Beck Center movement: NOT a rumor!

[Charyn Varkonyi]

50k people that CAN walk does not necessarily mean that there are 50k people that WILL walk.

If the Beck was doing a tremendous business in town they would not be easily tempted by a carrot dangled in front of them and they would have a plethora of known public and private sources of support.

From what I can glean, that is not the case.

They are not operating at capacity and they are not flush with potential saviors.

Perhaps THAT is the larger question that would need to be answered:

"Why was the Beck center not operating at capacity and placed in a position to entertain other options?"

Is it civic disinterest? Then why is Lakewood disinterested? Poor promotion of events and services? Pricing? or an indication that the 50k that live here are not that interested and would better served by something else?

The entire membership of this board represents only eight tenths of s percent of the population - perhaps the remaining 99.2% have other ideas? (please dont flame - I am just trying to toss some ideas to think about....)

Is it lack of private funding? If so then why? Are Lakewood citizens unaware of the need? Are they disinclined to provide support? Are they feeling "donation fatigue"? Are they unable to provide support?

What are the drivers? Because if we cant answer these questions we will be losing more than the Beck.

To address Jeff's idea of looking forward (probably a prudent idea at that)... in my happy place I would love to see a mid-size grocery chain there. We are losing Giant Eagle so there should be ample opportunity for sales and it would be wonderful if we could actually have one near the West End, but still in Lakewood.

Perhaps that Trader Joe's everyone is talking about - but I am being admittedly selfish ...

Peace,
~Charyn

[Joan Roberts]

[quote="Tim Liston"]

I find it appalling that Beck is moving from a place to which perhaps 50,000 people can walk or bike, to a place where practically nobody can. And this is what we call “progressâ€Â

[Jeff Endress]

Charyn

We are losing Giant Eagle so there should be ample opportunity for sales

Not yet a done deal.....recent talk with the Mayor and he indicated that GE is still uncommitted on any action re: Bunts....Although I think its safe to assume that after W.117 is on line that enough business will be siphoned off to justify closing Bunts.

Trader Joe's would be nice. I understand that as a result of the landlord dispute, Ruth Chris has closed on the East side, but is interested in a maintaining a Cleveland presence and there are few west side steak houses. Given the westend's "entertainment district" feel, a restaurant or two could work, but I would prefer a mixed use, larger scale office complex with the shopping/restaurant options.

Jeff

[Tim Liston]

You know what I think would be a best use of the facilities that Beck would leave behind? Here's an off-the-wall idea. Really crazy..........

An arts center.

Why can't someone else take it over and run it more or less like it has been? Maybe this time with a little bit more support from the City and its residents. Might the buildings be obtainable on the cheap?

Every time Beck sent me a letter asking for a donation, I sent one. Three times last year. I'd sooner eat glass than send them another nickel if they move to Westlake, but I will double my donation to any organization that takes the facility over and runs it.

“Don't it always seem to go, that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone ......â€Â

[Tim Liston]

And for those who misconstrued my "50,000 people" comment. I run a business and I fully understand that you have to sell your wares to those who want to buy them. Make no mistake about that. All I basically said is that sprawl is wrong. The next time I feel the urge to propose social responsibility I'll just shut my yapper......

[dl meckes]

Rather than blaming Lakewood for the problems with Beck Center, I would have to examine the history of the actions of the Board of Directors and the Executive Directors (who have come and gone as if they were using revolving doors).

This not-for-profit has not been run like a business and anyone who has pushed to run it like a business has been pushed out.

Kenneth Beck passed away a long time ago and there has been no angel to replace him.

Some benefactors have "aged out." Many of the patrons have also "aged out."

The Cleveland Artists Foundation (Beck Center's tenant) has looked to find a larger space for some time. They were ready to buy a building in Cleveland, but it burned.

The problems with Beck Center are not new. They are the problems that most not-for-profits face. And theater is very risky business.

One thing that killed the Cleveland Ballet was the fact that the board couldn't stand up to Dennis Nahat and demand that productions be scaled down so they didn't keep going into the red.

When Great Lakes Shakespeare moved downtown their subscriptions tripled. Now their subscription base is back down to the Lakewood levels.

I don't think that the City of Lakewood can be blamed for a business that can't run its business. You have to look to the source.

Understand that I am a life-long and impassioned supporter of the arts.

The value of the Beck Center also is not simply what they offer to the city in terms of the Arts, but also the influx of visitors to the city who wish to patronize our hospitality before or after the shows. That's a lot of dollars going to businesses that aren't in Lakewood.

[Joan Roberts]

To DL:

As a supporter of the arts, which do you think is the Beck's more critical mission, performance, participation, or education?
And how do the glitizy Broadway shows the Beck has offered in the past few years fit in?

And to Mr. Liston:

I would consider it a tragedy if anyone (well, ALMOST anyone) ever closed their yapper.
I guess I want to keep noodging the very bright and concerned people here that we need to keep a buyer's mentality in the mix, too. "Yah, you got a swell town here. But how do I make a buck off all that swellness?"

[dl meckes]

To DL:

As a supporter of the arts, which do you think is the Beck's more critical mission, performance, participation, or education?
And how do the glitizy Broadway shows the Beck has offered in the past few years fit in?

Each of these elements is critical to the overall sucess of the Beck's mission (in my mind).

By education, I am assuming that offering classes is part of the mix. This is a time-tested way of raising money, including grant monies.

The Cleveland Public Theater is able to bring in Artist-In-Residence Directors through grants. Not only are patrons treated to different visions through these Directors, the Directors may also offer workshops and other educational activities such as post-production discussions. Or master classes. Those folks broaden our knowledge base and CPT isn't on the hook for an expensive salary.

Participation offers community buy-in on many levels including enticing people to volunteer, purchase tickets or donate to the cause. Participation equals marketing. Again, grants can be used to bring the Beck to the schools, which raises its profile to a new generation of theater lovers (who may encourage their parents to go see a show).

As far as the glitzy productions, if they make money, then bring them on. Commercial success can fund the ability to do all sorts of different things, including more experimental theater or something mundane like fund-raising and grant-writing.

Sometimes it seems as though these big productions would be a slam dunk to fill seats, but this is not always the case. The Cleveland Ballet banked on running Copelia nearly every season even though it kept losing money. They thought that people who gave money to the ballet liked that kind of production, but had no particular basis for that belief.

The Beck has always been a niche theater, much like the other smaller theatrical enterprises. There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not suggesting that the theater would or could ever be a really solid commercial venture, but when you look at decades of, perhaps, less than stellar management, would you feel like underwriting a grant or a loan? If you have a fairly stable theater, you're more likely to find sponsorship, grants, donations, etc.

But it makes sense, if you want a great reputation and want their property, to offer a sweetheaet deal to the Beck's board. The Beck Center owns their property (not free and clear). I doubt that will be the case when they move.

[Jeff Endress]

But it makes sense, if you want a great reputation and want their property, to offer a sweetheaet deal to the Beck's board.

Problem is, simply put, that the ONLY offer would be for money to reduce the debt load, and then some more money to bring operations into the black (and then perhaps some more money to help fund specific programs). The city certainly doesn't have the resources. As DL pointed out, the foundations aren't likely to kick in, given the history. And so, while we can learn from the excercise of examining what caused the downfall, let's not loose sight of the fact that the Beck WILL be moving and that something will be taking its place.

We need to control what that "something" is, as opposed to reacting to what a developer tells us we want.

Jeff

[Joan Roberts]

OK, this is the part someone has to explain to me:

Let's say Mr. Stark (or Mr. Bean or Dr. Seuss or Sgt. Pepper) buys the Beck facility.

Let's say he wants to build a complex with an Applebee's, a Dollar Tree, and a Hummer dealership (trying to annoy everyone here).

What do WE do to stop him?

If we somehow could pass an ordinance (that would stand up in court) against low-end casual dining, cheap imports, and sales of gas guzzlers, what do we do when he says, "well, then, enjoy your abandoned theater, or your new parking lot"?

It seems as though the "vision" tends to be in the hands of the guy whose name is on the deed.

Right now, there are some folks on Sloane who aren't altogether thrilled about the "vision" of the Cliffs project. Like we saw there are folks in the east side less than ecstatic about Rockport Square. But they don't own the property.

Is there something I'm missing? What does the city or its residents do, other than say "please Mr. Stark, build something nice?"

I'm really, really, really not trying to be inflammatory or argumentative, just realistic.

[Jeff Endress]

The ever inciteful (misspelling intended) Ms. Roberts

Is there something I'm missing? What does the city or its residents do, other than say "please Mr. Stark, build something nice?"

Actually the city has quite a bit to say in the realm of development. While certainly if an owner wants to build something others object to, as long as he's using HIS money, beyond zoning, architectural review and so on, there's not much else the city can do. But, in the situation with major development, we all know that the developer will NOT be using his own money (at least not entirely).

There will most certainly be some form of city assistance in financing, a TIF, abatements, whatever. It is through the cooperative efforts of the city, using its various reviews as well as the financial incentives, that the city can see that Mr. Stark builds something nice.

Also, (and I could be wrong) but I believe that the City owns a necessary piece of the puzzle (perm Par. # 311-24-067, 1437 Wayne). That would also give a level of control.

Jeff

[dl meckes]

You are correct. The city owns the armory.

[Kenneth Warren]

The PD provides this positioning of messages:

“The city is going to work cooperatively with the Beck to explore every possibility of keeping it right here in Lakewood,â€Â

[dl meckes]

Thanks for the link.

Finding a new home in Westlake is an option. But Unger said another is to redevelop the current site into a mixed-use retail/restaurant/cultural complex where parents could drop off their children for arts classes and then shop or eat nearby.

I look forward to Michael Gill's article.

[John Viglianco]

I wonder when Cain Park in Cleveland Hts. is going to move to Solon?