Those who want to restore the deteriorating Waikiki War Memorial Natatorium dominated a meeting Monday night designed to gather public input on what impacts the city must consider before it can proceed with an environmental study on the proposed demolition of the historic structure.
Veterans and members of the Friends of the Natatorium wore yellow "save ’em" T-shirts at Kaimuki High School indicating they prefer preservation over demolition.
Many of them showed up expecting to offer testimony, but the format of the meeting permitted only suggestions in the form of written questions that the city will consider in writing an environmental impact statement. The EIS isn’t expected to be completed until the spring of 2016.
Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell and Gov. Neil Abercrombie last year announced a plan to preserve only the natatorium’s iconic arched entrance while removing the structure’s aging swimming pool and creating a new public "memorial beach."
In announcing the move, Caldwell called the current structure an eyesore and a safety hazard that doesn’t honor veterans as intended. Preserving the arches and creating a new beach is a respectful and more economical way to resolve this situation, he said.
But many of the more than 50 people who attended the meeting Monday night contend preservation is the most responsible choice, both financially and environmentally. They said preserving the existing structure is the choice that honors our veterans and respects history.
Veteran Felix Martinez of Makiki said he was disappointed that the city would consider tearing down a monument.
"It would be an insult," Martinez said, wearing a veterans jacket over his yellow Friends of the Natatorium T-shirt.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation, which recently added the natatorium to its list of national treasures, has urged the city to honor the site’s history as a World War I memorial.
"We’re in the process of commemorating the centennial of World War I (1914-1918)," said Elizabeth "Betsy" Merritt, deputy general counsel of the national trust. "Nobody else in this country is making the decision to destroy a monument to World War I right now. It doesn’t send a good message, especially in a place where military service is so important."
In comments submitted to the city’s EIS consultant, the trust said the plan to demolish the entire site and reconstruct only its archway may not have been thoroughly studied. It would result in the loss of its status on the National Register of Historic Places, the trust said, and the move would also mean the loss of a one-of-a-kind historic structure as there is no remaining comparable structure in the United States.
Preserving the existing structure would also avoid the unknown costs of pursuing a demolition project in a sensitive marine environment, according to the trust. This concern is particularly important given that the creation of a beach would require substantial new construction in order to prevent the neighboring beach from washing away.
The city aims to implement an $18.4 million plan to demolish the pool and bleachers and develop a public beach and avoid paying an estimated $70 million to restore the existing structure.
But Merritt said her organization’s figures the costs are much more comparable than the city has so far suggested.
"We just want to make sure the city is looking at the different proposals with an even-handed approach," she said.
