History is Valuable
Plans for demolition of the historic Chautauqua Amphitheater (the Amp) have been put on hold by the governing board of the Chautauqua Institution, but this does not mean that demolition has been cancelled.
The Institution planned to demolish the Amp this coming September to make way for a biggie sized replica. History cannot be replicated though. History needs to be earned over decades at the hands of many generations. Historic heritage is a valuable and fragile thing. When it is gone, it is gone forever. Over seven thousand people signed a petition to express this concept to the Institution and to demand that demolition plans be stopped.
The Amp has earned a lot of history in its more than 125 years of existence. What is this history worth? Is it worth sacrificing for a handful of contemporary bells and whistles packaged in the shiny new biggie sized replica? Tens of thousands visit Chautauqua each year to soak in the charms and revel in the history of this special place. I can say with confidence that they don’t come for state of the art performance venues rendered in faux-stalgic architecture.
Several years ago when my wife and I took a week long vacation at Chautauqua Institution, I visited the amphitheater one afternoon. It was empty except for a white haired , bright eyed senior citizen who was seated near the back row. About a half an hours later, when I returned he was just getting up from that same seat. “get a good rest?”, I said. “No”, he replied, “I was’t resting. I just quietly relived forty years of Chautauqua’s greatest guests. I can still hear them.”
Except from a speech by Chautauqua County Executive Joseph Gerace, August 6, 1977
Does Institution President Tom Becker understand that he is the steward of one of America’s most historic places? Is the importance of historic authenticity beyond comprehension to those in charge of this incredibly historic place? If Tom Becker and his board had their way, this summer would have been the last for this unique and charming old building. The demolition is on hold but do these people really understand what they have been planning to trade away? I don’t think they do.
My reading of the carefully parsed language and recent actions by Chautauqua President Thomas Becker and the Board suggest that demolition is still a very strong possibility and possibly the only option they are considering. This should be alarming to anyone who values the historic heritage of our country.
Senator Robert Kennedy at the Amp, probably in 1967
Nothing to see here folks, we got this.
The Institution says that they fully intended the Amp project to be a renovation, but ultimately realized they could not meet their goal of providing a state of the art theater without demolishing most of the old one. Working with Serena Sturm Architects, the Institution says they eventually came to the conclusion that a bigger more modern facility, built to current codes, was a better option than keeping a venue compromised by the constraints of saving a historic building and its hard-earned history. With this in mind the architects created a plan that looks a lot like the old theater, but without that pesky old stuff.
As long as it looks old its good, right? The actual old part is apparently not important.
From the Institution web site
The demolition would have likely gone through if it were not for those meddling kids, the Committee to Preserve the Historic Chautauqua Amphitheater (CPHCA). This group of concerned residents started a rabble rousing campaign to save the building. They enlisted the help of CJS architects and alerted the press along with regional and national preservation organizations to the impending demolition. As pressure built the Institution took a step back and put demolition on hold.
Since postponement of demolition back in January the Institution has announced formation of an advisory committee to:
“…specifically assist it in continuing to identify the Amphitheater’s significant character-defining qualities and offer recommendations to support the Institution’s intention for the Amphitheater project design to retain the historical vibrancy and significant character-defining qualities of the Amphitheater’s place and purpose.“
There is nothing in this statement about developing strategies for saving the actual building or actual history. There are lots of statements about identifying character defining qualities. Would one of those character defining qualities be its age?
The advisory committee will include:
“…Jay DiLorenzo, president of the Preservation League of New York State; Caleb Pifer, executive director of the Historical Society of Erie County; Ted Lownie, founding partner of HHL Architects; Peter Flynn, co-chair of the board of trustees of Preservation Buffalo Niagara; and Kathleen LaFrank and Julian Adams, coordinator of the National Register Unit and director of the Community Preservation Services Bureau, respectively, within the New York State Historic Preservation Office. The project’s lead architect, Marty Serena of Serena Sturm Architects, will also participate to assure direct communication and comprehension of the recommendations.”
This committee does not include anyone from CPHCA or their architects. The committee was formed because of the work of CPHCA but it does not included this group! Does that make any sense at all? Nor does the committee include anyone from the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the group that recently named the building as a National Treasure. The absence of these two groups, who are advocating to save the Amp, speaks volumes about the likely intent of Institution.
I spoke with National Trust spokesman Alicia Lueba. She noted that, National Trust President Stephanie Meeks, has written to Mr. Becker offering assistance and willingness to provide expertise and other resources to identify opportunities for rehabilitation rather than demolition. She says they have received no response since their last outreach dated March 6. I asked if the Trust would have agreed to be part of the advisory group if invited. They responded:
While we would have liked to be part of an Advisory Panel that was asked to look at alternatives to demolition, our current understanding is that the scope of the Advisory Panel is limited to reviewing the significant historic defining features of the Amphitheater, which may or may not be incorporated in to the replica building. This scope appears to fall short of what we anticipated as an open dialogue about the future of the Amphitheater. Nevertheless, we have complete confidence in our partners and professional colleagues who will be participating on the panel.
CPHCA and the National Trust are committed to saving the Amp, preserving the history of the building along with the building itself, as they are inseparable. Is this goal incompatible with the goal of the advisory committee?
CPHCA and the Institution did agree to meet at one point, about a month ago, to discuss the project. This meeting was abruptly called off by Mr. Becker after CPHCA released its own counter proposal, prepared by CJS Architects, showing several strategies for saving the building. Mr. Becker took offense at the public release of this alternate to demolition stating in his letter”:
Sadly, your surprising action, taken at the same time you were in active discussions with us on the date and details of the first meeting, reveals that you do not wish to seriously work with us in the manner articulated in these weeks of discussion. Therefore, I see no reason at this time to meet with you, and I have asked our communications firm to discontinue its work in setting up that meeting. We will continue to look at options and alternatives for the Amp and continue to engage with those who wish to be true partners and not grandstand for the public.
In the mean time Mr. Becker has carried his proposal to the press. In a recent four page special insert section of the Chautauqua Daily spring print edition, the Board and Mr. Becker published what can only be described as an extensive sales pitch for their demolition / replica concept. Paragraph after paragraph is filled with descriptions of the multiple times the venue has been modified over the years, subtly suggesting that it is not really historic at all. It states that what matters most: “Is simply this: the destination, the location —the place” Absent from this statement is the historic building, the artifact—the real history, you know, the stuff that makes the place a “place”.
The advertorial insert is also packed with side by side images of the existing Amp compared against the proposed replica Amp. The message is, “look how it will look the same as the crummy old building. There is no reason to make this kind of comparison other that to convince people that they are not losing their historical heritage. But, these kinds of comparisons are inherently deceptive. They do not adequately describe the change in size, in scale, the loss of historic material and detail, or the fact that this is not an incremental change as past renovations have been. Based on statements in the Institution’s web site, the advisory committee has been given no direction to develop a strategy to save the building. From the Institution’s web site:
“We have heard loud and clear Chautauquans’ desire for clarity about our decision-making, fairness in considering the ideas and opinions of others, and inclusiveness in a robust discussion about the Amphitheater and the Institution’s future,” Becker said. “With these next steps, we continue to demonstrate our commitment to these principles.”
They have also heard loud and clear from thousands of people who would like the Amp to be saved, but they make no mention of this as far as I could tell. You can read more from the Institution here. The plans for building a larger replica theater continue to be displayed on the Institution web site. To be fair, the Institution has met with CJS Architects to review the counter proposal presented by CPHCA. CJS Architect’s Dirk Schneider says the Institution was receptive to his concepts but was non-committal as far as promoting any one of them as a possibility for inclusion in plans going forward.
The Institution has begun calling the project “a renewal of our Amp”. This is perhaps at the behest of the public relations agent hired by the Institution for the project. Do you remember that last time we were sold on the word renewal? Back then it was paired with the word “urban”. Urban renewal was going to save and modernize our cities. How did that work out?