No deal: Engagement process unnecessarily limits Civic Center options

Bill Dawers
·3 min read
A map showing the plan for the Civic Center that was endorsed by the Savannah City Council two years ago, which would lead to keeping part of the complex and demolishing the rest. (Credit: City of Savannah)
A map showing the plan for the Civic Center that was endorsed by the Savannah City Council two years ago, which would lead to keeping part of the complex and demolishing the rest. (Credit: City of Savannah)

This is the City Talk column by Bill Dawers, a longtime contributor to the Savannah Morning News.

At his most recent weekly press conference, Mayor Van Johnson again said that the public engagement process about the future of the Civic Center will determine which of three doors the city should choose.

Door No. 1 would lead to keeping the entire Civic Center, including the Martin Luther King, Jr. Arena. Door No. 2 would lead to demolishing the entire complex, which was the policy adopted by Savannah City Council in 2019. Door No. 3 would lead to keeping part of the complex and demolishing the rest, which was the policy direction endorsed by the council two years ago.

Johnson also said at the presser that the city has been talking about the fate of the Civic Center for 20 years, but the meeting held in the Civic Center ballroom that same evening was the first time in five years that the public had an official opportunity to give input.

More: First open house on Civic Center future shows high interest, high stakes of the project

More than 150 people showed up for that meeting to find that two of the three doors had in effect already been locked.

In an overview of the project, consultant Christian Sottile dismissed any notion of keeping the MLK Arena even though that option seems to have widespread support.

More City Talk: Conflict over city’s plans, residents’ hopes as Civic Center fate is decided

A recent Facebook post by Alderman Detric Leggett about the various options has now garnered more than 400 comments, many of which support reinvestment in the entire complex. Ideas for a community sports center and midsized venue seem to have considerable traction.

Door No. 2, which would entail total demolition of the Civic Center, was recommended by the Urban Land Institute in a compelling 2019 report. That path would allow for the restoration of Elbert Square and the entire historic street grid.

Even with use restrictions and covenants for the creation of affordable housing, the city would make many millions from property sales and put the land back on the tax rolls. Those revenues would make a solid down payment on a world-class replacement for the Johnny Mercer Theatre, if having a venue of that size is a civic priority.

Dozens of attendees at the May 7 open house wanted to choose Door No. 2, but Sottile said little about that option. Three stations with more detailed information focused on his 2022 plan.

So that leaves us with Door No. 3, but Sottile and city officials have made some questionable rhetorical choices even about that option.

Attendees expressed considerable opposition to plans for a new city office building along Oglethorpe Avenue, but officials have not floated other possibilities for that site.

Dozens of attendees said that the city should prioritize housing on the sprawling property, but officials have said little about residential development, even on the restored tithing blocks along Liberty Street.

Paul Scarbrough, a principal with the Connecticut-based Akustiks, was on hand to discuss the feasibility of renovations to the Johnny Mercer Theatre, but the easels presented only one of the two scenarios outlined in his preliminary report, which was submitted to the city more than seven months ago.

Bill Dawers, City Talk columnist
Bill Dawers, City Talk columnist

The graphics focused on an extensive interior renovation that would be time-consuming and costly but would presumably improve the acoustics significantly.

But Scarbrough’s report also details a more ambitious scenario that could make a renovated Mercer on par with the glorious concert hall in Charleston’s Gaillard Center, which I have used as an occasional point of comparison in columns dating to 2016.

More City Talk: Can we learn anything from Charleston's Gaillard Center?

If Door No. 3 is the only option, city officials should at least let the public explore that direction as fully as possible.

The next steps in the engagement process will be a virtual community meeting at 6 p.m., May 16 and an in-person meeting at 6 p.m., May 20, at the Armstrong Center, 13040 Abercorn St.

Bill Dawers can be reached via @billdawers on Twitter and CityTalkSavannah@gmail.com.

This article originally appeared on Savannah Morning News: No deal: Engagement process unnecessarily limits Civic Center options