From 2013, some thoughts on restoring historic theaters for local art scenes….

There’s been much talk lately—including a supportive editorial in this newspaper—about the potential revival of the historic Waco Hippodrome theater by a pair of private investors.  The city’s “tax increment financing board” decided last month that the developers should get public money for their project, and was willing to provide a higher percentage of the developers’ overall budget than usually is the case because of the difficulty of the work. Last week the Waco city council gave its final approval to a little under $425,000.

After the renovations are complete the theater will show movies (second-run and cult/classic) and have live performances in line with the size of the stage. Megan Henderson, head of Waco’s Downtown Development Corporation, said the project is  “a reminder of what downtown used to be, a place of cultural significance, a place where people gathered to share experiences.” That’s an insightful and important remark.

Across the country there’s an effort underway to preserve and restore classic theaters like the Hippodrome and make them viable arts venues once again.  The Los Angeles Historic Theater Foundation was created in 1987 to preserve that city’s numerous historic old theaters. A city councilman across the country in Easton, Pennsylvania (population 27,000) says the effort there to update their historic theater downtown is not just about the theater, “it’s about the community as whole.”

In Waco, as is likely the case in every city where tax dollars are spent on culture, there’s criticism of projects like this.  Behind much of it is a populist-flavored complaint about the arts being only for a small minority of people, therefore public money spent on their support is invalid. A couple of years ago I wrote a column expressing hope that the Hippodrome could be revived with a new artistic mission, and a man emailed me that the Hippodrome would always be just a “playground for the rich.” So why should this be done, least of all backed with public funds?

We are all the inheritors of arts and culture, whether we particularly realize it or not, and part of our job is to ensure that they’re passed along.  Art, and the venues in which the public experiences it, are not only for our benefit today. Money spent in support of them is for the future, and how we cultivate and support the arts today will influence how much our grandchildren will be able to enjoy them.  We are not the end consumers of, for example, the lush Brahms symphony the WSO performed last week. In truth we are merely its caretakers for the next generation.  It is we who will keep it alive. Or let it die.

A city also has an obligation to the people who will live there, not only now, but in the future.  Investment in the arts by a city is a key element of a concern for the future.

Why go to such places as The Hippodrome?  Why, in the larger sense, worry about variants of cultural experiences that require more effort than others? Why indeed?  It’s a question on which the health of the arts in any community depends.

We should be grateful for those who built the Hippodrome, and then to those who through the years saved it from the wrecking ball, even if their plans to restore it to a level of cultural relevance fell short.  Now it’s our turn to attend to it, not as much for us as for those who come after us, for whom we try to ensure they have a cultural inheritance of something other than rank individualism.