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