The Van Wezel IS Sarasota's Performing Arts Hall

Public comment to purple ribbon May 27, 2025

My name is Kelly Franklin and I am the publisher of keepthevanwezel.com.

Theater is the art of make-believe. It is about using emotion to suspend disbelief and imagery to create illusions.

The reality is that about 7 years ago, the Foundation created to support the Van Wezel got new leadership, and their new chairman and board inverted the purpose of the organization from supporting the Van Wezel to replacing it.

They misconstrued the purpose of the building sketched in the Bayfront 20:20, which was intended as a concert hall for the orchestra.

Physically, concert halls and theaters have different shapes because one manages scenery and one focuses on sound.

The Van Wezel started its life as an acoustically-perfect concert hall. It was remodeled about 25 years ago to include a fly tower large enough to handle touring Broadway.

Since that remodel, the Van Wezel has won best in its class 7 times.

It is the “actor’s ideal theater” according to actors.

It has great sight lines for dance and variety.

It is easily accessible with convenient parking.

And it is the right size for our market given that we are in Tampa’s Broadway blackout radius.

The Van Wezel has good bones, a strong shell, and a pedigree rooted in Frank Lloyd Wright's organic architecture, which is intimately wedded to place and context.

The iconic performing arts hall is this city's arts and cultural landmark, and its purple heart and soul.

Sarasota's treasure has been recognized by architects like the Carl Abbott, Mark Smith, and Marty Hylton as a significant example of mid-century tropical modernism.

That is why taxpayers have funded two separate expert evaluations by Karins Engineering.

Both studies found that although the building is in a vulnerable location, it is structurally sound, and it can be floodproofed and protected from most storms.

Although some of the internal systems and equipment are in need of updating, the theater is in good repair.

It has an effective age of 20 years, and a potential lifespan of a century or more, like the Asolo or the Sarasota Opera House.

The Van Wezel IS Sarasota’s crown jewel. The job of this panel is to advise the city commission on how they can best polish and protect it.

The detailed report provided to you by Karins explains how to do that. Your job is to summarize those expert findings, not to recycle false claims of those engaged in “kabuki theater” and “reality TV”.

Numbers for SPAC are not adding up

The burden of overbuilding performance centers will fall on the Sarasota taxpayers.

At a recent Sarasota City Commission workshop, proponents for the Sarasota Performing Arts Center (SPAC) cited three arts centers as comparables. Two of these centers were noted in a recent editorial in the Observer. But the numbers aren't all that comparable.

What's more, of the three comparables presented at the City Commission workshop, one isn’t being built and the two that were built had unique funding sources that don’t apply to Sarasota.

First was the Steinmetz Hall in Orlando. The presenters boasted at the workshop that the SPAC will have a lower percentage of public funding than the Steinmetz Hall.

However, the bulk of the public funding for that theater came from hotel taxes. The Orlando area receives $75 million from annual visitors and has 130,000 hotel rooms.

In fact, the local government kicked in only around $25 million for the Steinmetz Hall. The two million or so Orlando area residents paid little versus what is expected of city of Sarasota taxpayers for the SPAC — about 10 times what the Orlando area taxpayers paid in total.

Another theater was the new Tennessee Performing Arts Center in Nashville. However, Nashville and that arts center never signed an agreement because of a dispute over infrastructure costs.

The numbers for a theater that won’t get built aren’t terribly relevant.

The third theater cited was the Perelman Performing Arts Center in Manhattan. That center had unusually high construction costs because of the use of translucent marble and its location by the World Trade Center Memorial. A couple New York billionaires (Ron Perelman and Mike Bloomberg) funded much of that project.

Now let’s look at some numbers that directly apply to Sarasota.

The current Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall has 1,741 seats. The proposed SPAC will have a 3,000 seats. The new Sarasota Orchestra campus on Fruitville will have 2,500 seats. Building both the SPAC and Sarasota Orchestra campus will more than quadruple the seats available in a three-mile radius, an increase of 5,500 seats over the existing 1,741 seats.

Even if the Van Wezel is torn down, the number of available seats will triple (an increase of 3,800 seats).

Also, note 1,000 seats are now available in the main ballroom of The Ora; 200 planned seats for the new Payne Park Auditorium; and Florida Studio Theater will also be expanding seating.

Demand for classical music, plays, traveling Broadway shows and variety acts simply won’t triple or quadruple just because you build the capacity. Already, the vast majority of the performances at the Van Wezel do not sell out. This town could be awash in a sea of empty seats.

The burden of overbuilding will fall largely on the shoulders of the city’s taxpayers. Sarasota County is now steering clear of the SPAC. In the proposed private/public partnership agreement, the city was hoping to contribute only 25% of the costs, with Sarasota County paying another 25%. Now, the city has to provide double that amount because of the county likely pulling out.

Someone needs to hit the pause button on the SPAC and figure out a way to coordinate with the Sarasota Orchestra and Sarasota County.

The city can ill afford to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a new performance center when there could be a near duplicate facility 5 miles down Fruitville Road.

Moreover, we should wait a few months for the Van Wezel Purple Ribbon Committee’s recommendations on the future use of that hall, which is less than 5 blocks from the proposed SPAC.

If we don’t wait, we may find out that the numbers don’t add up.

City should treat public’s treasures with care

The city commission is scheduled to make a decision on the Sarasota Performing Arts Foundation’s proposed $400,000,000 Van Wezel replacement on March 3.

They should vote to end this unsupportable and extremely expensive vision, and invest in protecting our city’s signature structure.

It is, in the words of Sarasota School architect Carl Abbott, “Sarasota’s icon”.

The distinctive color selected by Frank Lloyd Wright’s widow raised eyebrows from the beginning. But in the words of longtime city manager Ken Thompson “if a building doesn’t provoke discussion, then it probably isn’t a successful piece of architecture.”

Championed by former mayor David Cohen, co-founder of the West Coast Symphony (now the Sarasota Orchestra), the Van Wezel put Sarasota on the map as the arts and culture center of Florida’s west coast.

The landmark purple hall was designed by William Wesley Peters of Frank Lloyd Wright’s legacy firm, Taliesin Associated Architects. Peters also served as site architect for New York's Solomon Guggenheim Museum.

Sarasota’s award-winning seashell-shaped structure was described as acoustically perfect when it opened in 1970 with a performance of ”Fiddler on the Roof”.

But by the late 1990s, when I served on the city commission, the costs of keeping the lights on at the purple hall required a fresh look at the programming to include Broadway productions.

After studying the geography, demographics, and market trends, the city made the strategic choice to enlarge the stagehouse to fit bigger shows.

Since the 2000 remodel, the Van Wezel has been recognized as the best touring theater in the world 7 times.

But the flytower – made taller to accommodate bigger sets -- adversely impacted the unamplified acoustics.

This prompted the Sarasota Orchestra to begin exploring building a dedicated symphony hall, which it decided to build on land it purchased on Fruitville near 75. That is its prerogative.

But I can’t help wondering if the public and the orchestra wouldn’t be better served by merging efforts with the Sarasota Performing Arts Foundation philanthropists pushing for a new hall in the city?

If not, then the LAST thing the city of Sarasota should be doing is competing with the orchestra for funding now and bookings once the new structure is built.

The replacement cost of Sarasota’s placemaking purple theater is almost $100 million (estimated by Staebler Appraisal and Consulting). That makes it the city’s most valuable asset.

As stewards of the public’s goods, city officials must take basic measures to prevent damage from future storms.

Karins Engineering estimated that a removable water barrier (like the aquafence that protected Tampa General from storm surge) could be installed for under $1 million.

If we’d had one in place for Hurricane Milton, the Van Wezel could have avoided almost $10 million in flood damage.

Protecting our city’s crown jewel is the right thing to do, and the Wright thing for Sarasota!

Sarasota needs more than 'vision' to afford costly new center

Even with the funding provided through Tax Increment Financing – which is already taxpayer money – the performing arts center project would be underfunded.

Recently Sarasota Mayor Liz Alpert made it a point to remind her fellow city commissioners of their obligation to negotiate “in good faith” over an agreement to build a new performing arts center for a nine-figure sum.

Now, Mayor Alpert, could you please forward that message to Tania Castroverde Moskalenko, the CEO of the Sarasota Performing Arts Foundation?

I ask this question because in her recent Herald-Tribune guest column, Moskalenko stated the following: "Saying 'No' to this project is not an act of fiscal responsibility; it is a failure of vision."

As a taxpayer I find this greatly concerning because based on my personal experience, “vision” does not pay my bills – and it won't pay any increase in my taxes due to poorly planned civic projects.

After watching the Sarasota City Commission's Feb. 11 workshop session, I was reminded of the process that an individual or business goes through when applying to finance a property purchase.

For example, obtaining approval for a financing application does not rely on hopes, promises or intentions. Rather it relies on providing proof that the debt can be repaid based on financial history, cash in the bank, reliable and verifiable income, bank statements, a realistic business plan and much more.

Ultimately if an individual or business is unable to adequately provide the proof listed above, they are required to apply with a co-signer – which, in the case of the proposed Sarasota Performing Arts Center, would be the taxpayers of Sarasota.

During the workshop, city officials projected that Sarasota would have to spend between $207.5 million and $222.5 million to build the new performing arts center. Yet the city still doesn't know how it would actually come up with most of that money.

Even with the funding provided through Tax Increment Financing – which is already taxpayer money – the performing arts center project would be underfunded by $55 million to $70.2 million, plus another $160 million in interest for 30 years in order to spend the money now.

And based on the city’s own projections it is estimated that without added funding, city taxes would have to increase at least 0.72 mils – which equates to roughly $350 a year for 30 years if you have a home with a taxable value of $500,000.

The bottom line is that pointing out this project could lead to a tax increase down the line is, in fact, an act of fiscal responsibility.

And it is that approach, one that requires disciplined action based on careful analysis, that should guide the city commission's decision on the proposed performing arts center.

What shouldn't guide that decision is vague talk about showing "vision" – and particularly when that "vision" could lead to dim results for the taxpayers of Sarasota.

Proposed Venue Breaks City’s Piggybank

In March, the city of Sarasota will decide whether to move ahead with Sarasota Performing Arts Foundation’s vision for a new venue.

As a result of the Foundation’s soaring aspirations, the project has spiraled beyond the means of the city’s available funds. The city commissioners need to be responsible stewards, and just say “NO”.

In 2020, when the city committed to a public private partnership to build The Bay Park, the primary focus was on replacing surface parking with greenspace.

To fund the widely-supported initiative to transform asphalt to parkland, the city and county jointly agreed to establish a $200 million special taxing district known as the “TIF”.

Because the Orchestra was looking to expand its operations when the TIF was created, the possibility of a new venue was included in the district. Much has changed since then, and in 2023, the Orchestra decided to build a music center elsewhere.

While the value of earmarked funds from the tax district has more than doubled initial expectations, the Sarasota Performing Arts Foundation’s vision has snowballed.

In fact, when financing costs and parking are factored in, the public’s half of the Foundation’s ballooning dream has grown to over $420 million -- well beyond the funding capacity of the TIF.

So, where will the money come from? The most obvious answer is taxes. Covering the deficit out of property taxes would require a whopping 24% increase in the city property tax rate (to $3.72 vs. the current $3.00 per mil).

At a city workshop held February 11, there was no disagreement that a massive funding gap exists. Yet the Foundation keeps glossing over the complete financial unfeasibility of its proposal.

How did the project get so misaligned with the city’s capacity to fund it? Human nature. It’s uncomfortable to say “no, that’s something we can’t afford”.

Making matters worse, the county isn’t interested in funding this vision, and they control 50% of the TIF pool. Disenchanted by the lack of a coherent business case for the proposed venue, county commissioners have voted against using ANY county taxes for the project.

Instead, feeling misled by the swelling TIF, they have indicated a desire to end it as soon as the park portion is complete so that the earmarked funds can be put to more pressing needs.

The city’s excursion down this dead-end path needs to end. Kicking the can down the road won’t change the reality that the Foundation’s expensive vision is simply out of scale for our city.

As a coastal community with critical infrastructure and resiliency challenges, we need to focus our efforts and resources on initiatives that are realistic and viable.

Karins Engineering recommended Van Wezel improvements that would cost less than $1 million, and would have prevented $9+ million in damage from recent storms. We should invest in protecting our city’s existing asset.

We are grandchildren of Lewis Van Wezel, whose generous donation to the city led to the creation of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, which has made Sarasota an arts mecca.

We were shocked to learn that the city had entered into an agreement authorizing an entity known as the Sarasota Performing Arts Center to make unilateral decisions that will undermine the ability of the Van Wezel to carry out its mission as a venue for the performing arts in Sarasota.

As the descendants of Lewis Van Wezel, we share the concerns expressed by Georgia Court in her recent guest column regarding the detrimental impact of this agreement on the city and its arts community. However, we have additional concerns about the matter that are specific to our family legacy.

First, we are concerned about the decision-making process that led to this abrupt determination regarding the Van Wezel's fate. The lack of transparency throughout this process offends responsible stewardship, and it offends the legacy of philanthropy and public service that our grandfather’s example represents.

To justify its $350 million-plus plan to replace the Van Wezel, the Sarasota Performing Arts Center has exaggerated and distorted the deficits of the facility and the practical potential of overcoming them.

For example, a leading urban entertainment economist consultant retained has determined that the Van Wezel still has plenty of life. After $20 million was invested to update the hall, it now has a state-of-the-art sound system and other amenities to attract the productions it presents.

Moreover, the Van Wezel’s vulnerability to climate change will be no greater than that of the proposed replacement performing arts center on The Bay.

These considerations must be urgently addressed by the city government and the philanthropic community –not only to save the Van Wezel's legacy, but to ensure that Sarasota and its citizens do not pursue an unnecessary and grandiose project that could endanger Sarasota’s financial solvency.

The proposed construction of a new performing arts center on the bayfront – a venue that would replace the existing Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall – is worrisome in many ways. But there are two concerns in particular that stand out to me:

1. The cost.
2. The lack of respect being shown toward the Van Wezel family's legacy.

The first problem with the planned arts center is clearly its staggering cost. During a recent Sarasota City Commission, I watched with amazement as the estimated price tag for the new venue – $350 million – was bandied about as though it was a token amount. It was also astonishing to hear the Van Wezel Foundation, which is pushing for the new center, suggest that it would be a piece of cake to raise such an enormous sum.

Never mind that when Sarasota recently agreed to spend some $20 million to reimagine the Bobby Jones Golf Course, the city commission members swallowed hard before approving that expenditure – and this was after years of debate and consideration. And never mind that if the foundation’s fundraising goes awry, the city might need to cut services to pay for the new arts center.

Yet another concern about this proposal is how it has led the city to turn its back on the Van Wezel legacy, even to the point of agreeing to the foundation's insistence on renaming the planned facility and erasing the family's link. In fact, the Van Wezel Foundation itself is being rebranded as the Sarasota Performing Arts Center Foundation, which also downplays the Van Wezel's enormous contribution to our city.

The city currently controls and operates all aspects of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. But with the blessing of the city commission, both the existing site and the new arts center would be controlled by the Sarasota Performing Arts Center Foundation, which has no experience in managing facilities.

And here’s the kicker: the foundation would prevent the existing Van Wezel hall from competing with the new performing arts center for concerts, theater shows or any other events. So if the foundation has its way, there would be no future role for the Van Wezel as we now know it.

Let's get one thing out of the way: No, it does not have a center aisle. That is the most commonly heard complaint regarding the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. In many visits to the hall over the years, I don’t recall muttering to myself, “If only this place had a center aisle.”

Instead, I, and many of its 265,000 visitors a year, have marveled at the beauty of this nearly 50-year-old building. Its completion was seen as a landmark in Sarasota’s history. In fact, contemporary Sarasota really began with the construction of this building.

If any single structure represents Sarasota’s cultural stature and architectural heritage, it is the Van Wezel.

From the beginning, its color and shape (both based on seashells) prompted locals to dub it “the Purple Cow” and “the Purple People-Seater.” Its prominence on the bay shore made its architecture hard to miss for motorists on the John Ringling Bridge, although the addition of sail-shaped shades on the hall’s western terrace in 2013 did nothing to enhance that view, and, in fact, partially blocked it.

However, the 1,741-seat Van Wezel’s future has been the cause of discussion as the Bayfront 20:20 group envisions a master plan for 42 acres of city-owned land on the bay north of downtown. Some people believe the building has outlived its usefulness and must be replaced. Others recognize its landmark status, the efforts made by the city and hall management to renovate and update the structure in the past two decades, and believe it should be an important part of a revitalized bayfront.

The designer, William Wesley Peters (1912-1991) had a notable pedigree. He was Frank Lloyd Wright’s protégé, helping him design the famous Fallingwater residence in Pennsylvania and the Guggenheim Museum in New York.

In addition to being a talented designer and loyal member of Wright’s Taliesin Fellowship, he was Wright's first apprentice. In 1932, he married Wright’s daughter, Svetlana. She was the daughter of Wright’s third wife, Olgivanna.

It was Olgivanna who selected the Van Wezel’s color, which duplicates the color of a shell she found near the Sea of Japan. That shell is on display in the hall’s lobby.

Our people had a right to demand a concert hall worth of a community which prided itself as Florida's "City of the Arts". Commissioner David Cohen listened and, with the Allied Arts Council to back him up, he spearheaded a movement to build a performing arts center of which we could be proud.

Architect for the project was William Wesly Peters, vice-president of the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation director of Taliesin Associates. Mr. Peters was a man of vision, and his proposal gripped the imagination of those who had anything to say about plans for the new building. Sarasota already had a history of encouraging originality in architecture. At one time, we could boast of a colony of experimental young architects, whom we loosely chose to call "The Sarasota School of Architecture". As for Wesley Peters. he was the heir-apparent to the reputation of the eminent Frankly Lloyd Wright.

As the building began to take shape, Wesley Peters explained that "the form of the design has been influenced by the simple but complex world of the seashell. Broad sloping roofs, themselves deep and richly serrated shells, colored with the pale iridescence of the chambered nautilus, enwrap the building and extend down to form vertical walls and screens."

Then there was the color—purple. A lot of people were upset by it. They began calling the structure "The Purple Cow" and "The Purple People Seater". They were even more horrified to find out that it was purple inside as well as out. There were even a few acres of lavender carpet in the halls too. The color, it was said, was the choice of the widow of Frank Lloyd Wright. She was still the dominating influence, the queen bee, at Taliesin. Her purple inspiration, so the story goes, was suggested by the purple dye secreted by the murex, a gastropod dweller of warm tropical seas, sought by the ancients to color the garments of royalty. In the front lobby of the Van Wezel purple shells are on display which are said to have been the inspiration for the design of the hall; and, indeed, there is a decided resemblance. Not Gulf of Mexico shells, these, however. They come from the south seas. In spite of the community's strong objections to the color, how soon we got used to it, and there are many today who swear they love it and would have it no other way.

The eager public attending the grand opening was impressed by the great curve of seats set in ascending rows with unobstructed sight lines, the absence of aisles, and the easy access by means of the nine entrances from the corridors on either side of the auditorium. Purple was everywhere, in all of its various aspects, from pale lavender to deepest violet. And there was the chief architect himself, arrayed in a magnificent purple tuxedo, if you will, especially made for the occasion.

Aside from the construction of the Ringling Museum and Ca’ d’Zan, it’s likely that no building has transformed Sarasota as much as the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall.

Beyond making purple both the most popular and the most hated color in this arts-focused community, the Van Wezel opened up a world of entertainment such as the Sarasota had never seen.

Luciano Pavarotti, Leonard Bernstein, Ella Fitzgerald, Ringo Starr, Marian Anderson, and Josh Groban are among the major stars who have filled the hall since its glittery opening night on Jan. 5, 1970.

It was the talk of the town during construction as its unique clam-shell like roof began to take shape and when its distinctive purple color covered the outer and inner walls, It was quickly dubbed the “Purple Cow” and the “Purple People-Seater.”

The hall elevated Sarasota to the ranks of much bigger cities.

“We had a performing arts hall before Tampa and St. Petersburg and Clearwater. We were on the cutting edge of architecture,” recalled Charlie Huisking, a former features reporter for the Herald-Tribune, who grew up in Sarasota. “There weren’t entertainment possibilities like the Van Wezel provided anywhere.”

Peggy Wilhelm remembers the gala opening night, when she wore a gown as close to the building’s shade of purple as she could find.

“People were dressed in their fanciest attire,” she said. “It was a lovely evening. It was certainly special for this city, a new venture for the city and for the arts.”

Wilhelm wasn’t the only one wearing purple. William Wesley Peters, the main architect and son-in-law of Frank Lloyd Wright, was seen in a purple tux that night. Wright’s widow, Olgivanna Lloyd Wright, is credited with suggesting the building’s distinctive color, which has made it memorable for many of the performers who appeared on its stage.

Some may have occasionally mistaken Sarasota for Saratoga in the midst of a national tour of performances, but “they never forgot the building. They remember the purple performing arts hall,” said Mary Bensel, the current executive director.

In 2015, the Van Wezel Foundation, with city support, engaged a leading arts and entertainment consultant to determine the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall’s ability to continue serving as the cultural anchor of the Gulf Coast for the next 50 years.

At the time, the distinctively purple, shell-shaped venue, designed by Frank Lloyd Wright’s son-in-law and completed in 1968, was 47 years old.

After assessing the hall's facilities and operations, consultant AMS Research & Planning posed four possibilities:

Keeping the status quo, it was argued, would limit the hall’s profitability, programming and competitive ability and leave it vulnerable to climate change. The next two options were also summarily dismissed as “unfeasible,” based on the argument that their cost would exceed the FEMA “50% rule,” which limits expenditures on renovations in flood plains to half the building’s value (at the time $30 million). New construction, the 223-page report concluded – at an estimated cost of $150-$525 million – was the way to go.

Public outcry – and a survey that showed 80% of residents were against demolishing the “Purple Cow” – forced what designers called “a course correction.” ”

Since this all began, the Van Wezel has had a few more birthdays. It is now 52 years old – which qualifies it for nomination to the National Register of Historic Buildings and potentially for the extensive tax incentives and credits that can come with such a designation. That's money that could cover the cost of the previously rejected options to harden the facility against sea level rise and renovate it to competitive standards.

So before we proceed with the commitment to build a hugely expensive new facility that is, let’s face it, is just as vulnerable to climate change, shouldn’t we pursue historic designation for the Van Wezel and explore whether it can be retrofitted to meet the community’s needs?

This building has good bones. The iconic Van Wezel is an historic building that should be saved.

It is indeed premature to select the architect for the new performing arts hall when due diligence as to whether the Van Wezel building can be retrofitted/remodeled to be floodproofed in accordance with FEMA guidelines hasn't been performed. The fact that we are looking at a new performing arts hall costing $300 - $350 million it would be financial negligence not to explore the floodproofing option at perhaps at a tenth of the cost.

When a building is floodproofed in accordance with FEMA Technical Bulletin 3-93 Non-Residential Floodproofing - Requirements and Certification, the FEMA 50% Rule does not apply as the building would be in compliance with FEMA regulations. The floodproofing needs to extend up the exterior walls of the building to 1 foot above the Base Flood Elevation.

The Van Wezel building is located in FEMA Flood Zones AE (EL 12) and AE (EL 13). Floodproofing the Van Wezel building would entail an evaluation of the structure to determine if the existing walls can resist/counter the hydrostatic pressures of flood waters at a height of the FEMA Base Flood Elevation 13’..

The weight of the building would need to be calculated to see if the building is heavy enough to resist the hydrostatic pressures of the flood waters. When the walls are floodproofed it creates a “bathtub” effect where the building could pop out of the ground when surrounded by flood water. If the building is too “light” perhaps additional concrete could be added to the perimeter and tied to the existing walls or augured piles may need to be placed through the existing first floor slab to anchor the building.

The floodproofing material would need to extend from the top of the foundations to the Base Flood Elevation of 13’ plus 1’.

This should solve the dampness problem as the exterior walls would then be waterproofed. If the moisture is coming up through the concrete floor slab additional remediation would be needed.

The existing storefront windows and doors would need to be replaced with floodproof rated windows and doors.

We have lost too much of our architectural history over the years I believe it can be saved, that it should be saved, that we have to stop demolishing our history.

I am writing in response to an Oct. 8 letter that compels the community to consider the replacement of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall in the wake of Hurricane Ian because of its vulnerable location on the bay.

I think that rather than replacing the hall we should develop creative solutions to address the impacts of sea-level rise on our community.

Removing vulnerable buildings is not a solution, because with their loss comes the loss of our heritage.

An interesting approach to addressing the threat of sea-level rise was completed recently at Tampa General Hospital, where they installed an “aqua fence” to ensure that the facility was protected from rising water.

A solution for Sarasota could be historically designating the Van Wezel.

With such designation, the hall would become eligible for exemption from certain state and federal regulations that could help with the implementation of storm protection.

This action is the only responsible one for our city leaders to take in their service to our community.

[My] uncle Dave [Cohen] was a child prodigy and a brilliant musician graduating with honors from the Curtis Music Institute in Philadephia. After he and Eleene came to Sarasota from Petoskey, Michigan, Dave, Ruth Butler, and Lota Mundy (with others) decided that classical music needed a local venue. They raised money, requested and received from the city a location in the civic center, and saw that the Florida West Coast Symphony (now the Sarasota Orchestra) had a permanent home.

In the early 60's Dave ran and was elected (as the first Jew) to the Sarasota City Commission. He and four other business leaders (including Gil Waters) led the very creative body to change the face of Sarasota in many ways. As the concertmaster and First Violinist of the FWCS, Dave became frustrated that the orchestra had to perform in a very unsuitable facility for symphonic music. So, he conjured up the idea of the city voters approving a bond issue for the construction of a performing arts hall on the waterfront. City taxpayers said "Yes!" Frank Lloyd Wright's Taliesin architectural firm was hired to design the building.

Lewis and Eugenia Van Wezel contributed over a million dollars to the project, hence the name Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. In 1970, Dave and his fellow commissioners cut the ribbon and opened our purple jewel to the public with performances of "Fiddler on the Roof" (a musical about Jewish history -accidental? Maybe not! Hmmmm…).

A junior high school student who attended the Van Wezel's opening night found it so meaningful and moving that the youth preserved the ticket and program - and was drawn more to learn more about the Jewish faith and culture depicted in the storied musical.

What an amazing feat for our city with probably less than 30,000 population. This was the beginning of the reference to Sarasota as "the cultural oasis of the west coast of Florida."

As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of the VWPAH this year, we need to recognize the genius and "chutzpah" of former Mayor David Cohen who was named the "most important citizen of Sarasota" in the last half of the past century.

Thank you, Uncle Dave! May you look down from above with pleasure and pride!

Thanks to columnist Carrie Seidman for seeking to keep the proposed Sarasota Performing Arts Center issue front and center leading up to the Nov. 8 election.

I do support planned growth for Sarasota but not at any price, including the potential marginalization or demolition of the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall.

Equally important is my concern for the overall financial burden on our community for the Sarasota Performing Arts Center and all of the associated costs that will be called for – also at city expense.

This comes at a time when we are not adequately addressing such important issues as affordable housing, along with other infrastructure.

I served on the Sarasota City Commission for 18 years, and I am concerned about the city's recent decision to build a new performing arts hall on Sarasota Bay that will cost taxpayers at least $175 million. This has the potential to be the single largest discretionary capital expense in our city's history: as a comparison, the renovation of Ed Smith Stadium in 2011 cost $20 million.

Here are some facts about the existing Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall:

• It consistently ranks high among performing halls in its category across North America.
• It is structurally sound.
• It has been updated over the past two decades with enhancements that are designed to last 50 years.
• It is eligible for historic designation.

A new performing arts center will come at a staggering cost for a city our size. But let's go beyond the cost and just ask ourselves a simple question: Why do we even need a new performing arts center?

According to a 2015 study commissioned by the Van Wezel Foundation, the Straz Center in Tampa is the largest performing arts hall in the southeastern United States. It serves a metropolitan area that is five times our size. This is why the Straz Center is the venue of choice for popular musicals like "Hamilton," and building a larger performing arts center in Sarasota won't change that fact.

Also, the Sarasota Orchestra plans to build a hall on Fruitville Road near Interstate 75. It is clear that this facility will also compete with a new performing arts center for events.

When teachers, first responders and hospitality workers are struggling to find affordable housing in Sarasota, how can we justify the use of any taxpayer money on a project that the public neither wants nor needs?

Recently the city of Sarasota and a newly formed nonprofit agreed on a contract to build a new performing arts center to replace the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall. But it was clearly far too premature for the city to sign such a deal.

The contract, which creates significant obligations for the city, was not competitively sought – and there was inadequate public scrutiny and debate before it was hurriedly approved by the Sarasota City Commission on a split 3-2 vote.

The recent Sarasota Orchestra initiative to build a large new performing arts facility near Interstate 75 has changed the environment significantly from what it might have been a few years ago. Previously, building a new city-owned venue to replace the Van Wezel could have been conditioned on securing collaborative joint use with the Sarasota Orchestra and others in need of a large venue. In addition, there could have been conditions in place to avoid constructing that large venue on the bayfront, notwithstanding that location’s aesthetic appeal to high-end patrons.

That was then, however, and this is now. And right now a “no build” option is a more prudent path.

There is also a real chance that competing [with the Orchestra] for the resources needed to simultaneously build two large local venues could cause the orchestra and the new performing arts center to cannibalize each other’s efforts – and seriously affect the ability of either to thrive on a long-term basis.

Finally, and most appealing to me, the good work by the Bay Park Conservancy that is emerging on the bayfront is poised to produce a viable and defining feature of downtown – and one without a huge new building overwhelming the site. It will be a wonderful green space that will attract and sustain a lot of community use by regular folks. And it won't be a merely business-oriented site that could be facing an uncertain future.

It would be tantamount to civic misfeasance for the city to downplay the numerous and serious challenges that could hurt the feasibility of a new performing arts center – and, even worse, for the city to not have a strategic plan in place to address such concerns.

It's time to reassess things.

One of my favorite expressions is “You have to separate your wants from you needs.” It appears to me that many may want a new Sarasota Performing Arts Center, but do we need it? That's why residents fear that this proposal is moving along without addressing numerous important concerns. They include:

• What would the center actually cost? All we have seen are estimates of $300 to $350 million, but we have seen nothing to justify these numbers.
• The 2015 study supporting the proposed center was completed before the Sarasota Orchestra decided to abandon the city and build a new facility on Fruitville. The orchestra's new hall will be in competition with the proposed Sarasota Performing Arts Center, which will also lose the orchestra performances now being held in the Van Wezel.
• As a volunteer usher at the Van Wezel for the last four years, I can assure you that the typical Van Wezel patron will not want to walk 10 minutes to a Sarasota Performing Arts Center. There is no way to build enough on-site parking, which will force people to cross Tamiami Trail for performances – and that in turn will create a safety risk.
• My understanding is that Broadway shows appearing at the Straz Center in Tampa have a proximity clause in their contract that would prohibit a show such as "Hamilton" to appear in Tampa and Sarasota during the same season. If this is the case, it is highly unlikely we will get first-run performances in the Sarasota Performing Arts Center, which has been suggested by its supporters.
• What would become of the iconic Van Wezel? I would argue that the existing Van Wezel could be renovated and protected from sea level rise – and still used as a performing arts hall – for significantly less money that it would cost to build the Sarasota Performing Arts Center.
• What if real estate values do not continue to rise and the tax increment financing source does not materialize? I am afraid Sarasota's taxpayers will be on the hook for the largest single cost expenditure in the city's history.

The city commission must complete its due diligence on the proposed arts center, and make sure that decisions are based on reality, and that we are separating wants from our needs.

The SPAC agreement states: “Co-funding for the … performing arts center shall be a 50% contribution between private philanthropy and a 50% contribution from public funding sources, which shall be outlined in a mutually agreed upon Implementation Agreement.”

This says taxpayer money will be used to fund the hall. That could include city, county, regional, state, and federal tax revenues, including allocation from the tax increment financing already in place for Bay Park.

Public funding also could include the city financing its share by issuing revenue bonds that would be paid off from the ticket revenues generated from the center. But that source triggered concerns.

What if the ticket revenues are not enough to cover the debt payments? From where would the money come?

City Finance Director Kelly Strickland said repayment could not come from property taxes, nor could the city raise its millage rate to cover debt payments.

Any deficiency would have to come from the city’s general fund sources: fines, communications tax, franchise fees and other taxes. If money is drained from the general fund, City Manager Marlon Brown said the effects could result in cuts in some services.

Just how high would a surcharge on tickets at the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall — and, later, a new Sarasota Performing Arts Center — have to be to pay back a revenue bond for part of the cost of that new venue?

This week, Ron Kashden, a Certified Public Accountant with more than 30 years of experience — including five years as chief financial officer of a multi-billion-dollar hedge fund and several years of service as the auditor of the Shubert Theatre on Broadway in New York City — provided The Sarasota News Leader details of an analysis that he has undertaken, based on available information.

The Van Wezel, he determined, averages 145,000 attendees a year. A Connecticut company that undertook a 2015 analysis of the Van Wezel and a new performing arts center — AMS Planning & Research Corp. — discussed in its report a larger facility with a longer season, which could result in the sale of 198,000 tickets a year, Kashden pointed out.

Using the Van Wezel’s historical averages and the AMS projections, Kashden calculated that a $79.56 surcharge per ticket would be necessary to pay back a revenue bond of the size the City Commission has discussed.

That would be on top of what Kashden has predicted would be an average ticket price of $74.54.

In voting 3-2 on April 4, the City Commission committed the city to covering half of the expense, whatever it ends up being

During two discussions of the funding issue — on March 21 and April 4 — City Manager Marlon Brown told the commissioners that the city could issue a revenue bond to make up any difference between the amount of money it would be able to utilize from various other sources and the amount it will need for its share of the SPAC’s cost. He included the revenue bond scenario as a major option, as he made clear the uncertainty about whether the city could get grant funds to support the project.

Another option, a general obligation bond, would put the cost burden on city residents, as noted during the commission’s discussions. First, city voters would have to approve such a bond. Second, the debt service on a general obligation bond would have to be paid by city taxpayers.

Let the Van Wezel play its starring role in Sarasota

“The play’s the thing. Wherein I’ll catch the conscience of the king,” mused Shakespeare’s Hamlet.

When it comes to parks and arts, recreation and nature, people and places, community and communities, the play is definitely the thing that unites our beautiful, diverse and unique city by Sarasota Bay.

If all the world is a stage and we are all just players, then Sarasota’s front curtain is about to unfurl with the long-awaited grand opening of Phase One of The Bay's transformation from parking lot to the green/blue oasis this community has yearned to have.

I can’t wait to see kids enjoying the amazing Ibis-themed playground, and I can't wait to see people taking a stroll in the park or a paddle on the Bay. After years of pandemic-enforced social distancing, it is wonderful that we will soon witness the transformation of pavement to parkland.

The Sarasota City Commission recently approved the exploration of a $48 million bond against future earmarked taxes for The Bay project's Phase Two. What exactly is in the Phase Two plan? That remains unclear – it does not, for example, include the expected tiered parking garage that would allow the asphalt expanse to become greenspace.

Meanwhile, in March, through a split vote that was reached without any financial or market analyses – and without due diligence as to need, funding or community will – the city commission approved a preliminary agreement with the Van Wezel Foundation to replace the iconic Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, a facility that embodies Sarasota’s arts and architecture identity.

This rushed decision was in reaction to the Sarasota Orchestra’s announcement that it had purchased the cow pasture on Fruitville near Interstate 75 to build the large music hall it had once proposed for Payne Park. This venue will vie for touring acts and serve as the permanent home of the now-regional orchestra.

In any logical world, the Sarasota Orchestra's decision would have ended discussions about putting a replacement for the Van Wezel on the bayfront, if only to avoid hurting our own orchestra's fundraising and booking efforts.

We already compete with Tampa’s Straz Center, which is the largest performing arts hall in the Southeast United States. The truth is that no matter how large a variety performance hall we build, we will never outdo Tampa in attracting first-run shows like “Hamilton."

That's why there is no reason to discard our existing Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, which has a unique shell-shaped, organic form designed by the same structural architect behind The Guggenheim and the Fallingwater house. It is possible that this structural design enabled the Van Wezel to weather Hurricane Ian while the Venice Theater was destroyed by it.

The Van Wezel’s architect, William Wesley Peters, was Frank Lloyd Wright’s son-in-law and longtime associate at Taliesin – and Wright’s widow picked the distinctive purple color that is a landmark of Sarasota's organic architecture.

If our community leaders would listen to the residents of Sarasota – and play in concert with them – we would scrap the misguided idea of replacing the Van Wezel. And we would leverage the clear generosity of the performing arts philanthropists at the Van Wezel Foundation to:

• Shore up the Van Wezel against sea level rise.
• Raise funds to replace the Venice Theater.
• Retrofit either the Art Deco municipal auditorium at the Bayfront or the Sarasota School auditorium in Payne Park for The Players Centre and other local performing arts groups.
• The community that plays together, stays together. Let’s play, Sarasota!