The argument over what to do
with Century II has quite arguably been a subtext to just about every major
debate which has been conducted in our city in 2019. With the rapid
construction of the new baseball stadium and the redesign of McLean Boulevard
on the west side of the river, the need to think about the east side, and in
particular the fate of Wichita’s single most notable landmark (sorry Keeper,
but you know it’s true), has been unavoidable; you can see the evidence for it
everywhere.
Last spring, The Century II
Citizens Advisory Committee, chaired by Mary Beth Jarvis, finished their work,
concluding that a new performing arts center to replace Century II was a necessity. By the
summer, historical preservationists and other activists were organized to protect
Century II, asking hard and necessary questions about retrofitting
alternatives, financing schemes, and the influence of local development
interests. At a mayoral debate in the fall, a
disagreement between Mayor Jeff Longwell and Mayor-Elect Brandon Whipple
over the loss of the downtown coffee house and community center Mead’s Corner
was seen as staking out different approaches to historic buildings like Century
II. And now, as the year comes to an end, the design group Populous–which was
paid $700,000 to come up with plans for the whole Hyatt-Bob Brown Convention
Center-Century II bloc–have revealed five possible
scenarios for reconstructing the entire downtown riverfront; three of which
gets rid of the building entirely, with one preserving it intact and another
designing it as an open-air shell. After all these months the argument, as 2020
draws closer, finally seems to be coming to a head.
I don’t envy those whose responsibility it will be to juggle the financial, architectural, environmental, and economic aspects of this decision (though I’m gratified to see Whipple at least making it clear that this decision will have to be framed in such a way that voters will be able to exercise some real responsibility over it, as wasn’t the case with the fate of Lawrence-Dumont Stadium). I would only suggest, on the basis of two meetings about Century II I’ve attended in the last couple of weeks, that the generational aspect of the decision not be ignored either.
One of the meetings I’m speaking of was a small, exclusive gathering–only six people were present–at a private home, which I was fortunate enough to be invited to. Bill Warren was there, getting ready to thrown down the gauntlet he announced on Sunday in support of preserving Century II. The four others (besides myself) included a couple of the most well-known and influential people in the city. Everyone there was white, and the average age skewed…well, let’s just say “older.” The focus was strictly on contemplating ways to impress upon the Wichita population the architectural significance of Century II, the possibilities for its future use, and the great costs involved in simply wishing it away.
The other meeting I have in mind
was held at Roxy’s Downtown, organized by W (the new name of Young
Professionals of Wichita). It was open to the public, and pulled in about 100
people, including a number of young local leaders (city councilman Brandon
Johnson and county commissioner Michael O’Donnell both were there). The crowd
was young–it was a mostly late-20s to mid-30s group, with only a sprinkling of
Gen-X-and-above types like me–and about as racially diverse a turnout as I’ve
ever seen at a civic meeting here in Wichita. The focus was on reviewing,
ranking, and commenting upon the plans which Populous has presented…a process
which, even before it formally began, showed every sign of reflecting a deep
anti-Century II sentiment. (When one older gentleman stood up to defend Century
II and suggest that internal renovations might still be possible, he prefaced
his comments by saying “Please don’t throw bricks.”)
So, two very different meetings,
reflecting two very different slices of Wichita’s demographics. At the W
meeting I ran into a former student of mine, a young African American woman
heavily engaged in fundraising efforts for the restoration of the Dunbar
Theatre. It was great catching up with her, and she was not shy–as the
conversation about Populous’s different options developed, with everyone making
comments about all sorts of different possibilities and opportunities–at making
her perspective known. “I’m a Wichitan, I’m not going anywhere, and so I’m
thinking about what I can enjoy for the next 50 years. How many years do all
those folks calling Century II some kind of monument that should be preserved have
left? Maybe 20?”
She wasn’t alone in feeling that way; the votes on the various proposals, and the comments posted in real-time from peoples’ phones (it was a very interactive meeting), made it clear that getting rid of Century II–whether to create an open green space to extend from a proposed new performing arts center all the way down to the river edge (Scenario 1), or to allow for an expansion and reconstruction of the convention center (Scenario 2)–was something almost everyone agreed on. Scenario 3A, the only one which keeps Century II intact, was the lowest ranked of all five by a long measure. (Scenario 3B, which suggests knocking out Century II’s walls but opening up and preserving the space under the dome didn’t get much love either, which I thought was too bad, though maybe that’s just because I grew up in a city that similarly retro-fitted a huge old pavilion from the 1970s into an open-air space that served as our downtown centerpiece for decades.)
That the answer to the question
of Century II needs to respect the views and hopes of those who will be living
with and making use of it decades into the future seems obvious. But at the
same time, it would be wrong to assume that the accomplished people at the
first meeting were a bunch of instinctive “no’s”; rather, they were experienced
people asking additional–and, in some ways, even harder–questions. Like: Have
we considered building a new performing arts center solely for stage
performances, thus making it more cost effective to concentrate solely on
acoustic improvements in Century II for Wichita Symphony and the like? Or: Have
we asked whether it really is the case that large amounts of convention
business passes Wichita solely because Bob Brown lacks windows, as opposed to
the (I think much more likely) fact that flight connections through ICT remain
poor? Complicated and unromantic as they may seem, such questions have to be
asked.
And, to be fair, they are being asked; indeed, if you listened
closely at Roxy’s, you heard and saw, along with the desire to grandly remake
Wichita’s riverfront, other, less expansive and more careful concerns. My
former student expressed a couple of them to me. Regarding all the talk about
mixed-use developments to “activate” and generate revenue-generating commerce
along the river: “All these shops they want to build as part of the
riverfront–will they make sure that a low-income person like me will be able to
shop there?” And regarding all the talk of the Arkansas River being an
accessible part of the plan: “What kind of river cleanup will come along with
it? You can’t make a ‘Riverfront Legacy’ if the river’s natural legacy isn’t a
priority.” Good questions, both of these–and that just scratches the surface.
So while there probably is a significant generational divide in how Wichitans think about Century II, it’s not a total divide by any means. Which is all the more reason to make sure we take enough time to make certain that everyone in both of these cohorts, and everyone in between, can hear all the questions being asked, without having the pressure of some promised quick land deal driving the conversation. Yes, decisions will have to be made, at city council and county commission meetings and in the voting booth; we can’t put it off much longer, and that means some will be unhappy with the results. But we can reach that result in a respectful, inclusive way, and that starts with listening. The best, most lasting parts of any city’s built environment are those that come slowly, organically, through the actions of citizens both young and old. Century II was built to be that, and the new Century II, whatever it’s called, should be too.
Content on this site does not constitute endorsement of any political candidate, party, or affiliation. Commentaries and columns represent the opinion of their authors only, and do not reflect the views of the publication staff.