The Natatorium, a goner?

[Ron Whitfield]

Many feel it's just a matter of time before Mayor Mufi levels the memorial, despite it's importance and love by many, multi historical pedigree, place on lists of historical importance, and the fact that it can and should be utilized in ways that will still greatly and positively effect the entire state.
Hanneman won't say it up front, but he has no love for the place and his style is to say little to nothing, then sneak attack at the last second and be done with it before any real opposition has a chance to be mounted or counter measures truly allowed to be thought through.
We barely survived the same attitude via The Bishop Museum towards the Falls Of Clyde.

Some, like this Rick Bernstein guy of the Kaimana Beach Coalition, want to remove the pool walls to enlarge the beach area and move the arch inland, neither of which have any foundation in reality, just so they can have even more beach on an island.
There is ample photographic evidence that there was no "Kaimana' beach prior to the Nat's walls, and if they are removed so will all of Kaimana Beach, it's nature's way and it'll happen within one year, even with the plans recently laid out by the KBC to protect it.
The arch and facade's construction style dictates that it is way too frigile to move, it'll be destroyed if tried.
The KBC's reasoning is narrow minded folly, and beyond minimal in the answers as to why they are so zealous towards the Nat's destruction. They, like Berstein, tend to simply get in a huff about any reasonable counter think. He and Harris litterally went nose to nose once in disagreement.

Mayor Harris basically had the right thinking in substantially preserving the the memorial and using it for entertainment purposes, which could be a boon to Hawaii during these times of lessened tourism.
But saving the pool itself is also folly, even tho it can certainly be argued that the pool IS the Natatorium and memorial. Sadly, it's too frought with problems and costs to preserve that thinking.
The pool area should be removed and replaced with a sound wave proof structure that can have a grassy top and be used for many cultural and other uses. The grandstands can be made sound and once again seat 2,500 people.
Add to this, a web cam showing a website based comcast of the various events worldwide, showcasing the priceless backdrops of Waikiki and it's beach, and Diamond Head behind, and there alone is your free tourist bait.

To throw away one of the very last remaing vestiges of Waikiki's classic history, of which the entire world's thinking of Hawaii has long been based on, would be yet another tragic and senseless loss, and one we can't afford or allow to happen.

[snowbird]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

Oh, say it isn't so. Please, Mufi, please find a way to save it, fix it, improve it, whatever it takes to preserve and keep a historic memorial for future generations to enjoy. And the Maritime Center and Musuem closing? I already missed out on that... Why, oh why? It's always the $$$$.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

I've submitted my way of saving and perpetuating it to his office. His response? Silence.
I don't think Mufi has any desire to help The Natatorium, except to help load the pieces into dump trucks as they head to the landfill.
Maybe it has to do with his extreme dislike for former Mayor harris, and whatever Harris did, Mufi will do the opposite. We've certainly seen examples of this pettiness in politics.

[salmoned]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

The sooner gone, the better, in my book. If you want to swim in salt water, we're surrounded by ocean. If you want another entertainment venue at the beach (next to the Waikiki Shell and the 'Pagoda'), please make it removable (Oops, we already have one). If you want a war memorial, build it at a cemetery (If you need a memorial in Waikiki, try the Army Museum). This relic has been relegated to uselessness for years. By removing it, not only do we create jobs today (demolition) and restore useful beachfront, but we also remove an eyesore and the need for ongoing maintenance/liability costs in the future - it's a 'win, win'!

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

I'm in favor of the city just deeding that cesspool of bacteria to the "Friends of the Waikiki Natarorium."

For over 20 years, they've finger-pointed at the city for neglect and the state for instituting tough safety standards. So I say, let them have their way with the natatorium and see what they can do with it.

Of course, with ownership comes responsibility. The Friends will have to find a way to pay for the restoration and ongoing maintenance costs without one cent of taxpayer money. Hope they are good at fundraising during an economic recession or being able to dig deep into their pockets.

Oh yes. They also assume 100% liability if anyone gets sick using the pool or gets injured as a result of a structural collapse and failure.

Once they have a budget and business plan set up, I'm suuuurrrreeee there will be no problems getting financing for their project. Charging admission to a saltwater pool located right next to a beach (which is FREE!) sounds like a veritable goldmine. Donald Trump and Warren Buffett will be fighting each other off to get a piece of the action.

And when the Friends of the Natatorium finally realize the folly of their ways, have them return the deed to the city, whereupon the pool will be demolished, the archway preserved as a memorial, and the Friends will agree to SHUT UP!!!

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but it's these similarly pathetic attitudes that have been a large part of the problem in both maintaining and putting The Natatorium into proper modern use.

If you somehow managed to miss it, I'll repeat, the pool will never again be a viable entity, nor will there be any 'useful beachfront restored' if it's removed. So your misplaced outrage is lose lose.

[salmoned]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

So, if the natatorium is removed, a pile of cordoned-off rubbish will be left? Rubbish! I find the current situation is the result of the pathetic attitude of empty-pocketed 'preservationists' focused on their hindquarters. I have no outrage on this issue, only the opinion that the war memorial (including the natatorium) should be removed, tabula rasa style.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

So, if the natatorium is removed, a pile of cordoned-off rubbish will be left? Rubbish! I find the current situation is the result of the pathetic attitude of empty-pocketed 'preservationists' focused on their hindquarters. I have no outrage on this issue, only the opinion that the war memorial (including the natatorium) should be removed, tabula rasa style.

Obviously not...

[68-eldo]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

I think the city should be fined huge bucks for allowing the Natatorium to fall into such a state of disrepair. If the Natatorium is demolished the city should replace it with a monument of equal significance and not a small tombstone size marker.

Keep in mind this could happen to WWII and Vietnam monuments too. Just because the families of those who died in WWI and their immediate families and the survivors and their immediate families are no longer around does not mean you should forget the sacrifices of those people.

That is what the Natatorium is all about.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but it's these similarly pathetic attitudes that have been a large part of the problem in both maintaining and putting The Natatorium into proper modern use.

You call my attitude "pathetic?"

Well Ron, out of respect for the HT community, I will not engage in an exchange of unproductive name-calling and insults. I'll stick to arguments of substance. I've got absolutely no shortage of that commodity on my side.

I will say this. The Natatorium has been closed to the public for 30 years now. Why are supporters for preservation like you only speaking up NOW when the entire structure is ready to collapse? If the preservationists had a viable plan that would be financially self-supporting, one would think such a plan would have been implemented long ago. The truth of the matter is that there really is nothing that can salvage the Natatorium. It was built with 1920s architectural and engineering technology. The kind of technology that didn't know how to create a beach-front saltwater pool that would last for 50 years, let alone 80 years.

You want to convert the pool into some kind of entertainment venue? Have you not heard about the deck collapsing? Are you not aware about the seriously corroded rebars and the crumbling concrete? You can dream up anything you want to build at the Natatorium,.... and your dream will end up falling into the ocean. Reminds me of the old fable about one man building his house upon a foundation of rock and the other, building his house upon a foundation of sand. But I give some credit to the latter. At least he built his folly with his own money, not other people's.

If you somehow managed to miss it, I'll repeat, the pool will never again be a viable entity, nor will there be any 'useful beachfront restored' if it's removed. So your misplaced outrage is lose lose.

What misplaced outrage?

I was directing my outrage to the "Friends of the Waikiki Natatorium," not at you, Ron.

Unlike you, the Friends want to have the Natatorium preserved, saltwater pool and all.

Guess you "somehow managed to miss it."

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

1) The Natatorium has been closed to the public for 30 years now. Why are supporters for preservation like you only speaking up NOW when the entire structure is ready to collapse? If the preservationists had a viable plan that would be financially self-supporting, one would think such a plan would have been implemented long ago.
2) The truth of the matter is that there really is nothing that can salvage the Natatorium. It was built with 1920s architectural and engineering technology. The kind of technology that didn't know how to create a beach-front saltwater pool that would last for 50 years, let alone 80 years. You want to convert the pool into some kind of entertainment venue? Have you not heard about the deck collapsing? Are you not aware about the seriously corroded rebars and the crumbling concrete? You can dream up anything you want to build at the Natatorium,.... and your dream will end up falling into the ocean.
3) Unlike you, the Friends want to have the Natatorium preserved, saltwater pool and all. Guess you "somehow managed to miss it."

1) I agree, there should have been much more attention to the problem and more voices towards it from before it was closed. But the pool was closed off in the 80s, and too often it takes time for fuller appreciation to set in, and once serious mentions of it's destruction started to be heard in the 90s, that's when the pro/con sides started queing up. Around that time Mayor Harris started giving input and eventually got some things started, but was twarted in completing his vision and only got minimal structural stabilizations instituted. This had an effect of wait and see by the majority of the public, and these day's it's only last minute panic that motivates substantial interest and numbers.
2) That's what the Bishop Museum said about the Falls Of Clyde, and now we fully know that was BS.
There is plenty to salvage from the pool area inward and can be made very stable. Harris' plan would have accomplished it quite well. The spawling of the rebar can be dealt with fairly easily as it's mostly sections towards the surface that is problematic. And the concrete as a whole is even less of a worry. It's all doable and absolutely nothing will fall into the ocean.
3) Didn't miss it at all. That's why I'm not part of that group.

My plan gives new life to The Nat and provides many varied and sorely needed jobs, allows for a world class venue that would help attract visitors and locals to Waikiki, plus helps educate and continue the pool's many historic moments and people's legacy for generations to come.
Throwing it away for nothing would be tragic and we've seen more than enuf of that. Waikiki need's to maintain the few remaining major links to it's past, and The Natatorium is a wonderful way to manage this in a tangible manner.

[buzz1941]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

Memorials to those who have sacrificed in the nations military are "useless rubbish"? Nice attitude on this particular day.

[Frankie's Market]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

Memorials to those who have sacrificed in the nations military are "useless rubbish"? Nice attitude on this particular day.

Salmoned can speak for himself. But I have to say here, with all due respect. If a person looks at the Waikiki Natatorium at its present day condition (i.e. the contaminated pool water, the gapping holes in the deck, areas that look like they are about to collapse, cracks everywhere,) and you tell them it is supposed to be a memorial to the soliders who gave their lives in WWI, what are they supposed to think??? When the natatorium was new and fully functional, it was a fitting memorial and an elegant tribute to those brave men. But not today. Not in that dilapidated, unsafe, and unsanitary condition.

Hey, I'm all in favor of paying proper tribute to those WWI vets with a memorial. If people want to talk about restoring the arches and maybe even setting up a new statue/monument nearby, count me in as a supporter. An attractive looking memorial that can actually be used, appreciated and visited by people who wish to pay their respects,.... that is a memorial worthy of the men who sacrificed themselves. A decaying structure that has to be locked up 24/7 due to unsafe conditions does nothing to honor those soldiers. Neither does applying bandaid solutions to a pool that is already too far gone amount to a fitting tribute.

I'm from the school of thought that says it takes more than a mere plaque slapped onto an edifice before you can call it a memorial truly worthy of whoever it is you are trying to honor. It has to be in fine condition, be of dignified design, and accessible to visitors. Finally, it has to be something that will stand the test of time, not something that will have to be overhauled every couple of decades. On all of these counts, the Waikiki Natatorium strikes out. The World War I vets deserve something else and far better as their memorial.

[Kaonohi]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

An elegant tribute.
Unfortunately, respect for veterans and their sacrifices are like the tides - they come and go.
Typically immediately after the wars we have heroes (except for Korea and Vietnam), then people get bored or forget. Then a new war comes around, consciousness is raised, and once again our men and women in combat walk on water - but like Peter, they quickly sink when no one 'believes.'

I guess that's why the Natatorium was neglected. Prolonged peacetime. Why glorify war and sacrifice? Respect for sacrifice is short-lived.
"OK some guys died, let's erect a memorial so we can move on."

Of course, we must move on. We cannot dwell in the past forever.
What is neglected will fall. Even rock crumbles. And lives are such a fleeting thing, people will soon forget - give them two generations.

To my mind the reason for a memorial to war dead is NOT for the dead, who no longer care (as far as we know), but for the living. And its most important purpose is to prevent it from happening again. We know that doesn't work....

If the Natatorium is unsafe - make it safe - however. That's prime real estate! If we wish a memorial, we can make one that is safe and which will last. That's a better decision, I think.

[Ron Whitfield]

Re: The Natatorium, a goner?

Unfortunately, many worthwhile memorials are incuring serious problems of upkeep, The Tomb Of The Unkown Soldier, in Arlington, for one. Hard to get more in the public eye and thoughts than that. So The Nat is far from alone.

I agree, The Nat should be a shining tribute to those it's memorializing and it's own historic past.
FM, sounds like you could back my plan if the powers that be would get it happening...