TRAVERSE CITY — Members of the community expressed concerns over the proposed $25.5 million demolition and rebuilding of the Central High School gymnasium.
Five people spoke during the public comment period of the Traverse City Area Public Schools’ Board of Education study session Monday night, asking for a pause or further public discussion about the project. Construction is currently set to begin next April, once the winter sports season wraps up.
The issue was not on the board’s agenda for the evening, but President Erica Moon Mohr thanked the speakers for taking the time to share their thoughts and concerns.
“We hear you. We understand that this decision matters deeply to our community. We understand the history of Central High School Gym, and we understand that people have strong feelings about what should happen next,” she said.
The board did not come to the decision easily or quickly, with the board “working through this issue for more than five years,” Moon Mohr said. She said that she respects their opinion and their right to hold the board accountable.
“We may not agree on everything, and that’s OK. What I hope we can agree on is that we all care deeply about our students, our schools and our community,” she said.
The renovation of the high school’s main office and gym areas was part of a 2024 bond and was aimed to create a larger gym, increase ADA accessibility, create space for the growing wrestling program, and improve security and student flow.
The project is still in the design phase and finalized plans have not been approved.
Justin Thorington, athletic director and assistant principal, said at the August board meeting that he has had a number of meetings with parents, coaches and physical education teachers to discuss the plans. Working mock-ups and blueprints were shared with coaching staff before that meeting, he said.
At the same meeting, Principal Benjamin Berger said that everyone had something to complain about in the proposed design because they had “competing” priorities. Gym teachers were worried about flow and the number of courts, administrators were worried about ADA compliance and safety and security and alumni were worried about “what it feels like on a Friday night,” he said.
Despite these differences, Berger said they have held conversations at “each turn” and that he thought everyone was “comfortable moving forward” at that time.
Since then, there has been some public pushback. Rebecca Schubert set up an online petition to save the gym and questioned the “transparency” and “integrity” with which the decision was made. She claims that when voters approved the 2024 bond, voters were not told that the gym would be demolished.
The petition asks the board to “pause the design phase, honor the original presentation of the bond language, and work with local preservationists to design an ADA-compliant renovation that saves our historic gym and creates more gym space.”
During the meeting, Schubert said that the gym wasn’t “just a brick and mortar, it is a living archive of memories for countless alumni, students, parents, and teachers. Tearing it down erases our shared legacy for past and future generations, just like the state hospital, in my opinion.”
Superintendent John VanWagoner said that a lot of people he has spoken with don’t want the new gym to look like the gym at West Senior High. He said the current designs retain some of the unique traits of the gym, including the mezzanine with seats with arms and backs.
The project has been progressing since the bond was approved, and the board voted unanimously in July 2025 to move into the design phase of the renovations after considering three options. They chose the administration’s recommendation with demolition of the existing 1958 gym, construction of a new competition gym with two regulation courts, a new athletic lobby and the creation of a new secure entrance vestibule.
The board did consider an option, for roughly the same price, that did not include demolition of the gym.
That option would not have resulted in the additional court or wrestling room, included only “minor” ADA modifications and would have made some of the proposed safety and security upgrades “difficult,” meeting materials said.
There was also an option for no demolition and an addition for more courts, but the proposed cost was millions more.
Berger said that the administration has worked hard to retain the unique feel of the gym. Trustee Scott Hardy said those efforts were successful, based on the designs.
“It’s markedly different than your gym at West, and so it has unique characteristics,” he said. “And as somebody who went to that gym in the ‘70s, I think it looks and feels a little bit like the old gym, but it’s new. And I think that’s the critical point.”
VanWagoner said that they are trying to figure out ways to preserve pieces of the old gym to honor the history and feel of the space.
“I think that the architects are doing a really good job of getting us there. We’ve just got again some final little pieces to work out,” he said.
Trustees Hardy and Ty Schmidt said that there was value in keeping the public discussion going. Schmidt said he didn’t want to re-litigate the decision to construct a new gym but said he would be open to hosting community forums on the issue and the board should “reflect and think a little bit about how we communicate.”
There is a timeline consideration — the district’s insurance company will not cover the old bleachers currently in the gym past the end of this year.
“I think we also have to figure out a way to compromise on this because ultimately the goal of this board, and the reason we’re where we’re at, is about the way we use the gym,” Hardy said. “Not the way we used to, but the way we’re going to use it for the next 30 to 50 years.”