Chautauqua’s New Amp & George Revealed

Old Amp Top & New Amp Bottom – Photo Credit: From John Heffron’s Facebook Post

TO: Ladies and Gentleman of Chautauqua’s Board of Trustees/Tom Becker/The Chautauqua Foundation/All the Donors both large and small/Ciminelli Construction and all the Subcontractors/Fancher Furniture/ Et Al.

The 2017 season is upon us as Chautauqua has a new President, and the incredible New Amp is completed. I had the chance to walk around it two weekends ago and although I have followed all the construction progress and related pics since September, they just don’t do it justice compared to seeing it in person.

You deserve every Chautauquans heartfelt congratulations and appreciation on a job very well done. I’m sure that throughout the course of the season these acknowledgments will be forthcoming.

In the face of a withering storm of criticism from the Save the Amp committee and its followers, as well as one-sided negative publicity from the regional press, you stayed the course and have delivered a wonderful facility (just in time) that will meet the needs of all who assemble, work, and perform there for generations to come.

Vindication is yours, although I wouldn’t hold my breath for a mea culpa from the committee, as I can only imagine none is forth coming. But in that regard silence, as they say is golden.

News Flash

Well just when you thought it was safe to get back in the water the Chairman of the Save the Amp committee rears his ugly attitude yet again. Frankly I’m surprised that the Buffalo paper would give him the space to spout his misguided venom. Once again, right from the start he calls the old Amp a National Historic Landmark, which it is not. He seems to like misdirecting as he states the Chautauqua Platform was born in the Amp v. 2.0, and yet again he is off base. The Chautauqua platform was born in Miller Park, and moved to the ravine where the Amp sits today, with canvas strung from the trees to cover the assembly. The platform evolved in the first Amp that lasted only 14 years before they knocked that one down in 1892, completing the 2^nd Amp before the start of the 1893 assembly.

Assembly in Miller Park

As I previously wrote:

I won’t bore you with my Hallmark Amp moments, but seriously, it’s just a glorified tent. It has a better; canopy, tent poles and ground cloth than its predecessors, but she has long since outlived her day and is straining at her seams. A life span greatly extended by some tender loving care, numerous operations, and yes, even an organ transplant.

In 1965 New York City passed their Landmark’s Law and the following year the the National Historic Landmark Act was passed. If the Amp had been a National Historic Landmark Chautauqua would have had to go through the lengthy and expensive process of rehabbing the Amp, as opposed to RENEWING it. Thank goodness Chautauqua’s leadership knew the D-E-M-O would happen one day in the future and did not declare the Amp a National Historic Landmark when they took $300,000 from the Feds when they poured $2 Million into the Amp from 1979-82’ as Chautauqua kicked off the 2^nd Century Campaign.

Tremendous foresight indeed!

My best regards,

George Seaver ~ or the Chautauquan previously known as Jeff Holroyd

 When I started this blog site anonymously as George T. Seaver I had to figure out a pen name. My Chautauqua Grandfather was named George and my son is Thomas so I decided to start there. Then it struck me that George Thomas was the first and middle name of my boyhood hero George Thomas Seaver a.k.a Tom Seaver (Tom Terrific & The Franchise), the Hall of Fame Pitcher who played most of his career with my favorite team, the New York Mets. So that’s how all of this started!

 

Chautauqua’s Governance – An Open & Shut Case

 

 

 

 

 

 

Past Chautauqua Presidents Dr. Arthur Bestor (L) & Dr. Samuel Hazlett (R)

As we turn the page on the Save the Amp campaign, the next chapter opens with  opposing thoughts on the governing of Chautauqua. There’s a new committee, The Chautauqua Community for Open Governance (hereafter the Open committee), and these folks seem downright congenial by comparison. At long last, civil discourse on a topic without all the vitriol and drama. But I digress. The subject du jour is Open Governance.

To more thoroughly understand all the issues of Chautauqua’s governance debate, let’s begin at the beginning and have a closer look (by relevant excerpts) at the following documents that outline Governance in; Chautauqua, New York State (NYS), and Open Governance in the not-for-profit sector in particular:

• Chautauqua Institution Charter & Revised By Laws
• NYS Open Government (a.k.a. The Sunshine Laws ) Guide
  
• NYS Case Law Rulings (Chautauqua’s Challenge to the Sunshine Laws)
  
• NYS Guidance Doc for Not-for-Profit Boards
• Published not-for-profit Open Governance articles from one of the foremost authorities on the subject.

*Links to the complete documents can be found at the end.

 

 

 

 

 

Past Chautauqua Presidents – Judge Walter Braham (L) & George (Shorty) Follansbee

Excerpts from Chautauqua Institution Charter of 1902:

“The purpose and object of said corporation shall be to promote the intellectual, social, physical, moral and religious welfare of the people…members of the (Corporation) shall be…All persons being the owners by deed or being lessees of one or more lots or sections of a lot…membership of the Board of Trustees shall consist of 24 trustees, 20 of which shall be elected by the trustees and 4 of which shall be elected by the Corporation…trustees may by vote of two-thirds of their entire number alter or repeal the by-laws or enact new ones…the committee known as the executive board of the trustees may enact any rule consistent with law and the by-laws for the management of the business or property of the corporation”

Excerpts from Chautauqua’s By Laws – Revised and Adopted November 7, 2015:

“The purpose of the Board of Trustees is to support the mission of Chautauqua Institution…(and) exercise the government and control of Chautauqua Institution…The Corporation’s officers shall perform such duties as from time to time may be assigned by the Board of Trustees…The President shall be the chief executive officer of the Corporation and, subject to the direction of the Board of Trustees, shall execute the policies adopted by the Board of Trustees and in general supervise and direct all of the business and affairs of the Corporation.”

Excerpts from the Open Government Guide – Open Records and Meetings Laws in New York Sixth Edition 2011, Published to give guidance on the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) & Open Meetings Law (OML), a.k.a The Sunshine Laws:

“In 1976, New York enacted an Open Meetings Law (“OML”). The enactment opened with a legislative declaration of purpose as follows:

It is essential to the maintenance of a democratic society that the public business be performed in an open and public manner and that the citizens of this state be fully aware of and able to observe the performance of public officials and attend and listen to the deliberations and decisions that go into the making of public policy. The people must be able to remain informed if they are to retain control over those who are their public servants.”

The defining  factors here are “public business”, “public officials”, “public policy” and “public servants”. Chautauqua Institution is a private 501 (c) (3) not-for-profit Corporation and you will see below in the applicable case law rulings why Chautauqua does not, and should not fall under these definitions and their accompanying restrictions. The Board supports the mission and governs the Corporation that is Chautauqua Institution. Chautauqua’s administration, directs the business affairs of the Institution.

Sunshine Case Law Rulings: The oft mentioned challenge to the Sunshine Laws by Chautauqua Institution occurred in 2011 and the Institution prevailed in court as they should have. The court ruled: Rowe v. Town of Chautauqua, (4th Dept, May 6, 2011) The Chautauqua Institution has no power to act on the State’s behalf, thus it is not a public body and not subject to OML. Therefore, the information sought was not subject to FOIL, nor were the Open Meeting Law’s requirements enforceable. In another case ruling that is applicable re: Board. of Educ. of City Sch. Dist. of Buffalo. Although a not-for-profit corporation may fall within FOIL’s definition of a “state agency” if its purpose is governmental and it has the attributes of a “public entity,” the record established that respondent did not have those attributes, as its budget was not governmentally approved, it had a self-elected board, and it did not have its offices in a state-owned building.

Chautauqua’s Board of Trustees have no authority to act on the state’s behalf, its budget is not state approved, it has a self elected board, and owns its own offices. The Sunshine Laws were enacted to allow for full disclosure of state and local governance to inform the public and prevent/react to political abuse among elected/appointed public officials, public servants, and public bodies that serve their communities. The Sunshine Laws do not apply, as Chautauqua does not meet the aforementioned attributes. It is important to note the fundamental difference that unlike a State or local governmental body elected and paid by the public they serve. Chautauqua Institution was formed by its founders, and the public body (the Assembly) followed.

NYS Not-for-Profit Board Guidance Doc – In order to clearly define the responsibilities of Not-for-Profit Boards in NYS the Attorney General publishes a guidance document that outlines the primary legal duties of Care, Loyalty, & Obedience:

Excerpts from RIGHT FROM THE START: RESPONSIBILITIES of DIRECTORS of N0T-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATIONS, Guidance Document 2015 – 6, V. 1.0 – Issue date: May 15, 2015

“Whatever their mission or size, all organizations should have policies and procedures established so that (1) members of their boards understand their fiduciary responsibilities, (2) assets are managed properly and (3) the charitable purposes are carried out.”

“While the board is not usually involved in the day-to-day activities of the organization, it is responsible for managing the organization and must make decisions crucial to the life and direction of the organization…members of a board of directors must fulfill fiduciary duties to the organization and the public it serves. Those primary legal duties are commonly referred to as the duties of care, loyalty and obedience.”

Duty of Care – “The duty of care requires a director to be familiar with the organization’s finances and activities and to participate regularly in its governance. In carrying out this duty, directors must act in “good faith” using the “degree of diligence, care and skill” which prudent people would use in similar positions and under similar circumstances.”

Duty of Loyalty – “Directors are charged with the duty to act in the interest of the corporation. This duty of loyalty requires that any conflict of interest, real or possible, be disclosed in advance of joining a board and when they arise.”

Duty of Obedience – “A board has a duty of obedience to ensure that the organization complies with applicable laws and regulations, its mission and its internal governance documents and policies.”

The Board is also responsible for:

• Monitoring the Fundraising Conducted on Behalf of the Organization
• Assuring the Organization Makes Use of All Available Resources

Open Governance in the Not-For-Profit Sector

Graphic courtesy of Community-Engagement Governance™: Systems-Wide Governance in Action, Non Profit Quarterly March 2011 *Link to article at end.

Now that we understand the ground-rules under which Chautauqua’s Board has to operate, lets have a closer look at the concept of Open Governance within the not-for-profit sector, and how it applies to best practices for Chautauqua.

First we review the Open committee’s latest missive on the topic.  Chautauqua: A Beacon of Light, March 2016 states that Chautauqua’s rules of governance are outdated and the Amp project decision making process failed our community. They suggest that had the process been open and transparent that a community consensus would have been achieved and the divisions that roiled Chautauqua could have been avoided. They state that important decisions should not be made by 24 Trustees behind closed doors, and call for open Board meetings along with having all the members of the Chautauqua Corporation vote on major decisions, including Trustee appointments. They go on to suggest that Chautauqua should not be compared to other 501 (c) (3) organizations that are exempt from the Sunshine Laws because it is unique in the fact that there are so many individual property owners who are impacted by the Boards decisions. These are primary among a host of other points they put forward.

First let me take issue with their statement that if the Amp process had been open and transparent from the beginning that community consensus would have been achieved and the divisions avoided. That begs the question as to whether you believe that Chautauqua started the Amp process attempting to keep the central portion of the ceiling and roof, thus potentially qualifying as a rehab. For the sake of argument let’s proceed from that premise, because it’s what I believe happened. When admonishing me for planned events taking a wrong turn, my Chautauqua Grandma used to say “the road to hell is paved with good intentions”. I believe Chautauqua intended to keep the central portion of the ceiling and roof but as the planning and bidding process unfolded it became painfully clear that it was not possible to do so for a variety of reasons. The inevitable choice was made to build a new Amp. So, save the Massey Organ, the complete demolition of the Amp, whether disclosed in open forums from Day 1, or two years later, was going to be attacked by the very same group of people who rose up against it, no matter the timing of the disclosure. Frankly in hindsight, it could be argued that the divisions could have been wider, deeper, and lasted longer, as the zealousness demonstrated by the Save committee and their followers proved nothing less than a rehab would have been acceptable.

Past Chairman of the Board Bill Clinger & Judy Clinger

The origins of the relatively new open governance movement in not-for-profit organizations has been an attempt to make sure Boards didn’t become too inwardly focused and isolated from the stakeholders, constituents, and communities they serve, and ultimately lose accountability. Dr Judy Friewirth, Psy.D. addresses this in her article Transforming the Work of the Board: Moving Toward Community-Driven Governance – Thursday, December 15, 2005 – Nonprofit Boards and Governance Review™

“I would argue that engaging constituents, stakeholders, and the community in both meaningful discussions and active participation is a significant component of governing; in fact, boards cannot be truly accountable to the community unless active engagement is part of their basic responsibilities as a board…In a community-driven governance model, the traditional closed boundary around the board opens so that direct information and dialogue between the board, constituents, and an organization’s staff are more fluid and ongoing. Additionally, constituents are full members of the board, not just as token representatives,”

Chautauqua’s Board is entirely made up of its primary stakeholders and constituents and has been since the beginning. 19 of 24 Trusteess own  homes within the grounds. The balance rent for extended periods during the season. They are firmly rooted in Chautauqua, and most of their families have been for generations. They serve on the Board without the commensurate compensation  of a public sector Board seat because of a deep love for Chautauqua and for the chance to give something back by positively influencing the governing of Chautauqua.

Dr. Friewirth continues:

“In reality, who is better equipped to understand constituent needs and challenges and determine organizational responses to them: an expert or professional from outside the community, or someone who has a personal stake in the quality of services and/or direction of the organization?  Shouldn’t “lived experience” be considered a valuable asset for boards?

From L-R Past Chautauqua President Dan Bratton & Board Chairs Howard Gibbs & David Faust

The Trustees are, beyond question, involved members of the community they serve with a personal stake in the quality of services Chautauqua provides. Every decision they make in Board meetings affects them directly. From real estate values and the cost of gate tickets to the impact of other rules, regulations and policies implemented. How many of the following not-for-profit organizations with the scope and reach of Chautauqua have all of their Board members as constituents? How many national arts organizations have their Board members in attendance at the majority of their events? How many colleges/universities have their Board members on campus and active in their community? How many charitable organizations serving the disadvantaged have any constituents as Board members? The answer to all these questions is very, very few. The obvious exception is local churches whose parishioners make up a majority of their Boards.

Chautauqua is unique in that area as they’ve been practicing Open Governance since long before it became fashionable. Chautauqua’s Board is comprised entirely of Chautauquans…period! Four of the Trustees have been voted on by the Corporation since the turn of the 20th century. As David Starr wrote in his Chautauqua Challenge during Chautauqua’s darkest days between the 1933-34′ seasons:

“Remember the purpose for which the Chautauqua was organized: Keep within the landmarks. Put none but true Chautauquans on your Board of Trustees. Men and Women who believe in and love it…Big sounding names will not fill the bill…The Trustees are your representatives.”

As Mr. Starr puts it, “big sounding names will not fill the bill.”It’s not as if the Board is littered with outside experts or influential people who barely come to Chautauqua and whose primary purpose would be to increase fundraising. They do not rule on high from ivory towers. They are your friends, neighbors, and casual acquaintances passed on the brick walk. Your kids/grand kids are likely to be at Club with theirs. On any given day they could be playing tennis on the court next to you, or be in the foursome in front of you on the Lake course.

Chairman of the Board Howard Gibbs explained how the Board makes decisions in an interview with Daily Editor Alfreda Irwin during the 1979 CSO debate.  At that time Chautauqua’s leadership was under fire and being questioned, and open forums were held as many Chautauquans asked for a more open decision making process. I posted about this in great detail here: https://driftoftheday.wordpress.com/the-chautauqua-of-the-future-a-look-back-at-the-1979-cso-debate/

“An area in which we continue to grow is openness on the part of the Board… I am personally committed to an open policy, where the Board is responsive to expressed needs and functions through a committee system. The Board committees can and do include some members who are not Trustees…by the State charter, the Chautauqua Board of Trustees bears the accountability for the way Chautauqua functions. We can’t delegate that to anyone. Decisions can’t be made by referendum,..but neither can decisions be made in isolation or in a vacuum.”   ~ July.19, 1979 Chautauquan Daily

Past Chautauqua Board Chair Howard Gibbs (L) & President Dr. Hesse (R) Circa 1979

 Now let’s have a closer look at the topic of open board meetings as suggested by the Open Committee. As Howard Gibbs said decisions of the Board can’t be delegated or made by referendum and the Board’s committees still do include those qualified Chautauquans who are not Trustees. The open forums in 1979 and subsequent years, including last seasons were necessary to inform the Assembly and for the Board to gain feedback from the community, in addition to that received through informal channels. Can more be done in the future to engage the rest of the community? Of course it can, and one would certainly think Chautauqua’s leadership learned a valuable lesson from all of this as they have stated that increased openness  will be practiced going forward as the Assembly is further informed and engaged.

Now onto the bigger questions and my humble opinion on that. Should Board meetings be open to the public, and taking it to the logical extreme, important decisions, and Trustees appointments, voted on by members of the Corporation? In a few words, absolutely not, wouldn’t be prudent. Boardroom confidentiality is critical if a Board is to create and maintain an atmosphere in which full and frank discussions can thrive, and consensus can ultimately be reached. Public disclosure of deliberations may hinder the free exchange of ideas and rigorous discussion within the boardroom that is fundamental to the decision making process. Losing the cloak of confidentiality is particularly problematic if Trustees worry that their opinions could be disclosed to outside parties. The primary case in point is the malicious and mean spirited attacks on Tom Becker by the Save committee’s mouthpiece.  Since the Board meetings were private, Tom was the public lightning rod out in front of the Board, who were characterized by the mouthpiece on social media as “goose stepping nazis” among many other less than civil descriptions put forth.  I surely hope that behavior was the ill conceived exception to the rule as we all move forward as a community. A more realistic scenario that could occur with open meetings is Trustees getting lobbied for their votes on a particular topic by well intentioned, but overly involved members of the Assembly. They deserve the protection of confidentiality to do their jobs as dedicated stewards of Chautauqua, and avoid the possibility of any sort of interference. Yes, by all means shed some more light onto the decision making process by informing and further engaging the Assembly in general, but keep the Boardroom doors shut.

To paraphrase from Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, Government of Chautauqua, by Chautauquans, for Chautauqua. All things considered, an illuminating example of not-for-profit Open Governance, that has been ahead of its time from the start.

First & Current Chautauqua Presidents Lewis Miller (L) & Tom Becker (R) – Photo Courtesy of Kreable Young/The Chautauquan Daily

All other photos courtesy of the Chautauqua Institution Archives

Below in green you will find links to the referenced documents/articles quoted above that will be opened in a separate tab:

Chautauqua’s Charter of 1902     Chautauqua’s Charter of 1902

Chautauqua Institution By Laws – Revised and Adopted November 7, 2015     Chautauqua Institution By Laws

Open Government Guide – Open Records and Meetings Laws in New York – Sixth Edition 2011 – Prepared by: Michael J. Grygiel, Esq.     NY Open Govt Guide

Right From the Start: Responsibilities of Directors of Not-For-Profit Corporations – Guidance Document 2015 – 6, V. 1.0 – Issue date: May 15, 2015 Submitted by Eric T. Schneiderman – NYS  Attorney General      NYS Responsibilities of Not for profit boards

Transforming the Work of the Board: Moving Toward Community-Driven Governance – Part 1 – Thursday, December 15, 2005 – Judy Freiwirth, Psy.D., © Nonprofit Boards and Governance Review ™     Community-Driven Governance Nonprofit Governance Review

Community-Engagement Governance: Systems-Wide Governance in Action by Judy Freiwirth, Psy. D.,  Non Profit Quarterly Spring 2011     Community Engagement Gov NPQ Freiwirth

2014 Director Compensation Report – October 2014 – Frederick W. Cook & Co., Inc.       The 2014 Director Compensation Report

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chautauqua’s Amphitheater Redux v. 3.0

Proposed New Amp (L)  & Current Amp (R)

Please Note: As the legal hurdle is cleared and the New Amp project gets back on track, I wanted to offer another look at my first post of almost a year ago, as I came out in favor of Chautauqua’s decision to build a New Amp. And a year later, I’d barely change a thing…so I haven’t.

First by way of introduction I am a 4^th Generation Chautauquan and I have been responsible for over $100 Million in Commercial Construction Projects. Among those was a year spent working on a National Historic Landmark Building that qualified for National Historic Tax Credits and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. I consulted on three other development projects that looked into Historic Designation and Tax Credits and one of those was in Chautauqua. So that being said, in my humble opinion I find myself at least somewhat qualified to toss my four cents worth in on this. Not the usual two cents, but four, as I have a lot to share with you.

“If history were taught in the form of stories, it would never be forgotten.” – Rudyard Kipling

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away…board members were evaluating the earning potential of their old arena versus building a new one. They decided it was time to replace the old arena with a modern, more flexible facility that could handle greater crowds, provide more unobstructed views, and usher in a glitzy new look to attract new audiences. The negotiations proceeded quietly, with little hint that the demise of this Landmark was being contemplated. When the plans were finally made public, and people realized they called for the demolition of the Landmark, the reaction was quick and loud. Now alerted, architects, artists, non-profit groups and concerned citizens were outraged at the prospected demise of such a significant and historic structure and almost uniformly called for the Landmark to be preserved.  Proposing instead that a study should be made with a view to preserving those qualities for which the Landmark is justly famous.

A group banded together to support and promote the cause to preserve this Landmark. As hoped, they captured the media spotlight. Its members gave interviews to reporters, and succeeded in portraying themselves as determined and civic-minded. Predictably, editorials condemning the demolition  and appealing for its preservation appeared frequently in the press. Perhaps, more importantly, they drew the attention of thousands, who were finally induced to take a long, hard look at the Landmark slated for demolition.

I trust this all sounds very familiar? Yes indeed it should. The group that banded together to save the Landmark was named The Committee to Save the Historic Amp…no…not just yet. They took the name AGBANY (Action Group for Better Architecture in New York). The Landmark they were trying to save was New York’s Penn Station, and the year was 1962. Like I said, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. All the text above was taken almost word for word from various publications about AGBANY’s effort to save Penn Station. I changed Madison Square Garden to “arena” and Penn Station to ” Landmark”.

Penn Station was demolished to make way for the 4th Generation Madison Square Garden and the Penn Plaza office complex. AGBANY wrote the original playbook for Historic Preservation and I have no doubt that the save the amp group (hereafter the committee) fancies themselves as walking in their footsteps. Eleanor Roosevelt, Phillip Johnson, et al. they are not, and the Amp is certainly no Penn Station either.

Penn Station Interior

Some have commented that the proposed rebuilding of the Amphitheater is Chautauqua’s Penn Station moment. On the surface and certainly in the press they could seem similar. But if you dig a little deeper the whole metaphor literally collapses. The Amp isn’t Penn Station, metaphorically, structurally, or architecturally. Penn Station met the wrecking ball because the Pennsylvania Railroad was awash in more than a decade of red ink and couldn’t afford to even clean the station, let alone repair and maintain it. It was, plain and simple, a business deal. They optioned the air rights over the terminal in the late 1950’s. The developers of Madison Square Garden and Penn Plaza got the largest build-able site in Manhattan with a built in transit hub and the Pennsylvania Railroad received $2.1 Million/year in rent, a 25% stake in the new Madison Square Garden Corporation, and a “brand new air conditioned” station below ground thus reducing there operating expenses by over $600K annually. An offer, that under the existing circumstances, they simply couldn’t refuse. Penn Station was an architectural masterpiece, designed and built for the ages. But if the terminal building was the soul of the project, its heart was the ambitious, massive infrastructure engineering effort whose tunnels knitted together the entire Eastern Seaboard, that still survives to this day. Please see my Penn Station page for more on its Rise, Fall, and pending Reincarnation and cited sources.

Demolition of Penn Station

Paul Goldberger who recently weighed in on preserving the Amp called Penn Station, “the great martyr of historic preservation, the building that died so that we might save others in the future.” in the PBS Documentary, The Rise and Fall of Penn Station. In 1965 New York City passed their Landmark’s Law and the following year the the National Historic Landmark Act was passed. Within the next few years; the Landmarks Preservation Commission declared Grand Central Terminal an Historic Landmark, and then the financially struggling New York Central Railroad announced plans to knock down Grand Central and build a 55 story skyscraper. The ensuing court battle went all the way to the Supreme Court which ruled in 1978 that the historic designation was not an undue infringement. Penn Station had died so that Grand Central could be saved.

Back of the New Amp (L) & Current Amp (R)

Now lets jump off the Penn Station tracks landing directly on Chautauqua’s third rail, the proposed rebuilding of the Amp. I have some questions for the committee. What exactly is it that you are trying to preserve? Have you really thought this all the way through to its most logical conclusion? The Amphitheater by its original function is a third generation tent. Oh my God, did I just say that out loud…uh yeah…yes I did. Somebody needed to. Paul Goldberger already brought it up in a recent PreservationNation Blog post, but in much grander terms than I’m about to use. And yes I know, it’s “Our Amp”, the Amp we all grew up in. And our parents and grandparents before us. I won’t bore you with my Hallmark Amp moments, but seriously, its just a glorified tent. It has a better; canopy, tent poles and ground cloth than its predecessors, but she has long since outlived her day and is straining at her seams. A life span greatly extended by some tender loving care, numerous operations, and yes, even an organ transplant.

 

Installation of the Massey Organ 1907 

Many of us have been following, with varying degrees of curiosity, disbelief, and disappointment, the percolating campaign to save the Amp. So which pieces and parts are you trying to save? The 3rd roof, the 5th stage, the 4th backstage, and all the benches that have already been replicated? Maybe its the unsightly appendage that is the bleachers. This beloved old building, has been elevated to masterpiece status and national significance by a campaign to save its insignificant architecture, nay historic fabric, that includes a generic bead-board ceiling, bridge style trusses, a deteriorated roof structure with an unfinished attic and a functionally obsolete back stage area. And its so far out of building and ADA code compliance, I’m surprised they can even insure it.

Current Amp Attic (L) & Benches Being Replaced (R)

Those who so vocally oppose the rebuilding of the Amp seem to be operating with tunnel vision and a deaf ear in their resistance to positive change. What is conspicuously missing from the orchestrated hype that has replaced the rational debate, nay discourse, they claim to want is a real desire to understand the dirty laundry list of problems with the existing facility and the proposed plans for the building’s rebirth before going off on “the process” because you vehemently disagree with the obvious conclusion. The proposed solution is ultimately correct, even if you don’t like the way they showed their work. For those fixated on saving the existing roof and bead-board ceiling, that is simply not the best answer. In fact it makes very little sense at all. Do you take your preservation in layers? Perhaps a patchwork time capsule quilt approach, weaving together the old, the really old, and the new. But lets not kid ourselves, that quilt is only as strong as its weakest “historic fabric”. Do you really want your kids, grand kids or grandparents walking around under a couple of tons of audio visual equipment suspended from steel beams that were first riveted and welded over 120 Chautauqua winters ago. The preservationists in their religious zeal keep whining about the “Historic Integrity” of the old girl. I for one, am more worried about her Structural Integrity.

Our Metaphorical Kids, Grand-kids (L) & Grandparents (R)

Oh yeah, about that roof you want to save. Let’s have another look at that while we’re here. Below you will find three pictures from the last roof replacement in 1980. Do you really think those battens, rafters, and joists magically got stronger, straighter, and less cracked since these shots were taken over 30 years, tons of snow, and hundreds of freeze and thaw cycles later? The only color picture below was taken just three winters after the roof was replaced and structural supports were added to the tune of over $700,000. They had to bring a crane in to help support the roof, while they shoveled the snow and ice off of her. There is a time and a place for Historic Preservation/Rehabilitation. This time, this Amp, with these building materials and an almost complete lack of architectural significance, are, like it or not, just not it. Penn Station was designed by the most accomplished architects of their time, and built with materials that were intended to last for ages. This Amp, most certainly was not. Its predecessor lasted just 14 years and Chautauqua President Lewis Miller could hardly wait to knock that one down and start over in 1892.

Some of those writing the heartfelt pieces that have recently appeared in the regional press seem to have abandoned the idea of a balanced point of view that the first couple articles tried to present. So as you have already seen I’m going to rebut on the other side of this Amp debate. I would think that as Chautauquans we all share a similar set of values and corresponding rules of engagement.  Unfortunately this self aggrandizing campaign to save the Amp quickly escalated into a win-at-any-cost-and-by-any-means vendetta in the name of “historic preservation.” Thankfully some of that negative energy has been channeled elsewhere, presumably scrap-booking. A few of you are acting as though this decision was made in the back room of dimly lit bar, over a few too many drinks, and the plans were drawn up on the back of a napkin. A lot of thought, time, energy and resources have been put into this by and for people who have a lot more invested in Chautauqua than most of us. The Board of Trustees, the Administration, the Foundation, the Amp Committee, and all those who have thus far worked on this incredibly ambitious New Amp project have done their due diligence and have come to the only conclusion that makes any sense given the existing conditions and circumstances. And yes the timing of the reveal of the big “D” (ssshhh D-E-M-O) word was surely procrastinated, but who among us really wanted to deliver that news. They shoot messengers don’t they!  There is enough irresponsibility and ambiguity to go around. It’s out there now, and as they say, it is what it is.

Interior View New Amp (L) & Current Amp (R)

The most basic and determining question is not being asked at all. What will be lost, and what will be gained? The proposed New Amp that is being rejected out of hand by the committee, is a very good solution, that will completely replace a facility of debatable architectural, structural, and functional merit with a wonderful new building that will meet the needs of generations of Chautauquans for years to come. Any and all virtues it may possess seem to be irrelevant for those who oppose it, since the facts would only spoil a good fight. This is not a zero-sum game. We do not lose the Amphitheater. It’s not going underground like Penn Station. Everything that is good about it will be retained in the New Amphitheater. We keep; its size, its scale, and its intimate and open relationship to its surroundings. Aesthetically it will look and feel very much the same, inside and out, while functionally it will be far superior. The decision was made to change very little about its iconic form and presence except for the back stage areas. And none can argue that there is where the much needed and most important changes will take place. Especially for those who work behind the scenes and above the stage putting the programs together. All things considered, it is painfully obvious that this is a “win win” situation for Chautauqua.

And by the way, how many of you have even noticed that the New Amp’s back patio and upper level porch look a lot more like the original 1893 version and the 1908 (post Massey Organ) version (below R), than the current appended model. Please click to see my 3rd Generation vs 2nd Generation comparison page for more information and pictures.

Back of the New Amp (L) & 1908 Amp (R)

It all started in 1874 in the Auditorium, a rudimentary platform in Miller Park surrounded by benches. Rainy day activities were held in the Tabernacle on the Hill, a tent that was located in what is now Bestor Plaza. A couple of summers later it was on to the Pavilion, a platform under a canvas covering spread across the ravine where the Amp sits today, followed by the first Amp built in 1879 and its successor finished in 1893, and remodeled numerous times since. The Assembly gathered on a daily basis to hear the speakers, preachers, and entertainers from morning into the evening. The sum total of the entire program offered to the Assembly was referred to as the “Platform”. Today we call it the Program. Please see my Amp History page for a more detailed description, timeline and pictures.

Platform and Benches (L) & Assembly on Benches in Miller Park (R)

Make no mistake about this. The beating heart of Chautauqua, was then, is now, and always will be, the Program. The Amp is not the destination as has been suggested by one of the committee members. Chautauqua is the destination because of the Program put on each and every summer and the Amp is the iconic venue for many of the events. But the facilities that support the program, the heart of Chautauqua, are spread throughout the grounds. Since the very beginning the facilities have evolved over time. Changing in form to adapt to the function and the programmatic elements required as the program(s) evolved and the Assembly grew. Without the Program there would be no Amp, and Chautauqua, if it even existed, would just be another summer community situated on a really nice lake.

Don’t let those who so vocally oppose the New Amphitheater derail/delay this incredible, much needed, and already funded building project. We should all be celebrating this, not allowing an overly zealous minority to vilify it. Just as the 1893 Amp was a vast improvement on the 1879 version, this New Amp is another quantum leap forward for Chautauqua. The preservationists keep harping about the historic integrity of the Amp. Chautauqua does not vacate its history by rebuilding the Amp. It honors it by preserving and more prominently displaying the Massey Organ, and adaptively reusing the Memorial Bricks and Plaques and removing the bleachers. The New Amp will function much better in supporting the Program and ensures an even brighter future. It’s all about what happened; on a platform in Miller Park, in a tent on a hill, under a canvas stretched across a ravine, and in the two subsequent wooden structures. All of the people that graced those platforms and the generations of Chautauquans who attended the events, that happened in those times, and in those spaces, are what matters. Chautauqua does not interrupt and/or lose its history by changing the physical structure where it occurs. Did the New York Yankees lose their 26 World Series Championships and all those Hall of Fame players when they moved out of The House that Ruth Built and into a brand new Yankee Stadium, knocking the old one down? No they didn’t, and as Hall of Fame Yankee Manager Casey Stengel was fond of saying “You could look it up”.

1879 Amp (L) & 1893 Amp (R)

Even longer ago, but a lot closer to home…Chautauqua finds itself in a similar situation today, as between the 1891 & 1892 Seasons. The Amphitheatre (old school spelling), despite just being 14 seasons old is already showing signs of age and its clear that it can’t keep pace with the growth of Rogers Band, other performances, and the growing Assembly in general. The flat roof is leaking and causes a deafening noise during rain storms and there is ongoing concern about the winter snow loads. The numerous columns cause many seats to have obstructed views while the oil lamps are a fire hazard. Shortly after the opening of the Assembly in August 1892 and with Chautauqua on firm financial footing, the Board of Trustees voted to build a new Amphitheatre. This was reported by Chautauqua Assembly Daily Herald Editor Dr. Flood in his front page editorial August 2nd 1892.

“The report of the meeting of the Chautauqua Assembly Board of Trustees… contains some of the most gratifying news it has been our pleasure to record. The Board has adopted plans and ordered the construction of a new Amphitheatre, with largely increased seating capacity, a new choir gallery, and a generous supply of offices and retiring rooms. An able committee has been appointed to superintend the work… The Amphitheatre has served its purpose well, but it has outlived its day, and while it will be parted with regretfully, its successor will be welcomed most gratefully.”

And as they say, the rest is history…

“It is the soothing thing about history, that it does repeat itself.” – Gertrude Stein

 

Notes and Cited Sources:

All the Pictures above are from the Chautauqua Institution Archives and Amp project websites.

Click here to go to my Penn Station page for the rest of the story on its Rise, Fall & Pending Reincarnation and cited sources.

The Amp History and 3rd Generation vs 2nd Generation Comparison pages are linked here.

A few of the phrases and words above are respectfully borrowed and adaptively reused from Ada Lousie Huxtable’s Wall Street Journal article The Best Way to Preserve 2 Columbus Circle? A Makeover. See my 2 Columbus Circle – Preservation vs. Makeover page for a brief history and a copy of her article.

Chautauqua’s Silent Majority

 

Chautauqua’s Renewed Amphitheater – Circa 2017

Who are they and what do they really want? With this post I take a closer look at this under-defined, difficult to count, yet vitally important constituency. If this Amp debate had been an open election (thankfully it wasn’t), a lot of time and effort would have been put into getting these Chautauquans on one side of this Amp fence or the other. But the vote of the Board is in and now, hopefully we all move forward together to a Renewed Amp, without the acrimonious and contentious discourse that has defined way too much of this process.

I have received some criticism on posting this blog, and the associated emails anonymously, all Twigs considered. The conspiracy theorists have receded into the ravines, and most now believe, and rightly so, that these are just the musings of someone who cares very much for Chautauqua and has used this platform to offer an opinion opposing those who have attacked Chautauqua’s leadership in their decision to renew the Amp. Whether you want to RENEW or SAVE the Amp we all share a deep love of this place, the people, the shared experiences, and a very unique sense of community.  I have no doubt that Chautauqua has been the single most influential and defining factor in the ongoing evolution of my life. One of the pleasant little surprises of doing this under a pen name has been that I have received hundreds of emails from people, and I quote/paraphrase, thanking me for speaking up on behalf of the “silent majority”. For the purposes of this post I am going to dig a little deeper into my side of that Amp fence to explain why I feel that most Chautauquans support the Administration and the Board’s final decision to RENEW our Amphitheater.

Once people started accepting my posts for what I wrote, not who I was (or wasn’t), something interesting started to happen. With each new post (topic) I struck a chord with certain people, and they in turn shared some thoughts with me on that topic, and the Amp Renewal project as a whole. In some cases things they may not have brought up during a porch party with family, friends, and neighbors. This divisive topic has caused lines to be drawn, and allegiances to be questioned throughout the grounds, as families and friends landed on both sides of the Amp fence. An old Chautauqua friend emailed me about just such an encounter. She was enjoying the pre-season quiet last June with an after dinner glass of wine on her porch with one of her oldest friends. The topic of the Amp came up and the conversation devolved quickly, as they realized they had opposing points of view. Emotions ran higher, and a bit of an argument ensued, which quickly dissolved into tears, and they had to part company.

My anonymity allowed people to speak out, vent a little, argue, or just offer an opinion better left unsaid in certain company. For every email worried about Grandma’s favorite bench, I received as many on the new ergonomically improved benches and better sight lines with less columns, and lauding the program flexibility with an orchestra pit and lift. For all those lamenting the loss of the bleachers even more were worried about fate of the 3rd edition of Peter’s (not Perry’s) Bridge. For those concerned about her historical integrity, I received as many on the failing structural integrity of the old girl. When it came to reciting all the famous people who have graced the various stages, there was the corresponding chorus of concern for the safety, convenience, and accessibility issues, for all who perform, speak, work, and assemble there. And yes, I received many, both pro and con, asking my opinion of the transformation/timing of the project, from rehab to renewal.

Peter’s Bridge Redux – Circa 1980

From the bulk of emails specifically thanking me, I believe that the most significant part of the Silent Majority of Chautauquans are in favor of a renewed Amp.  They support this decision quietly because, despite the emotional attachment to the current structure, it’s the right thing to do, and the best possible solution given the existing conditions and circumstances. I took the time to look into the numbers as thoroughly as possible. And as I previously wrote, numbers don’t lie, but they can be made to say almost anything. So here’s my interpretation and opinion.

Over 100,000 people came through the gates last season. The Save group recently crossed over 2,900 signatures (including additional comments double counted from previous signatories) on their petition.  So despite over a years worth of voluminous and one sided regional press coverage that usually mentioned the petition and sometimes included a link to the Save site, less than three (3%) percent of last summers Assembly signed on. And don’t even think about bringing up the other petition by the National Trust that gets them to that oft quoted “more than 10,000 signed” number, as the vast majority of those signatories have never set foot on the grounds. I took the time to visit the Save site and read every one of the 2,902 signatures and associated comments on their petition. I also read all of the136 emails from their Chautauqua Board of Trustees campaign. What is conspicuously absent from their lists is the Silent Majority. By that I mean the vast majority of Chautauquans who have decided to remain quietly sitting on their keyboards, not wanting to publicly weigh in, for a wide variety of reasons. I don’t claim them by proxy, but I do I believe that the most critical portion of the Silent Majority are sitting on the RENEW side of the fence.

Amp Fence from Southern Perimeter – Circa 2017

In studying the 3,038 signatures and emails (with extremely heavy overlap as expected) and comments on both of the committee’s lists (petition to save & email letters to the board), what really struck me was that the overwhelming majority of the people I spent all the summers of my life growing up with, getting to know, playing and working with, and competing against on Sharpe Field and the lake, and all my groupers in Club (and the generations of all those families) are, with less than100 exceptions, not on the Save lists. Over 50 summers spent in Chautauqua and you get to know a lot of people. Some better, and for longer than others of course, and an even greater number of acquaintances, and names you know but haven’t yet met.  Of course the list grows every year as new Chautauquans arrive and start their own traditions. The hundreds of familiar names on the emails thanking me for speaking out (and those who have remained silent) represent the most important subset of the Silent Majority. I’m going to refer to them as  Perennial Chautauquans. Single through Multi generational Chautauquans who come back year after year. Many are property owners, old and newer alike. Many more are now taking their Chautauqua time in vacations and weekends, navigating the rental market as their Chautauqua homes were lost along the way. They make up the largest percentage of those who contribute the most to Chautauqua. I mean that both, literally and figuratively. The Perennials, and generations of their families seemingly take advantage of every opportunity to be engaged, nay, immersed in the Chautauqua community. Be it ushering at the Amp, shaking the basket for scholarship donations at recitals, baking (tarts, Herb), and raising money for the; Chautauqua Fund, denominational houses, CLSC, Women’s Club, Jewish Community Center, and a host of other worthy causes.

George L. “Shorty” Follansbee  Noting the Sunday Collection – Circa 1978

Most importantly these Perennial Chautauquans take the lead each and every year when it comes to giving back to Chautauqua. Whether it’s donations to the Chautauqua Fund, or gifts to the various Endowments and Capital Projects, they give the most. For fiscal year 2014 the Chautauqua Fund raised $3,756,894 from over 2,500 individuals, families, and foundations, making up the annual shortfall in the budget. Drilling down even further, a familiar phenomenon occurs, with 88% of the total donated coming from the 1874 and Bestor Society members. These two groups, comprised of 584 individuals, families, and foundations, represented just 23% of the over 2,500 individual donations to the fund.  This represents a classic “Pareto Principle” distribution. Italian economist Vilfredo Pareto described an unequal relationship between inputs and outputs. The principle states that, for many phenomena, 80% of the results obtained (outputs), come from 20% of invested inputs. This is also referred to as the the “80/20 rule”, and can be applied to many business scenarios (i.e. 80% of our sales come from 20% of our clients/sales force, etc.). In referencing the 1874 and Bestor Society lists I have received positive emails from 177 of the 584 donors, thanking me for speaking up. They say you are judged by the company you keep and I can certainly live with that endorsement. Conversely less than 100 of those 584 appear on the Save lists. One of the mass emails in support of Chautauqua’s leadership sent by one of the 23% above, that came out before last season, mentioned something to the effect, “those who complain the most, contribute the least” (80/20 rule – 80% of our complaints come from 20% of the customers).

The Lewis Miller Cottage – Chautauqua’s Only National Historic Landmark Structure

Of course each and every one of the 2,500+ donations count as this incredible Chautauqua community, all at once, gives back, and pays it forward for future generations of Chautauquans. This is what what makes Chautauqua special. It is a wonderful and diverse mix of a community, taking part in a multifaceted program that creates a nine week summer festival where we all feel brighter, happier, more serene, thoughtful, relaxed, and included in something very unique and transcendent. The timeless beauty of Chautauqua was/is/always will be, all you have to do is show up. Make the commitment to attend the Assembly and partake in as much or as little as you want to.  Chautauqua is many different things, to many different people, on a take it or leave it basis. The four pillars of the Chautauqua experience, Art, Education Religion, & Recreation, offer practically limitless possibilities for all who attend, bounded only by our finite time there.

Now as we all look ahead, I can only hope we, as a community, united by this very special place, can now come together and look forward to the possibilities of a Renewed Amp. As Chautauqua opened the new Amp in 1893, Dr. Harper spoke second, following Dr. Hurlbut to the podium, and his words proved timeless and so very appropriate today:

“Ladies and Gentleman: – At this time it becomes us to look back and at the same time to look forward. Has the time come for Chautauqua to stand still? No. The lesson of the past is clear. Chautauqua must do in the future what she has done in the past…And so will not the friends of Chautauqua familiarize themselves more closely than ever with what Chautauqua plans today. Will you not be ready for the announcement of new plans in the future? For if Chautauqua is to do for the future what she has done for the past, it must present new plans. And when they are announced will you not study them, will you not lay them upon your heart and soul, will you not help Chautauqua do for others what she has done for you.”

 

Chautauqua’s Renewed Amp – Circa 2017 

 

 

The Weird Turn Pro

 

Can you identify the Merry Prankster(s) in this photo courtesy of the Chautauquan Daily. Hint – one of them has a cap that matches Ketchup’s hull.

And now for something completely different. We interrupt our regularly scheduled program to bring you the following:

Just so we are crystal clear, I am going to say this one last time. I DID NOT WRITE THE LAST TWO EMAILS attributed to George T Seaver.  The emails that went out using my pen name, full of drivel calling for a renewal of Chautauqua’s leadership along with the Amp, and suggesting a taxing alternative as a scare tactic, were ill advised and poorly conceived. I have since the day I started Drift of the Day, been steadfastly in support of Chautauqua’s leadership and their decision to renew the Amp. Nothing has changed from my standpoint despite the efforts of a malicious faction intent on making it seem so. Much more on that a little later.

Authors Note: The opinions expressed herein are mine alone (the “REAL” George Seaver pen name). These opinions are not intended to reflect those of Chautauqua Institution, or any other group(s)/individual(s) associated with this Amp debate. I will attempt to make a little bit of this a lot more clear, as I drag the impostor out into the light of day, further exposing him, and many of his dirty tricks in this post and a referenced page.

“When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro.”                                             ~ Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing at the Super Bowl – Rolling Stone, February 28, 1974.

Hunter S. Thompson was the father of “gonzo journalism” which is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as: “a type of committed, subjective journalism characterized by factual distortion and exaggerated rhetorical style.” The quote above, a word play on “when the going gets tough, the tough get going“,  means that when a situation becomes weird, people who had previously exhibited an amateurish level of weirdness, will Amp it up and perform at a professional level. This time the weird have definitely Amped it up, turned pro, and seem to have started a league of their own.

This post explains how the malicious faction has gone out of the margins, way out of bounds, off course, and over the proverbial edge. I didn’t want to go here, but thought it necessary.

Meanwhile back on the grounds, thankfully the committee has, for the time being ceased its personal attacks on Chautauqua’s leadership and turned their attention to more creative and less destructive ways to make their points, while seeking donations for their cause in a last ditch effort to stave off the inexorable march towards a renewed Amp. So given a lack of malice lately on that side of this debate the keeper of the majority of the email lists,  William (Twig) Branch (a.k.a.The fake George Seaver, The Gadfly, The Chautauqua Community,  Happy Chautauqua, one or both of the following; Bob Alou – Editor in Chief Chautauqua News & Leftcadio Hern – Rogue Writer – The Chautauqua News, and who knows how many others) decides to create a little drama on his own. I have little doubt that there are one/more merry pranksters in Twig’s crew on these “dirty tricks“, as I doubt he has the necessary skill set(s) to do it by himself. The tin can replica the committee keeps referring to isn’t the  Renewed Amp, but it is most definitely, the misleading, malicious, and negative emails and impersonated comments he puts forth to undermine, malign, confuse and create controversy.

In order to distinguish, separate, or discriminate between two types of things, we need to be able to identify some differences between them. ~ Plato

The fake emails were sent by Twig, using my pen name, trying to copy my lack of writing style, with a similar email address, and ironically using the savetheamp mailing list, while implicating me in his impostor mess and failed attempt at misdirection. Unfortunately some people were confused, angry, upset, and generally perplexed by the emails. The email address he used was georgetseaver14 while mine is george.t.seaver41. It wasn’t my mail chimp email list (a mass emailing service provider used by most in this debate) or my return address on the unsubscribe button either. See for yourself please. If you still have it, click on the update your preferences button at the end of those emails and you are redirected to a Happy Chautauqua mail chimp page for updating with an address of http://savetheamp.us9.list-manage.com/profile? (plus the individual list number etc.) He uses the savetheamp list (which he manages) because it has the largest number of email addresses. Unfortunately Twig (and pranksters) manages the majority of the email lists that we all receive via mail chimp.

After the first fake email he then followed it up in the next few days with dozens of negative, mean spirited, and rumor mongering comments on my Drift of the Day site impersonating and posting as the following Chautauquans; Tom Becker, Hugh Butler, Mary Lee Talbot, Hale Oliver, Connie Lorber, Rick Reiser, Don Greenhouse, Joe Twist, Tim McEnrey, and a host of others that I wasn’t sure were real or fake. I started approving even the meanest directed at me (as George) so as not to be accused of censoring. He was a very busy boy attacking me and my site with a litany of comments demanding that George revel himself a midst demeaning comments and even a threat. After the initial onslaught of nasty grams, before, during, and after Thanksgiving, I stopped freaking out and dug a little deeper and found that all but one of the negative comments came from the same IP address. He impersonates some fairly high profile Chautauquans, and then just makes people up, as he desperately fishes around trying to figure out who I am. I must have missed the email that said he was the only one allowed to have a pen name, or six.

For a complete list of the Chautauquans impersonated and the comments Twig posted on their behalf, on this site for all to see, please visit my Twigs Trail page. Link here: https://driftoftheday.wordpress.com/twigs-trail/

After the comments I also detail the other dirty tricks he has resorted to in an attempt to undermine my messages. Who knows, he may have pilfered your name too! It’s quite the list. Impersonating my pen name is one thing, but posting as all these Chautauquans is quite another.

As I said on my About George page I made the very conscious decision to enter into this discourse using a pen name because I did not want to draw attention to myself. I had hoped, and still do, that the Chautauqua community would pay more attention to what I wrote and judge me on the merits of the time and effort I put into researching and writing each post. Despite the initial uproar by the conspiracy theorists that I worked for Chautauqua or their PR firm, Ricochet Group, the vast majority have accepted my anonymity. Out of over 1,800 people on my mailing list for each post I usually get only 2 – 3 “who are you” emails. That was of course until Twig decided it was his sole job (aside from maligning Chautauqua’s leadership) to figure me out. With his phony emails and fake posts he muddied these waters on purpose, to create conflict, doubt, and confusion. As the silt settles back to the bottom of the lake we see through him more clearly.

He/they contribute nothing to this debate except parody, lampooning, and sarcasm in the Chautauqua News, and then a couple ill fated fake emails. Cheap imitations of the real talking points by someone who doesn’t want to put the time and effort into formulating a real opinion and articulating that for dissemination and review. I guess writing while making fun of everyone and everything you disagree with is much easier than doing the research and writing from the confluence of reasoned thoughts  and your emotions and on a particular topic. You may, or may not agree with what I write, but I work hard at this and he hardly works. And then he hijacks my pen name to get his ridiculous messages out while causing confusion and acrimony along the way.

Dirty Tricks and Tricky Dick

  William (Twig) Branch  (L) & Richard M. Nixon (R)

Dirty tricks, a term synonymous with Richard Nixon and Watergate, are unethical, duplicitous, slanderous or illegal tactics employed to diminish the effectiveness of  opponents. The term “dirty trick” can also be used to refer to an underhanded technique to get ahead of an opponent, such as sabotage or disregarding rules of engagement. They serve to tie up the opponent, forcing them to defend against, and answering false charges. Imagine that! In my first post I wrote, (and yes, I’m quoting myself) I would think that as Chautauquans we all share a similar set of values and corresponding rules of engagement.  It is ridiculously obvious that I was wrong about that. If you took the time to open my Twig’s Trail page and scrolled through the comments you will see the real Bijou Clinger Miller come to my defense and then Twig, in comment #8 impersonating Hale Oliver, attacks Bijou & Greg threatening to post that Greg is writing as George Seaver. He continues posting that misguided rumor through the course of Black Friday. Just so we all understand how reprehensible this is, I need to share some back story with you. Bijou is one of nine (9) Chautauquans who know who I really am. In a moment of candor, via email, she told Twig that she knows. So he sees a soft spot and strikes at it using Hale’s and Hugh Butler’s names trying to smoke me out. C’mon Twig, Bijou and Greg are two of the nicest people I know, and you decide to go after them like that, just to get to me…REALLY! That’s just wrong on a few different levels.

Ironically in the next to last edition of the Chautauqua News, Twig & crew name my George Seaver as the first Midget of Chautauqua, “noting, As my grandmother used to say, anyone who steals your writing without attribution is a small person.” I guess we know who the second Midget is going to be after all this crap thrown against the wall by he and his gang of merry pranksters.

Photo Courtesy Chautauquan Daily July 7, 2014

Mr. Branch it seems you fancy yourself as a bit of a yachtsman. Are the red wigs for the open regatta the only way you guys could distinguish yourselves from the rest of the fleet? Just for the record, have no doubt that I’ve taken home a lot more ribbons and hardware from those CYC dinners than you ever will, and those against much stiffer competition. That being said, now I offer you a bit of sailing advice. You need to pay more attention to your tell tales in the wind shifts because you left your digital fingerprints all over this impersonating mess. It is a foul and shifty wind that blows down Peck avenue these days. As a wise old sailor once said in a great metaphor for life “You can’t change the wind, but you can adjust your sails.” Twig you need to come about, as you do not have the right of way to continue on your current misguided course. If you wanted to enter this little Amp debate you had a fleet of pen names to choose from, but you pirate mine to undermine my messages with your rants, assailing Chautauqua’s leadership and causing confusion in your wake. Adding insult to injury you missed that last mark by impersonating all those Chautauquans, so I’m running a protest flag up the side stay and you can be sure the race committee will DSQ (disqualify) you, so you may as well steer a course for your dock, put your boat away and get back in the spectator fleet, because you have ketchup all over your face.

My real Chautauqua Grandma used to say, “Don’t believe everything you hear, but ALWAYS consider the source.” Because it was then, is now, and always will be, good advice.

Silly Twig, Tricks Are For Kids!

Stay tuned, as next we return to our regularly scheduled program and have a closer look at the silent majority.

Drift Of The Day – Walks & Talks by the “REAL” George Seaver pen name

Just a quick note to inform you that the ridiculous and ill conceived emails received by many last Monday, and now another today was not sent by me. The impostor just can’t seem to help himself as he impersonates my pen name, with the wrong email address, and the savetheamp mailing list. Mine is george.t.seaver41@gmail.com while last week he used georgetseaver14@gmail. He then flooded my Drift of the Day blog site with over 30 negative and mean spirited comments impersonating and posting as  many other Chautauquans. I am currently working on my next post for Drift of the Day which will be out shortly detailing his nefarious behavior and exposing him once and for all. Remember if it’s not on my Drift of the Day blog site I didn’t write it, condone it, or even believe it.
I have, since the start steadfastly supported Chautauqua’s leadership and the decision to renew the Amp.

I will never send an email to any of you without posting that content here first.

Thank you so much for your time and consideration in this regard.

 

Not Me

Someone has tried to steal my ID and sent that ridiculous email last Monday from a mail chimp account with the URL in the manage my list button http://savetheamp.us9.list-manage.com. The email they used was georgetseaver14@gmail.com.

My email address is george.t.seaver41@gmail.com.

They impersonate my pen name yet use the save the amp list which has more email addresses, and by the way they manage.

Their commentary was pretty much 180 degree in the opposite of the opinions I’ve put forth thus far during this debate. I hope the discerning reader recognized the difference and took that email with the proverbial grain of salt.

I have since the start supported Chautauqua’s leadership from top to bottom, and the decision to rebuild the Amp from stem to stern.

Who steals a pen name? You parody yourself…

And by the way leave my Grandma out of it.

Really…Seriously??

Stay Tuned as my next post will shed a lot of light on this long gone vessel.

 

Chautauqua Memories & History Endure

 

Old North Amp Entrance (L) & New 2017 Entrance (R)

The charm of history and its enigmatic lesson consist in the fact that, from age to age, nothing changes and yet everything is completely different. – Aldous Huxley

Through it all, it was never really about the Amp as a building. Because from the beginning it has been all about the incredible history that occurred in that space. From F.D.R to R.F.K., and Susan B. to Booker T., and all the other famous names that have been cited during this debate, that have graced Chautauqua’s iconic platform. It was about Chautauqua, the place, the people on the stage and in the Assembly. Those who came before us, with us, and the generations that will follow in our footsteps.

It’s not about historically significant architecture or architects. Never about building materials that were intended to last for ages. Its beauty has always been in its simple design, openness to the surrounding structures and to the rest of Chautauqua, and you could always count on it to be there every summer. It has been as much a part of our Chautauqua experience as the; Plaza, Bell Tower, Club, Sharpe Field, the lake, and all the other places we collectively hold near and dear. But the Amp was always a little more. More because you were sharing that experience with family, old and new friends, acquaintances, and even strangers,  along with some pretty good talent on the stage. It has always been about the history that accumulates each and every season, day and night, and year after year. Right there in that ravine just above the Athenaeum, where the Assembly has gathered since 1876.

Some grab their seat cushions out of a closet or off a hook and start that very familiar trek to the Amp. Past neighbors and friends on porches and as you draw near you see the almost magical glow of the perimeter lighting as you approach your entrance gate, hearing the familiar hum of thousands of voices.  Some have talked about their favorite bench but you can take in a performance, lecture or church service without ever walking into the place. Some lucky folks can do it from the comfort of their front porches. For evening performances I prefer leaning on the exterior south brick wall talking softly to friends and doing a couple laps around the perimeter during the evening to see what old friend(s) might be there that week that I hadn’t yet seen. My go-to seat for Sunday church is down in the Carnahan-Jackson garden. I get to hear the; Massey organ, choir, and the sermon while doing a little Chautauqua multi-tasking. By that I mean enjoying a good cup of coffee with a bacon, egg, and cheese bagel, and the Times Sports section, while taking in the church service with 4,000 of my closest summer friends.

It is about the history of Chautauqua. All of the history and the incredible people who graced all of those platforms over the years. That of course includes all the previous structures Chautauqua has used for the primary gathering point for the Assembly. From a rudimentary platform in Miller Park to a canvas strung over the ravine where the Amp sits today, to the first Amp which lasted only 14 years, and then the current one, in all its iterations.  And now it’s on to a brand new one that will be built after the 2016 season. As importantly it is about our history. The memories we made with friends and family over the years and generations of our family before us who at some point shared those with us and we share with our kids and grand-kids.  Just as we all in turn will make more memories at the new Amp. It sometime seemed as though the committee and those who fought so hard to save a structurally failing, functionally obsolete building would have you believe all of that history and all of our memories will evaporate as the current Amp heads off into history. Shame on them for even going there. As if an evil witch/wizard from the Harry Potter series is going to appear at next season’s final three taps and point a wand at everyone and speak the memory deleting charm “obliviate”  to erase our Amp memories, and taking it to the illogical extreme, Chautauqua’s well chronicled Amp history as well. Mischief managed! The memories and history endure and can be easily shared and passed down in pictures and stories of times and people cherished, and performers and speakers thoroughly enjoyed. The pursuit of lifelong learning and the pillars of the Chautauqua experience; Art, Education, Religion, & Recreation, will endure for generations to come.

I was a Daily Boy back in the day when we sold in the Amp prior to the evening performances. Running up and down the aisle yelling “read all  about tonight’s program in the Chautauquan Daily”. The evening performances hadn’t evolved into the bigger shows yet, as they were going to starting in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Back then selling at the lucrative North Amp position was decided by seniority and then lottery by us Daily Boys (sorry Db you hadn’t made the scene yet). The U.S. Army Field Band was often a top pick of the enterprising Daily Boy as it would draw from outside the gates, thus more new customers who hadn’t picked up a Daily yet that day.

1921 North Amp Entrance (L) & 1874 Platform in Miller Park (R)

The program has changed and evolved. Chautauqua has changed, the finances have changed, the demographics of the Assembly have changed, yet many things still remain comfortably the same. When this Amp was opened for business in 1893 a season gate pass cost $5.00 and rooms at the Athenaeum ranged from $15-$25 per week. Those days and prices are long since gone.

Our memories and Chautauqua’s history remain the same and waiting to evolve and add a new layer, like all of the maple trees, with each passing season. And now it’s time for our Amp to change and evolve, to fully, safely, and functionally support Chautauqua’s programming and the Assembly for years and generations to come. In the 2016 season Chautauqua closes the book on the 1893 Amp and in 2017 opens a brand new book on the latest version (3.0, if you will). And if you think it will be the last Amp that Chautauqua  builds you haven’t paid much attention to our history lessons.

That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons of history.  – Aldous Huxley

Amp Circa 2017

 

 

A Preservationist’s P.O.V. – Reading Between the Lines

Renderings of the New Amp 

Approaching North Entrance (L) & West Entrance (R)

With my last post we took a closer look at Chautauqua’s decision to rebuild the Amp by looking at some of the numbers (support) claimed by the committee, more bad analogies, and the current Amp’s structural deficiencies as pointed out by the structural engineering report. This time we examine the Preservationists Point of View (P.O.V.) as we review some correspondence and read between the lines that reveals how Chautauqua made the right decision in renewing/rebuilding/dismantling/demolishing the Amp. At the proverbial end of the day it’s just semantics, as Chautauqua’s leadership secures the future of the Amp for generations to come.

Last fall the committee was alerting the press and rallying the preservationist organizations to support “the cause” and urging Chautauqua to consult/engage them in the process before it was “too late”. Well the regional press took up the cause with mostly one sided pro-preservation editorial and practically all the usual preservation organizations stepped into the fray as well.

Predictably the preservation organizations wrote letters to Jim Pardo, Chairman of Chautauqua’s Board of Trustees, from October – December 2014. They uniformly cited the Amp’s history and urged Chautauqua to reconsider the renewing/rebuilding of the Amp. One of them incorrectly refers to the Amp as a National Historic Landmark. Now let’s go into greater detail with the more illuminating of the correspondence from the two more significant of the preservation organizations.

In a letter dated 12/4/14 Ruth Pierpont, Deputy Commissioner for Historic Preservation of the NY State Office of Parks, Recreation & Historic Preservation  writes Chautauqua Board of Trustees Chairman Jim Pardo and reminds him of the $300K the federal government, through her office, gave to Chautauqua during the 1979-82 renovation of the Amp. Link to her letter here – Pierpont Letter to CHQ 12.4.14:

“I would like to point out that in c1979-1980, the federal government committed nearly $300,000 in federal grant money toward the preservation of the amphitheater, a public investment made on the premise that the board of directors was equally committed to its long-term preservation.”

I previously posted that the leadership of Chautauqua at that time did use the $300K as part of approximately $2 Million spent to rehab the Amp which was sorely needed. By accepting this grant Chautauqua was obligated in its renovation work at that time to follow the “much discussed” Secretary of the Interiors Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties     

Amp Roof Replacement 1980

Chautauqua’s Board and Administration could have taken this opportunity, and again in 1989 when Chautauqua was awarded its National Historic Landmark District status, to apply for National Historic Landmark status for the Amp, but they chose not to. A fortuitous decision as they saw the day coming in the future when the Amp would have to eventually be replaced.  It would have been short-sighted to hamstrung Chautauqua’s future leadership with having to rehab vs replace a structurally failing, functionally obsolete building. The latest Amp debate has made that quite apparent (transparent).

“As the State Historic Preservation Office, we were involved in the administration of the federal grant program and want to remind you of your commitment in accepting these funds. We are also concerned that the loss of such a pivotal building may have a significant effect on the integrity of the district as a whole and perhaps jeopardize its landmark designation.”

Ms. Pierpont suggests that by accepting those funds it was akin to implied consent to continue rehab efforts into the future (which it was not). She then goes on to caution that the rebuilding of the Amp could cause Chautauqua to lose its National Historic Landmark District status. The second practically baseless comment had many Chautauquans concerned and caused more undue stress in an already incendiary situation. When she used “pivotal building” and “significant effect on the integrity of the district” did she really believe that, or was it more to fan the committee’s flames and create doubt and conflict? I showed that to be  overblown rhetoric in my post Debunking Myths & Bad Analogies Part 2 (link below). https://driftoftheday.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/debunking-myths-bad-analogies-part-2/.

Chautauqua’s National Historic Landmark District Plaque

Higher up on the Historic Preservation food chain sits Ms. Bonnie Halda, Northeast Regional Chief of Preservation Assistance for the National Park Service, who wrote Tom Becker a much more civil letter dated 12/29/14 where she acknowledges that they have no review authority and offers assistance without thinly veiled, unsubstantiated threats. Link to her first letter here – NPS Halda 1st Letter to CHQ.

…the Amphitheater, which is a major structure within the NHL District. While the NPS does not have formal review authority regarding this project, we wish to encourage you to follow the Secretary of the Interior’s “Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties”.

She acknowledges the Amp is a major structure (not “pivotal”) and encourages Chautauqua to “follow” the Secretary’s guidelines. A simple suggestion without inflammatory rhetoric .

Ms. Halda, at Chautauqua’s invitation took the opportunity to visit Chautauqua and attended on-site meetings with the heads of the programming and educational departments, and conducted a two-day, on-site inspection of the Institution’s grounds. The visit included a hands-on review of the Amphitheater structure and its context within the National Historic Landmark district.

Rear Pathway to New Amp

Ms. Halda’s followup letter to Tom Becker 4.14.15  after her visit to Chautauqua,  can be read here – NPS Halda 2nd Letter to CHQ. Now let’s have a closer look at the highlights of her letter, which says even more if you read between the lines. First she applauds Chautauqua’s stewardship of the National Historic Landmark District (there was never any threat to the NHL status) and she makes some bookkeeping recommendations. Then she goes on to say:

“We understand that during 2014, you had determined that retaining in place the existing roof structure, one of the major character-defining features of the building, may be technically and financially in-feasible due to building codes, geotechnical analysis, structural span requirements, and safety concerns. These studies also confirmed that the Amphitheater is at the center of the Institution’s activities. We recommend that the use and function of the Amphitheater remain in its current place at the heart of the district. During the site visit it appeared that there could be significant structural issues with the Amphitheater.”

In no uncertain terms she acknowledges the Amp has serious structural and code issues that cannot be easily and inexpensively remedied. She points out that the use and function of the (New) Amp should remain (be rebuilt) in the same place. She continues, with my thoughts on her comments below each quote:

“We recommend that you continue to identify the character-defining qualities of the Amphitheater and how these qualities could be preserved as part of the project”

She asks that the character defining qualities NOT the materials be preserved. The committee adversely pointed that out in one of their releases as they too were reading between the lines and didn’t like the subtext.

“For example, the configuration and materials of the roof, relationship of the audience to performance space, the design and placement of the benches, the circulation patterns such as aisles, the openness as an outdoor assembly space, etc.”

New Amp View from Floor (L) & View to the Stage (R)

Again she calls out the character defining qualities of the Amp and says absolutely nothing about preserving the materials in place. The vast majority of the Chautauquans I have heard from want to keep the current look and feel of the front of the house. The simple architecture with the curved ceiling, the openness to surrounding buildings and the Assembly in general are the hallmarks of the Amp. Sounds to me like she’s conceding that a new Amp should be built in its place that honors its history while reproducing the character defining and historic qualities that will be familiar to all those who assemble there.

“The proposed project may require a large amount of intervention and replacement of historic materials, and may include dismantling and rebuilding the roof; therefore you should explore options to retain features where possible, such as reinstalling historic elements as part of the new design.”

The Amp project “may require a large amount of intervention and replacement of historic materials, and may include dismantling and rebuilding the roof”  I re-quote as I really don’t think we need to read between those lines. She makes it quite clear that some intervention and dismantling will be taking place. Again she says retain features NOT materials as “part of the NEW Design.”

She also comments that she is glad the Massey organ is being preserved before wrapping up with a brief on the enlarged back of the house design being an addition to the Amp and suggests that the NEW design could be refined to be more compatible with its surroundings and offers to review and comment.

New Amp Southern Perimeter (L) &  Northern Perimeter (R)

Ms. Halda in her first letter pointed out that one of the responsibilities of the National Park service is to monitor the condition of NHL’s (National Historic Landmarks). So again, after a thorough and comprehensive tour and several meetings with Chautauqua’s heads of programming, education and its leadership it is clear that the Chief Preservationist of the National Park Service (NE Region) agrees the current Amp needs to be replaced and has offered to assist with the design process so Chautauqua correctly retains/rebuilds the character defining and historic elements. That speaks volumes to the fact that Chautauqua got it right in making the hard but ultimately correct decision to rebuild the Amp.

Time Passes – Art Alone Endures

Chautauqua’s New Amphitheater

Back of the New Amp (L) & View to the Stage (R)

Or as one Chautauquan wrote to me in an email, “Art Alope Epidures”.

Well the vote is in and Chautauqua is on it’s way to rebuilding a better, safer, more functional Amphitheater. The current Amp has given us all she has and her time has passed. An absolutely correct decision that had to be made for Chautauqua’s future. Yet the committee continues to complain about the process and the conclusion because they don’t like the way the work was shown. As I posted earlier that doesn’t make the only logical and realistic conclusion any less correct. Kudos to the Board, Tom Becker and the rest of Chautauqua’s Leadership for staying the course despite the vitriolic attacks from an overly vocal minority.

A wise old economist once said, “Numbers don’t lie but they can be made to say almost anything.” Well let’s have a closer look at the numbers while we’re all here. Over 100,000 people came through the gates of Chautauqua this summer. The committee keeps mentioning their 10,000+ signatures to save the Amp (on two separate petitions) on social media and in all the regional press they have received since last fall. The save the amp site petition claims 2,700+ signatures (including repeated comments that they also count). So despite unprecedented and incredibly one sided favorable media coverage which mentioned the petition and some articles even included a link to their site, they have less than three (3%) of the population of the 2015 assembly on their petition. By any measure that is incredibly weak at best. They talk of delaying the process even more so Chautauquans can form a consensus on the Amp. A quote from their statement released after the Board’s vote is below.

“We will continue to engage in a civil discourse in order to preserve this living link to our history. It’s the only way we can unify our community, uphold the legacy of Chautauqua and restore our national treasure for present and future generations.”

It seems to me that the consensus is formed and the majority of the community is united in supporting Chautauqua’s leadership and the rebuilding of the Amp. The committee and their supporters just don’t like the inevitable conclusion and Chautauqua’s legacy is just fine without their consent. Their divisive and mean spirited  comments tore at the very fabric of Chautauqua and that will be their legacy. A brand new Amp is the gift that will keep on giving to future generations of Chautauquans.

Now we’ll have a look at the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s petition. Again lets do the math. So if there are over 10,000 signatures on the two petitions then the Trust has approximately 7,300+ signatures. Their site claims over 300,000 supporters and advocates. So once again their petition has less than three (3%) percent of their audience, and those people are dyed in the wool preservationists who would sign just about anything the Trust puts in front of them. And I’d be willing to bet that the vast majority of them have never set foot in Chautauqua. So what does that tell you about how their effort to save the Amp has been received?

The money has been successfully raised from so many Chautauquans who support Chautauqua’s leadership and the need for rebuilding the Amp. Can over $30 Million of philanthropic giving be all that wrong? I didn’t think so! One of the committee members has been quoting Pulitzer Prize winning architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable’s article “Farewell to Penn Station.”  New York Times, October 30, 1963 on social media and in the press without citing his source. In that article she opened the paragraph he quotes with “Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and ultimately, deserves.” I couldn’t agree more as that literary sword cuts both ways. Chautauqua richly deserves a new Amphitheater.

 

 

 

Wrigley Field (L) & Chautauqua’s New Amp North Entrance (R)

Enough already with the comparisons to Fenway Park and Wrigley Field and other historic structures that were built with materials to last for ages. Those two ballparks are primarily concrete and steel beam construction with support columns and beams anchored to bedrock and encased in concrete. World of difference as compared to the Amp which is an open air venue made of predominately wood with tilting steel columns and an asymmetrically stressed superstructure above the ceiling and a rotting and warped side roof with its tresses, planks and beams suffering from 122 years of Chautauqua winters and the accompanying freeze and thaw cycles. The comparison to concrete bowls and other historic and climate controlled venues is ludicrous at best and way off base as the committee, their petitioners, and supporters in the press compare apples and sour grapes. As evidenced below the wind and snow loads over the last 122 winters has taken its toll on the structural integrity of the Amp. In a community that has averaged just over 17′ of snow per year over the last 40 years this is an ongoing concern that is becoming even more critical this coming winter (see short term recommendations by Old Structures Engineering below).

The Old Structures Engineering (hereafter OSE) report (Structural Analysis – Chautauqua Institution Amphitheater, Structural Analysis of the Existing Building – 8.8.15) specifically points out the following regarding the failing structural integrity of the Amp in the bullet points below:

• The existing columns are over-stressed in the vicinity of the connection with the side roofs under lateral load/uneven snow load.

Thus the failing of one of these side roof columns in March 2015. See below (L)

Crane Supports Roof 1981 (after $400,000 in Roof Replacement and Structural Reinforcement (R)

• The existing column displacement, plus the induced drift caused by wind or uneven snow load can magnify the stresses in the steel columns… since 1999 the columns have moved incrementally year after year. The last drift survey from May 2015 shows that 12 of the 16 steel columns exceed what can be considered the allowable drift.

• The effect of the permanent eccentricity, plus wind, with additional gravity load from snow, may cause an over-stress beyond the capacity of the columns resulting in failure. This risk will increase over time due to ongoing drift and the resulting column eccentricity.

Image 2. 3D structural model. In blue are sections of the truss over-stressed due to tensile forces under an even/uniform snow load condition

• Under wind load without snow, the eccentricity is considered a short term effect, and the columns are found to be slightly over-stressed.

Image 1. 3D structural model. In red are the sections of the trusses over-stressed due to compressive forces under wind loads

• It should be noted that safe access in the attic is limited; a consultant should review conditions and make recommendations to improve access (e.g., fall protection, harness tie-off points, etc.).

If the bullet points above don’t strike you as cause for grave concerns regarding the  Amp as she currently sits then you are paying way to much attention to preserving a failing structure with a functionally obsolete back stage area  for the myopic sake of preservation only. The existing structure is unsafe for the people who gather, speak/perform there as well as for those who work above and behind the scene.

OSE Recommendations – Near & Long Term:

• Near Term: Temporarily brace the steel columns at each bay in the short direction, and at least in several bays in the long direction, to restrain the structure against further drift during the snow season. We recommend the temporary bracing be installed before winter to prevent further drift under unbalanced snow and wind loads.

Image 6. Diagram illustrating the temporary cross bracing with spliced tension rods to resist further drift during the winter months.

OSE points out that the snow and wind loads during the winter could cause failure of the columns. In other words the collapse of the Amp during heavy snow and wind loads(s) this winter. Chautauqua got 179″ of snow last winter which was below the average annual snowfall of 205″. The winters snowfall has exceeded 200″ 22 times in the last 40 years. So they recommend cross bracing in both directions to prevent catastrophic failure of the existing structure this winter. That is downright scary!

Snow Removal From Amp Roof (L) & Temporary Bracing Winter 1979

Long Term: Reinforce steel columns, connections with the trusses, some truss chord sections, and, if needed, column foundations, to withstand the lateral loads and reduce drift. The reinforcement of the columns may be accomplished with new steel plates welded to the existing. Part of this work would require further investigation of the column bases to evaluate the capacity of the footing or timber pile support relative to proposed column reinforcement.

Again more surgical interventions, splints and band aids for a failing structure.

Additional OSE Letter Dated 8.19.15 Chautauqua Institution Amphitheater Study: Narrative and Questions

• Clearly the two options presented are more challenging from a construction means-and methods and scheduling point of view than demolition of the amphitheater and construction of a new building. As with many historic buildings, the existing structure is not perfectly plumb, and various existing conditions must be considered and accommodated during the detailed design phase. Contractors with demonstrated expertise in working with existing buildings, particularly foundation work directly adjacent to structure to remain, are essential to dealing with the inevitable “unforeseen conditions” that typically arise on projects preserving or adapting historic structures.

Read between the lines and you will see that the engineers aren’t even sure of the scope of work in replacing all 16 of the structural support columns attached to the rest of the asymmetrically stressed roof structure. It is also clear that the vast majority of the existing bead board ceiling would have to be torn down and replaced in that scenario. So again I ask what are you trying to save?  It possibly could cost more to repair the existing columns,  roof structure, back of the Amp, ceiling, etc. and take more time than starting from scratch around the Massey Organ housing and building a brand new Amp.

“The Amphitheatre has served its purpose well, but it has outlived its day, and while it will be parted with regretfully its successor will be welcomed most gratefully. – Chautauqua Assembly Herald Editor Dr. Flood 1892 Season

 

If you care to read the OSE Reports:

Below is a link to the OSE Structural Analysis –Chautauqua Institution Amphitheater – Structural Analysis of the Existing Building – 8.8.15

OSE Chautauqua Amphitheater Structural Analysis

Below is a link to the OSE Chautauqua Institution Amphitheater Study: Narrative and Questions 8.19.15

OSE Chautauqua Institution Amphitheater Study: Narrative and Questions