By David Lough
Guest Columnist
Maybe you’ve heard about the proposed Performing Arts Center and haven’t paid close attention. Maybe you have opinions but assumed the process would stretch on and there would be time to engage later. Maybe you were skeptical of the original proposal and tuned out as the process evolved.
That “later” moment has arrived. On March 2, the Sarasota City Commission is scheduled to consider whether this revised proposal should move into its next phase. What happens at this stage will shape whether the effort continues or ends. If you have a view — supportive, skeptical, or undecided — this is the time to look carefully at the latest information.
The proposal has changed. It’s fair to change your mind
The version of this project that drew criticism a year ago — the size, the cost, the location, the concerns about the Van Wezel — is not the version now being discussed. The Foundation went back, listened, and revised. Substantially.
Here is what Concept 2.0 proposes:
- The main hall has been resized from 2,700 to 2,200 seats — still larger than the Van Wezel Performing Arts Hall, but more appropriately scaled for Sarasota.
- Total projected cost has been reduced from roughly $407 million to under $300 million.
- The Foundation commits to raising $200 million privately. The estimated public share is approximately $88 million — funded through existing Tax Increment Financing revenues from development already underway in the district. No new citywide tax would be imposed.
- The building has been relocated south of the boat canal, on elevated ground rather than stilts, addressing storm resilience concerns raised earlier.
- The non-compete provision has been removed. The Van Wezel remains open and operational.
- Parking is planned through two garages within the project area.
If your reservations were about cost, scale, resilience or the fate of the Van Wezel, those concerns were addressed directly. You are entitled to evaluate this version on its own merits.
This is not just for people who attend opening nights
One persistent concern is that a new performing arts center would serve a narrow slice of Sarasota — premium tickets, gala evenings, audiences that already participate in the arts. That deserves a direct answer.
The facility being proposed is designed as a civic space, not just a performance hall. Plans include a 300-seat flexible theater alongside the main hall, with programming that could include touring productions, community events, educational partnerships, youth programs, lectures, rehearsals and free or low-cost events connected to The Bay Park itself. Some will come for a ticketed show. Others may come for a school performance or a public forum, or simply to spend time in the park.
The value of this project will not be defined only by who sits in the main hall on opening night. It will be defined by how often the space is used, by whom, and across what range of price points and purposes. Done well, a modern performing arts center broadens participation rather than narrows it.
On the question of necessity
Some residents ask a reasonable question: Is this actually necessary? Sarasota already has the Van Wezel. It functions. People attend performances there. Why take on a project of this scale and complexity when what we have still works?
It’s a fair question, and it deserves an honest answer rather than a dismissive one.
The Van Wezel was built for a different era of performance. Its technical systems, backstage capacity, and physical configuration place real limits on what can be presented there. Many major touring productions — the kinds that anchor regional cultural reputations and draw audiences from across Florida — require capabilities the current hall simply cannot provide. That is not a criticism of the Van Wezel. It reflects when and how it was built. But this does mean that Sarasota is passing on programming that comparable cities are able to host.
Consider what Sarasota already has: Asolo Repertory Theatre, Sarasota Opera, Florida Studio Theatre, The Ringling, Marie Selby Botanical Gardens, The Bay Park Conservancy. This is a remarkable cultural ecosystem — one that most cities its size cannot match. A modern performing arts center does not duplicate any of it. Such a venue fills the one gap that limits what the whole system can do and whom it can draw.
There is also a subtler point about necessity. Doing nothing is not a neutral act. Other cities are investing in their cultural infrastructure. Regional competition for talent, tourism and quality-of-life driven relocation is real. Sarasota’s arts reputation was built over decades by people who made forward-looking decisions that were not obviously necessary at the time. The Van Wezel itself was once a bold, contested investment. So was The Ringling. Necessity is often only clear in retrospect.
The question worth sitting with is not “Do we need this?” in isolation. It is “What does Sarasota look like in 20 years if we invest in a new facility, and what does it look like if we don’t?” That is a harder question — and a more honest one.
What is at stake
The City of Sarasota has been losing institutional anchors. The Sarasota Orchestra is relocating outside city limits. Mote Marine Laboratory & Aquarium has moved its public-facing aquarium operations out of the city. Growth patterns are shifting south and east. None of this is catastrophic on its own. But taken together, these are trends worth taking seriously.
The question is whether downtown Sarasota remains the cultural center of gravity for the region — whether it continues to draw people, talent and investment from across Florida and beyond. That does not happen automatically. It requires deliberate choices about where and how the city invests.
The arts are not separate from Sarasota’s economic identity. They are part of it. People choose to live here, spend time here and invest here because of what this city offers. Cultural infrastructure supports that broader ecosystem.
A vote to continue — not a vote to build
Even if the City Commission allows the project to proceed to its next phase, opening night would still be several years away. The immediate question is whether to continue refining the partnership, testing assumptions, reviewing operating projections and allowing the public to evaluate a fully developed plan before any final commitment.
If that process stops here, however, the effort likely ends. Projects of this scale require continuity — they don’t go into a holding pattern, they dissolve. There are still legitimate questions about long-term operating costs, financial projections and how future tax policy changes could affect revenue assumptions. Those questions should be asked and pressed. But they are best answered through continued, structured review, not by closing the door before that review can happen.
A brief reminder from our own history
When the current John Ringling Causeway was proposed, it was strongly contested. There were arguments about cost, design and necessity. That debate was part of Sarasota’s civic life. It did not mean the community was divided beyond repair. It meant people cared enough to engage in the issue.
It is hard to imagine the city today without that bridge.
Debate does not weaken Sarasota. It clarifies decisions
Reasonable people can disagree about this project. What matters is that those who have been watching quietly take a moment to consider whether this revised version deserves to move forward into deeper review — and then say so. Sarasota’s cultural standing was built by residents willing to weigh in at consequential moments.
This is one of those moments.