Last week city council passed a resolution divorcing consideration of the fate of Centennial Hall from any discussion about whether London needs a performing arts centre.

How nonsensical.

The idea is to take the emotion out of the debate on the performing arts centre so that a decision whether to build one or not is made strictly on its merits.

The fact remains, however, that many Londoners – rightly or wrongly – believe we already have a performing arts centre, called Centennial Hall.

As has been reported widely, the 40-year-old building is said to have scarcely 10 years left in her, and that only if a range of expensive repairs are made. But all in, the cost of those repairs would be perhaps $20 million; at the bottom end of a long range, a performing arts centre will cost $50 and then some.

If the $20 million was spent, would Centennial Hall really be a performing arts centre in the purist sense of the genre? No. A real performing arts centre would have natural sound, would have tiered seating that all faced the stage, would have flies and wings to handle a wide range of staging requirements and would seat 1,800 people in comfort. Plus it would have ancillary rooms and stages for smaller performances and practices.

Let’s be honest, Centennial Hall has none of those. Still, it is not without its supporters and fixed up could function as an acceptable, if somewhat dull, venue for the wide range of concerts, entertainments and meetings it current does more than 150 days of the year.

And on the question of honesty, if council really wants to be honest with all of the citizens of London they would put all the options out there at the same time so that, emotionally or otherwise, an intelligent decision could be made.