Is the Park Place Hotel dome a historically significant structure that deserves to be preserved? Or is it an outdated facility overdue for replacement?

Historic Districts commissioners will debate the issue tomorrow (Thursday) at their 7pm meeting at the Governmental Center. Architect Ken Richmond is representing the Park Place in its quest to demolish the dome to make way for a new conference center, part of a proposed four-phase, $50 million redevelopment project downtown.

Because the hotel is located within the downtown historic district, the project must go before Historic Districts commissioners for review. Board members tabled discussion of the project in December after the State Historic Preservation Office contacted city officials and notified them that “spiral regeneration domes are a unique part of Michigan’s modern history" and that the state encouraged "the preservation of these resources.”

“Commissioners said, ‘Let’s do a little more due diligence on this (before making a decision),’” says Zoning Administrator Dave Weston, a staff liaison to the board.

The Park Place dome was constructed out of Styrofroam in 1964 using a then-revolutionary “spiral generation” technique patented by Dow Chemical Company. Traverse City was one of the first communities to feature such a structure; other sites included a golf course clubhouse in Ann Arbor, a planetarium in Toledo and a clinic in Lafayette.

But Grand Traverse County Deputy Director of Planning and Development Jean Derenzy – who’s guiding developers through the brownfield funding component of the Park Place project – says the dome's design was experimental and short-term in nature. She believes the Park Place hotel itself – not the dome – has historical significance.

“(The dome) was an add-on that was supposed to be a quick fix, not something intended to stay there for a long period of time,” says Derenzy. Weston also states that when the city established its downtown historic district, “the dome was not listed as a contributing structure – just the hotel itself.”

Commissioners will have to weigh the rarity and innovation of the dome’s design against undue economic hardship placed on hotel owners by refusing to allow for its demolition.

Richmond wrote commissioners that “not only are the (dome's) systems incredibly inefficient and wasteful by today’s energy standards, but the reality is that this building offers little in the way of modern convenience that meeting planners expect.” He noted that it’s become “increasingly more difficult for (the Park Place) to compete with other facilities in the market.”

Traverse City Fire Department Marshal Mike Sheets has also expressed safety concerns about the building. In a January 13 report, Sheets wrote that the dome is not equipped with automatic fire sprinklers and utilizes construction materials “not thoroughly known.” Sheets said that in the event of a fire, his department could “not deploy conventional firefighting techniques,” increasing the risk of damage and loss of life.

“In my professional opinion…replacement of the dome at the Park Place Hotel would greatly increase the level of life safety within the entire complex,” Sheets wrote. “We feel the improved life safety would outweigh the perceived historical value of retaining this structure."

On the other side of the debate, historian and author Julie Schopieray published a lengthy defense this month of the dome’s importance to Traverse City’s history. “Even though the dome was experimental at the time, it has withstood fifty years of use,” Shopieray wrote. “If we are to lose this unique structure, we, at the very least, need to remember the significance it held for our city just one generation ago.”

Historical importance, economic impact and public safety are all factors commissioners will take under consideration as they review the project this week ahead of a likely February or March ruling on the dome's demolition. “That’s all going to be a valid part of the conversation,” says Weston. “I think they're going to take a hard look at it.”