, who in the past urged her colleagues to explore rezoning and possibly renting out the Homer Avenue property, bemoaned the lack of a clear avenue toward the establishment of the museum. Council member Alison Cormack said it would be irresponsible for the city to not consider selling the building.

The November election, which saw Burt and Stone replace Fine and Kniss, appears to have upended the political dynamic. While three council members — Cormack, Eric Filseth, Greg Tanaka — remain reluctant to spend money on rehabilitating the Roth Building, the other four members are poised to move the project ahead.

The new memo from Burt, Kou and Stone echoes the argument long made by Palo Alto Museum leaders: because the Roth Building is a city-owned asset, it should be the city's responsibility to at least fix up the hard shell of the building so that the museum could then move ahead with improvements to the building's interior.

In addition, the city is scheduled to receive multiple significant community assets and benefits that are outside of museum-based functions or obligations including: publicly accessible park restrooms, a cafe accessible to the park, community meeting spaces and resources for youth research and education, states the memo, citing the proposed features of the new museum.

If the council moves ahead with the recommendation of its Finance Committee, the city would allocate $2 million to the Roth Building project from its Stanford University Medical Center development agreement. It would also use $350,000 in park impact fees to improve the building, which is next to Heritage Park and which would have a bathroom that is accessible to park users. The city is also looking to use about $1.65 million in impact fees that are designated community centers, money that will likely be shifted from planned improvements to Rinconada Park.

In its June 7 budget discussion, which served as a likely preview for next week's budget adoption, the council majority signaled that it wants to see the Roth Building work begin sooner rather than later. DuBois said he believes impact fees and Stanford funds are appropriate funding sources for the project shortly before the council voted 4-3 to support the funding plan.

Cormack, Filseth and Tanaka all dissented, with Cormack saying she is hesitant to transfer fees from other community projects to the Roth Building rehabilitation. Tanaka questioned the need to move ahead with the history museum at this moment.

"Do we need to do it when we're in the second year of a budget crisis?" Tanaka asked. "I don't know if it's the most critical thing we should think about."

Comments

felix
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 18, 2021 at 6:56 am
felix, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 18, 2021 at 6:56 am

Yes we need our history, Greg Tanaka. We require our children to study history all through our schools, yet you, Alison Cormack and the now thankfully irrelevant Liz Kniss have found this or that excuse for years to deprive Palo Altans access to learn more of their communal history well before any budget concerns.

That history isn’t just the low hanging fruit mentioned here - the Silicon Valley saga, etc. It’s the history of the everyday people that settled and did the work in this Valley of Hearts Delight in all their diversity - women and men and children.

It is a place to record and keep our own oral histories.

A place for exhibits on, say, cultural events that became touchstones, our notable architecture, and our more difficult history such as the loss of Japanese Palo Altan families imprisoned WW2.

Few know that a Chinese man, Thomas Foon Chew owned the 3rd largest cannery in the world here, that it had its own railroad spur and 19 employee homes. That cannery is now the Frys building.

We need our history museum now. Get it done Council and staff without more delay.


Illya Petrovsky
Registered user
Stanford
on Jun 18, 2021 at 9:11 am
Illya Petrovsky, Stanford
Registered user
on Jun 18, 2021 at 9:11 am

A Palo Alto History Museum would be better served by demolishing that rat-infested, decaying old Roth Building and starting anew with a modern 21st century architectural design.

And a serious historical museum is no venue for exhibiting a mechanical gorilla from a former dive bar either.


Andrew Boone
Registered user
another community
on Jun 18, 2021 at 11:15 am
Andrew Boone, another community
Registered user
on Jun 18, 2021 at 11:15 am

Long overdue. It would’ve been easy to fund the rehabilitation of the history museum building if the Palo Alto City Council hadn’t blown $37 million on a new car parking garage right next to the California Avenue Caltrain Station. There is no fiscal crisis - just awful decisions like that one - increasing car traffic by building new car parking spaces for over $100,000 EACH. Stop wasting money promoting car driving and you’ll find the city has plenty of funds to invest in worthwhile projects like the history museum.


Sunshine
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jun 18, 2021 at 2:19 pm
Sunshine, Barron Park
Registered user
on Jun 18, 2021 at 2:19 pm

Boone and Felix have the right idea--this is a project whose time has come. Instead of discussing it to death, as is the Palo Alto way, we need to fund and establish the Palo Alto History Museum. There is much his tory here despite the fact that it is not as old as the history of other parts of the US. Palo Alto has history; we should celebrate it.


Ariel Fleming
Registered user
Crescent Park
on Jun 19, 2021 at 9:54 am
Ariel Fleming, Crescent Park
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2021 at 9:54 am

Palo Alto would not have become a noteworthy town had Leland Stanford built his university elsewhere.

There would have been no Stanford University EE Department and thus no former graduates like Hewlett and Packard starting a company in a Palo Alto garage. And subsequently no future Silicon Valley as many other early electronics pioneers and entrepreneurs also graduated from the Stanford EE program.

And there would have been no Dr. Shumway performing revolutionary heart transplants because there probably wouldn't have been a Stanford Hospital and various research facilities.

The full credit for Palo Alto's emergence belongs to Stanford University.

Without Stanford, the history of Palo Alto consists of an old worn-down tree, the original Ohlone inhabitants, and Gaspar de Portola passing through on his way to Menlo Park.


Amanda Garner
Registered user
Professorville
on Jun 19, 2021 at 2:09 pm
Amanda Garner, Professorville
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2021 at 2:09 pm

Nothing much was going on in Palo Alto until the university was built.

Mayfield was a bustling town and refused to go 'dry' as Leland Stanford had mandated for a college community.

As a result, Palo Alto got in through 'the back door' and the rest is history.

And PA folks wound up going down to Whiskey Gulch in unincorporated EPA for their booze.

Curious if Leland was anti-marijuana as well...probably so.


Laurian Decker
Registered user
Stanford
on Jun 19, 2021 at 3:19 pm
Laurian Decker, Stanford
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2021 at 3:19 pm

Palo Alto owes far more to Stanford University than Stanford University owes Palo Alto and yet countless PA residents cannot comprehend this seemingly simple observation.

Without Stanford University, Palo Alto would be just another midpeninsula bedroom community with nothing much going for it...similar to other nondescript residential communities.


PA Community Advocate
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2021 at 7:36 pm
PA Community Advocate, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2021 at 7:36 pm

Excited to have a museum to celebrate Palo Alto and its rich history.

HOWEVER…

If community resources and our tax dollars are going to this museum is it going to be free for Palo Alto residents?

Or is this going to end like the Children’s Zoo where there’s an exclusionary entrance fee and the only winners are corrupt bureaucrats and developers?


Wesley James
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 19, 2021 at 7:43 pm
Wesley James, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2021 at 7:43 pm

If the museum is free to only Palo Alto residents, another Foothills Park debacle could ensue.

Perhaps best to charge a nominal fee reflective of the quality of the exhibits and overhead costs.

Curious...what kind of city-specific exhibits would excite and entice people to visit Palo Alto and the museum?

Can't think of anything.


PA Community Advocate
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 19, 2021 at 7:49 pm
PA Community Advocate, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2021 at 7:49 pm

W James - The Foothills Park debacle wasn’t about price. It was about not letting the ultra-wealthy in Los Alto Hills and Portola Valley enter the park from an entrance that they refused to help fund.

Now the Palo Alto community is funding their parking spots. It should still be free for Palo Alto residents. It’s insane.


Curmudgeon
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jun 19, 2021 at 9:33 pm
Curmudgeon, Downtown North
Registered user
on Jun 19, 2021 at 9:33 pm

"Without Stanford University, Palo Alto would be just another midpeninsula bedroom community with nothing much going for it...similar to other nondescript residential communities."

It's symbiotic. Without Palo Alto at its gate, Stanford would still be a quiet, respected regional college


Parker Whitcomb
Registered user
Stanford
on Jun 20, 2021 at 9:31 am
Parker Whitcomb, Stanford
Registered user
on Jun 20, 2021 at 9:31 am

"It's symbiotic. Without Palo Alto at its gate, Stanford would still be a quiet, respected regional college."

Agreed as Palo Alto is far from being a small college town and Stanford is far from being a quiet, respected regional college.

They both got too big for their britches.


Geraldine Pfister
Registered user
Leland Manor/Garland Drive
on Jun 20, 2021 at 10:12 am
Geraldine Pfister, Leland Manor/Garland Drive
Registered user
on Jun 20, 2021 at 10:12 am

What would a Palo Alto History Museum display to make it interesting not only to residents but to outside visitors as well?

A salute to Silicon Valley, Stanford University, and a mechanical gorilla?

The museum might need to rely on Mayfield's history for any pre-Silicon Valley relevance as Stanford can easily hold its own.

Will there be any Ohlone artifacts including shell mound replications and tule huts + full Spanish explorer armor outfits on display with accompanying lances and swords?

And will there be any references to the pre-statehood Mexican occupation and the various local land grants with scale models of adobe dwellings and rancho-related tools?

Or will it simply promote a gorilla and a transistor radio?


Beppo Becera
Registered user
Los Altos
on Jun 20, 2021 at 11:49 am
Beppo Becera, Los Altos
Registered user
on Jun 20, 2021 at 11:49 am

Other than occasionally meeting up with friends/relatives, going to the dentist, wasting time/money at Stanford Shopping Center, or attending school I can't imagine anyone actually needing to visit Palo Alto, let alone a potentially uninteresting museum given free will and other more promising options.


Lucien Zabriski
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jun 20, 2021 at 1:20 pm
Lucien Zabriski, College Terrace
Registered user
on Jun 20, 2021 at 1:20 pm

> "I can't imagine anyone actually needing to visit Palo Alto, let alone a potentially uninteresting museum given free will and other more promising options."

This is why and unlike most tourist destinations, the weekend hotel-motel rates are lower in Palo Alto during the weekends as compared to the weekdays.

The weekday lodging rates in Palo Alto are higher due to midweek business-related meetings and conferences.

Nobody in their right mind would bother to visit Palo Alto as a tourist unless they were either from Podunk or going to Stanford Shopping Center for an overpriced spending spree.

Palo Alto is hardly Carmel by the Sea or Fisherman's Wharf.


Jeremy Rocha
Registered user
another community
on Jun 20, 2021 at 7:41 pm
Jeremy Rocha, another community
Registered user
on Jun 20, 2021 at 7:41 pm

A pre-Silicon Valley museum theme would be far more interesting than a focal point on Palo Alto's high-tech sector over the past 70 years.

You see one semiconductor/chip display and you've pretty much seen them all.

Besides, most of the companies founded by the original movers and shakers have either been acquired, split-up or are now manufacturing their products elsewhere (as in overseas).


Chanterelle Williams
Registered user
another community
on Jun 21, 2021 at 7:50 pm
Chanterelle Williams, another community
Registered user
on Jun 21, 2021 at 7:50 pm

In addition to the various early days and the emergence of the semiconductor industry, will the museum also have a section devoted to the contributions of African Americans in Palo Alto?

Or will it be primarily focused on the white man's technological inventions?


Phil Carmody
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jun 22, 2021 at 8:55 am
Phil Carmody, Barron Park
Registered user
on Jun 22, 2021 at 8:55 am
Cameron Rivers
Registered user
another community
on Jun 22, 2021 at 10:05 am
Cameron Rivers, another community
Registered user
on Jun 22, 2021 at 10:05 am

[Post removed due to same poster using multiple names]


Consider Your Options.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jun 24, 2021 at 1:47 pm
Consider Your Options. , Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Jun 24, 2021 at 1:47 pm

The tiny mining and ski resort community town of Fernie, BC in Canada (population @5,000) has a history museum. How pathetic are we, the center of the Silicon Valley revolution, our history spans amazing transformations from an agricultural and summer vacation community of little cottages to the bedroom community of a world class university and a hotbed of innovation. So many people of all genders, ethnicities and ages led bits of the journey from there to here. Stories that are not regularly shared with community get lost. Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat mistakes of the past. These tropes are true. Maybe we should take a page out of little Fernie's book.


Real World Palo Alto
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jun 25, 2021 at 10:08 am
Real World Palo Alto , Barron Park
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2021 at 10:08 am

Curious...what makes Palo Alto history so noteworthy?

Excluding its adjacent proximity and past relationship with the founding of Stanford University, what are the remaining highlights that will fascinate visitors?

Hewlett-Packard, Varian Associates, Watkins-Johnson, The Fish Market, Town & Country Village, an annual chili cook-off, and an old tree that has seen better days?

Even the Barron Park donkeys cannot carry the burden of generating any further excitement.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 25, 2021 at 10:55 am
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jun 25, 2021 at 10:55 am

Yeah - note the location is at a park next to a children's play area. Like the cafe at Mitchell Park a place to have a cozy cup of coffee and a sandwich, a place to get come local maps, and walk through to see some local articts work - which is currently displayed at Lucie Stern in the hallways. Yes - we do have local articts who can display their works. Walk through the lower hallway of the PAMC - lots of pictures of PA way back when. Another school that is now gone replaced by a soccer field at ECR and Oregon - Mayfield School. Lots of pictures of life back then - the barber shop, the markets, a real touch of CA history.


Jeffrey Jones
Registered user
another community
on Jun 26, 2021 at 9:24 am
Jeffrey Jones, another community
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2021 at 9:24 am

The history of pre-annexation Mayfield is not Palo Alto's history.


Curmudgeon
Registered user
Downtown North
on Jun 26, 2021 at 4:32 pm
Curmudgeon, Downtown North
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2021 at 4:32 pm

The history of pre-annexation Mayfield is not Palo Alto's history.

Yes it is. Very fundamentally so. Leland Stanford wanted a dry town fronting his University. Mayfield chose to remain a profitable destination for sinners. So Stanford had his buddy Timothy Hopkins create the town of University Park, which became Palo Alto and which ultimately absorbed Mayfield.

The need for a history museum is clear and pressing.


Online Name
Registered user
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Jun 26, 2021 at 4:58 pm
Online Name, Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2021 at 4:58 pm

Palo Alto and Stanford professors and students had an interesting cameo role in the holding a corrupt local judge and police chief accountable when they tried to let go white slavers who'd been imprisoning and abusing Asian women. Fascinating book. Web Link


Jon Parsons
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Jun 26, 2021 at 6:09 pm
Jon Parsons, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Jun 26, 2021 at 6:09 pm

I doubt this is the time for a "history" museum, as I fear it will be another political statement that reflects our fevered point in time. Better wait for a calmer more encompassing vision to articulate a more accurate remembrance of things past.


Resident 1-Adobe Meadows
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Jun 27, 2021 at 8:52 pm
Resident 1-Adobe Meadows, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Jun 27, 2021 at 8:52 pm

Jon - yes it is. A place for warming, a cup of coffee/tea and a sweet, and back to NORMAL. Look at local art, relax, and just sit and watch the children who are playing outside. They will come in for a sweet bite. Look at the pictures of the city as it grew up. Time to decompress.


Lauren Costanza
Registered user
Old Palo Alto
on Jun 29, 2021 at 9:03 am
Lauren Costanza, Old Palo Alto
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2021 at 9:03 am

Having resided in Palo Alto for most of my adolescent and adult life, I do not find it all that interesting or of any major historical significance.

Palo Alto is just another former bedroom community adjacent to Stanford University currently undergoing development-related growing pains.

Palo Alto has lost its earlier small town vibe and we will be relocating to Hawaii shortly upon the sale of our ridiculously overvalued & overpriced home.

The newbies and NIMBYs can now carry the torch to whatever ends they are seeking.


Orville Bentley
Registered user
College Terrace
on Jun 29, 2021 at 1:31 pm
Orville Bentley, College Terrace
Registered user
on Jun 29, 2021 at 1:31 pm

A Palo Alto History museum would be remiss without a BMW exhibit, some designer handbags, and that mechanical gorilla from Antonio's Nut House.

What a thrill.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.