Positive emotions

Last June, I went to see Bill Cosby perform at the Roanoke Civic Center. Although the night was chilly, I thought that the proposed new stadium and amphitheater complex off of Orange Avenue would be an excellent venue for future summer performances. I remember telling my wife that the next time Cosby was in town, we would enjoy him outdoors.

I also compared the proposed complex to a scaled-down version of the Nissan Pavilion in Northern Virginia. We both agreed that seeing “Cos” in that type of arena would be very enjoyable.

However, because the new stadium proposal is now dead, it looks like I’ll have to see Cosby indoors again when he visits the Roanoke Valley. That’s a shame!

The question of whether to build a new stadium complex or renovate Victory Stadium is the hottest political issue we’ve had in years in Roanoke. There is no better illustration of this divide than in the letters and commentary that appeared in The Roanoke Times on April 29. One Roanoke resident wrote that renovation of Victory Stadium would result in Roanokers left “with a stadium that is still in the flood zone, has had only the barest renovations made, and is still an impractical structure.”

Conversely, another resident concluded her column by stating: “This is the one time when we should appreciate the grand old gentleman: renovate, redesign, and creatively use him. All of us should be actively searching for ways to preserve the past so the future will be enhanced.”

Larry Terry is a good friend and professor at the University of Texas-Dallas. Unlike those who view change as inherently good, he has pioneered research in the field of “administrative conservatorship.” He argues that conservation is not opposed to progress or change. Rather, preserving traditional views, values or places is an evolutionary, not revolutionary, process.

This incremental approach to change preserves traditions that bind a community together. For Terry and others, change for the sake of change should be avoided at all costs. Reform is always the better alternative.

Terry, as a conservator, would also seek to preserve Victory Stadium. The renovations to the structure would be sufficient, and socially important enough, to maintain a historical place where collective rites and rituals have now meshed to heighten awareness of shared sentiments. It is also thought that preserving institutions, especially in a world of turbulent and ongoing transformation, also has the crucial social benefit of symbolically making the future predictable by making it conform to the past.

Does this make those who want to save Victory Stadium overly emotional and less rational? Not necessarily. Allegiances to cultural artifacts usually spring from emotional needs, not rational considerations.

We live in a dangerous and capricious world. These emotional demands force us to rescue ourselves from the prospects of uncontrollable, but organized, human systems like the Roanoke City Council. Consequently, the emotional requirement for a symbolic anchor in a topsy-turvy world is the catalyst for the Sherman Lea/Brian Wishneff campaign to save Victory Stadium. Not surprisingly, their campaign message has resonated with thousands of Roanoke voters.

Yet, the only constant in a rapidly changing world is, paradoxically, constant change. Emotionally, it makes good evolutionary sense to react positively when the world is no longer the way it once was. Here, individuals with positive emotions would recognize that Victory Stadium had great cultural value and utility at one time but that it has outlived it social and economic usefulness.

Even a renovated, $10 million dollar stadium would basically be used for the Friday night football games of William Fleming and Patrick Henry high schools. Bill Cosby won’t perform there. Neither would jazz great Herbie Hancock. I don’t see the Dave Matthews Band returning there either. However, the amphitheater would have been a choice spot for all three acts.

Can we blithely ignore the reality that Victory Stadium sits on a flood plain? Can we blithely pretend that the stadium has not flooded on several occasions in the past 20 years? Can we ignore the fact that putting public funds into Victory Stadium renovation will inevitably give a literal meaning to the economic concept of “sunk costs?”

Several months ago, I wrote a column about America’s emerging “leisure class” — young professionals who are quickly becoming the social, work and economic power brokers for towns and cities across this country. Local municipalities cannot prosper, let alone survive, without them relocating to particular communities.

In exchange for living in a community, these children of the “affluent society” demand certain social and cultural amenities that include live performances in an outdoor venue. Roanoke simply can’t attract these professionals with a renovated Victory Stadium.

We live in a period of dizzying societal change. Rehabbing Victory Stadium as a symbol of a mythical past won’t change that reality any more than whistling while walking past the cemetery changes the reality of being afraid. Completion of the Orange Avenue complex would have been a positive collective experience and given birth to new traditions, cultural stories and emotional highs.

Instead, we are stuck with the Janus-faced nature of conservatorship — negative emotions that emerge when change has to be revolutionary and consequently are perceived as emotionally harmful and detrimental. The stadium issue will come around again. Hopefully, both politicians and advocates will then be better prepared to deal with the (negative) emotional side of change when it comes to the social, cultural and economic progress of the city.