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.