If you have ever spent time at the Chautauqua Institution you know what a special place it is. Chautauqua is a tiny resort village on the sloping south shore of Chautauqua Lake just 70 miles down the Thruway from Buffalo. Its casual grid of narrow streets is densely packed with an extraordinary collection of Victorian cottages, pavilions, hotels and churches, all bound together by a thick canopy of mature trees.
The village is something like a little piece of heavenly perfection on earth. Well, perhaps not quiet perfect. At the heart of the village is the Chautauqua Amphitheater, an open air lecture and performance pavilion lovingly known to locals as the Amp. A few years back the governing board of the Institution, in their effort to keep the Amp relevant, determined that the structure needed major upgrades. The Amp was built in 1893. Even with incremental updates over the decades it has become woefully short of contemporary standards for this kind of facility. Some of the improvements they would like to make to the old structure include: Increased (and more comfortable) seating from 4000 to about 4500, new technology, a deeper bowl with a lower floor (by about seven feet) and fewer columns (for better sight lines), an orchestra pit, and create better back stage facilities for performers and for loading in shows among other things. Few disagree that the Amp is in need of at least some of these upgrades. Unfortunately, the Institution’s governing board has come to the conclusion that “upgrade” means “removal” of nearly the entire building to make room for a new Amphitheater in the form of a replica containing all the desired goodies. They allegedly had been describing this demolition and replacement plan as a renovation up until plans were released last summer.
Demolition should be a non starter for this amazing building!
Postcard view of the Amp at mid-century
The Amp is one of the most historic buildings in the entire nation. There may be only a handful of other places in this country that have hosted more famous performers and influential speakers than the Amp. Name an important person in any field from the past 100 years and they have probably been on the Amp stage. Here are a few: William Jennings Bryan, Booker T. Washington, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Paul Simon, Susan B, Anthony, Phil Donahue, Thurgood Marshall, Everly Brothers, Smokey Robinson, Trisha Yearwood, Harry Belafonte, Paul Anka, Arlo Guthrie, Johnny Mathis, Franklin D Roosevelt, Ken Burns, Alf Landon, Amelia Earhart, Nelson Rockefeller, Tom Wolf, Al Gore, Barry Goldwater, Robert F. Kennedy, and many more. In 1989 the entire Chautauqua Institution was added to the National Register of Historic Places. The Amp, as a central fixture of the Institution, is a major contributing element of this important designation.
The Amp is not high architecture in the way a big fancy city church or bank building is. The Amp is more like a barn or a revival tent. Revival tent is probably a good description, harking back to the revival nature of the Institution’s earliest times. There are no fine carvings, no classical proportions, and no important architect. What the Amp has in spades is history, tradition, and unmatched atmosphere. The Amp is a feeling as much as it is a building. It has the kind of deeply rich character that cannot be designed, but can only be earned through the passage of time. You don’t simply look at the Amp as you might look at great monuments of architecture such as the Empire State Building or the Eiffel Tower. The Amp is something you experience. The Amp is summer, expressed in wood and steel. Seeing a performance in this space is to experience the essence of every summer now and back through its 12 decades. It has a simplicity and honesty that we rarely get to experience these days.
The Amp is nestled into the dense center of the town. On a typical summer night the narrow streets leading up to and around the theater bustle with people. The incredible multi floor porches of surrounding houses and hotels come alive with conversations and twinkling lights. As you walk around the Amp you can see clear through to the other side and down into its shallow bowl to the stage. The animated scene of people and performance and smells and the many decades that are represented in the old structure makes for pure architectural magic. Sitting in its creaky wooden benches for a lecture or performance with a balmy summer breeze gently brushing your face is a deeply felt experience that cannot be described in words. All I can say is, it is an indescribably wonderful setting that is matched by few other places (if any). The historic existing amphitheater building is integral to that experience.
At a glance, the renderings prepared by the Institution and their architect, Serena Sturm of Chicago, show a convincing plan to give the public a modern highly functional performance pavilion that attempts to respect the history and design of the original Amp. Of course, no replacement will include the real history or the marks of generations and weathering that can only be attained through time. To the untrained eye the pavilion may look like the existing Amp. But, is it? Look close and you start to see otherwise. The elegant Victorian back-end with its quirky tower bays and open porch is shown replaced with a bulky flat faced box. Will the view from the street to the stage be eliminated once it dropped seven feet lower? It’s not clear. Look at the columns in the proposal. They are chunky, poorly proportioned imitations of the originals. The subtlety and simplicity of the original building will almost certainly be replaced with state-of-the-art sterility. You can go to this link for a thorough description of the project from the Institution’s point of view, including their own rave reviews of the new building and justifications for the demolition.
With the unveiling of the Institution’s proposal, a group of concerned citizens quickly realized that the project would not be a renovation but instead would necessitate almost complete removal of the historic Amp. To stop the demolition they formed a group called the Committee to Save the Amp (Save the Amp). The group is led by a Brian Berg of Chicago, Senior Vice President for the Urban Partnership Bank and his Wife Alicia Berg, former Chicago Planning commissioner, currently Vice President of Campus Development at Chicago’s Columbia College. They are joined by Steve Davies, co-founder of the Project for Public Space in New York City. Each has been a long-time summer resident at Chautauqua.
The group has established a web site for saving the building at this link. It is packed with information and resources for those who would like to help in the effort to stop demolition. It also includes links to newspaper stories from Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Buffalo, Erie, and Jamestown where you can read more about the issues involved. Save the Amp has also gotten support from the Campaign for Greater Buffalo, Preservation Buffalo Niagara, the Pittsburgh History and Landmarks Foundation, and the Landmark Society of Western New York. The National Trust for Historic Preservation is considering designating the Amp as a National Treasure and may place it on its 11 Most Endangered Historic Places List.
The architectural section above prepared by the Institution’s architect, Serena Sturm, shows a comparison between existing (black) and proposed (red). Click on the image to see several renderings and a detailed description of the project.
The Chautauqua Institution is close to raising the $30 million needed for construction of the project. They tentatively plan to move forward with demolition and construction in September, immediately after the conclusion of the 2015 season. The new theater would be complete for the following summer season. The Institution claims that they can demolish the pavilion without any special approvals from government agencies. Stating:
The Institution must follow strict state-enforced building code requirements for accessibility, egress, lighting, sprinklers, etc. Beyond those regulations, it is up to the Board of Trustees and/or administration to decide how to approach changes to Institution properties based on the needs of the programmatic function they serve.
It is not clear that this is true. The Institution is not a government entity but is actually located in the Town of Chautauqua. They cannot make and follow their own laws. As noted above, The Institution was designated a National Historic District back in 1989. Thus, contributing structures within the grounds are be considered National Historic Landmarks and are subject to special rules. The Amp would certainly be considered contributing to the historic district designation. Some claim that in this case demolition of the Amp would constitute a “Type I” action requiring a responsible governmental agency to prepare a full environmental impact statement. This mandated review must include alternates to demolition. It must also show that any adverse affects must be mitigated, and the public must be given the opportunity to comment and be heard. To the best of my knowledge this has not been done and the Institute has no plan to do it.
The Save the Amp group enlisted the services of respected preservation architect CJS Architects of Rochester to prepare alternates to demolition but was allegedly rebuffed by the Institute. With the growing controversy over the demolition plans the Institution did bring in their own preservation specialist, HHL Architects of Buffalo. HHL boasts its own strong restoration portfolio as architects of the Martin House restoration in Buffalo. HHL founder, Ted Lownie is quoted in the Buffalo News saying that he does not believe that the Institution’s plan is being done in the spirit of a national landmark or in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. He goes on to say, however, that he sees no other way, but through demolition, to achieve the Institution’s long list of goals for the project. HHL is reportedly looking at design alternates for the back stage area of the building and consulting on other details.
I asked for a response from the Institution regarding criticism of the project; if they have any intention to work with groups asking for alternatives to demolition; if they have any intention of preparing the required environmental review; how the justify demolition of a major historic building like this. This was their response:
Chautauqua Institution has remained relevant for over 140 years because we are a forward-thinking institution “dedicated to the exploration of the best in human values and the enrichment of life” through the programming we produce and the experiences we deliver. Our founders understood that our built environment must evolve in service of that mission. As such, we recognize the need for additional and constructive dialogue as this project continues to evolve, and before any final decisions are made.
The Amp brings you in touch with a simpler time; a time when things moved a bit slower; a time before air conditioning and selfies. The deeply embedded character of a place like this can only be achieved through time and the contributions of many generations. It can’t be designed. Is it necessary to remove this treasure and all its history in order to exist and stay relevant in the modern world? Does advancement for the sake of advancement have to be forced at the cost of something that is already wonderful?
The simplistic idea that you can just remove the Amp and build a biggie-sized replica is absurd. The intentions of the Institution board may have been good, but they are misguided. Erasing the Amp and its history; pretending that a replica is the same thing as the original is an act that fundamentally misunderstands the attraction of authentic place and the wealth of heritage embodied by the original architecture of the Chautauqua Institution.
No one denies that the desired improvements would be good to have. Nice dressing rooms, more comfortable seats, less maintenance–these are all good things. But, if demolition of a national treasure is the cost to achieve these things, are you not ultimately at a net loss? Is it really necessary to have a state-of-the-art performance space in Chautauqua? Chautauqua should not be about being state-of-the-art. Chautauqua is unique for reasons beyond contemporary technology and convenience. Chautauqua can’t be replicated and should not be striving to make itself like everyplace else USA.
If you are eager to get involved in the campaign to save this amazing place you can connect with Save the Amp at their web page. You can also join the Save the Amp cause on their Facebook Page. I also urge you to add your name to the on line petition to help save this important piece of our heritage.
This is a building that must not and cannot be lost!