A startup client needed a good website on a short timeline and a small budget.
The site needed to explain a new company clearly and make a strong first impression. We had used static site generators for years, and this was a familiar fit. We chose Astro, built the site, and launched it.
What stayed with us was how little machinery the job needed. Our own website had considerably more.
Most conversations about AI and websites focus on speed. Code gets written faster. Copy gets drafted faster. The more important shift is that AI is becoming an interface for creating and managing content. For many organizations, that makes the bulky content management system between an idea and the finished page unnecessary.
The platform you chose a few years ago was right at the time, but the conditions around it have changed.
The performance was always there
Static sites have long appealed to us for their performance and reliability. Pages are built ahead of time and served directly, with fewer things that have to work on every visit. Astro is lightweight by design: it starts with HTML and lets us add JavaScript where it is needed. That fits how we like to build.
But keeping those pages current could make a CMS the better choice. Editors got familiar publishing screens and could work without asking a developer to update files. We valued performance, but it did not always outweigh that convenience.
Two systems to publish eight pages
Our own site shows how those choices add up. We used React because we were familiar with it. The site looked fine, but our implementation made the browser assemble the page before readers saw the content. Without running JavaScript, a visitor to the old home page got this:
You need to enable JavaScript to run this app.
After the startup project, we reconsidered what our site actually needed and moved it to Astro. We had faster pages, but the blog still used another framework, pulled content from Contentful, and deployed separately on its own subdomain. By this past summer, we had two systems and two deploys to publish about eight pages and a blog.
Then the way we worked with those files changed.
AI changed the publishing trade-off
Tools like Claude Code can work across a project’s files, make changes, run the build, and help check the result. They also let us work in plain language. We can ask for a case study that follows the others or correct a service everywhere it appears. The tool has access to the content, templates, and rules together. A person still reviews the work before it goes live.
This past summer, we changed our messaging and design, added case studies, and put a live performance audit on the home page. The expansion landed in a couple of days. Work that size used to take weeks.
We also brought the blog into the same site. A post became a readable text file, and we had one system to maintain.
Our site’s readable files make that work straightforward. The article and its page template are available together. We can preview a revision, run checks, and review the changes before publishing. It is the same lesson behind our approach to accessibility: well-organized systems make good work easier.
Static sites already had the performance advantage we wanted. AI reduced the effort of creating and maintaining their content. That changes the cost-benefit equation, making them practical for sites where the publishing work once tipped the decision toward a CMS.
The old costs can survive the new tools
Now consider a platform configured over years. Business rules are scattered across plugins, templates, and integrations. Some features go untouched because nobody wants to discover what they might break. Before anyone improves a word, the organization pays to host, license, patch, upgrade, and support the system holding it.
AI can draft copy for that website, but the change may still pass through the same few people who understand the configuration. The organization gets faster typing, then pastes the result into the same old bottleneck.
A CMS can also give AI tools access through APIs and integrations. That can help. It still leaves the question of whether the organization needs everything it is paying to operate.
A CMS now has to earn its place
Contentful and other hosted platforms still earn their cost when many editors need permissions and approvals or content feeds several channels. Those capabilities need a home. Removing the CMS does not remove the requirements.
Many marketing websites have simpler needs. A handful of people publish pages, news, case studies, and staff changes. They use a fraction of what their CMS can do while carrying its maintenance burden.
For them, a plain-language publishing workflow can be a workable alternative, with previews, human review, version history, and rollback built into the process. Setting that up takes care, but maintaining a large CMS takes care too. AI changes how much work each choice demands.
That also changes the performance decision. A CMS can be fast, and some already deliver static pages. But if yours needs constant tuning and layers of caching to serve straightforward content, that effort belongs in the calculation.
If you no longer need the complexity of a CMS, why keep fighting it for performance?
The next decision starts with what you need to keep
We have spent years building and supporting WordPress, Drupal, Sitecore, Contentful, and custom platforms, alongside static sites. We know where they earn their keep and which parts become expensive after launch. Removing a CMS without understanding its hidden jobs is a good way to discover them after they are gone.
Start by separating the capabilities you need from the platform providing them. Who publishes? What requires approval? What connects to other systems? The answers may point to a simpler site, an incremental move, or a better use of the CMS you have.
Any transition must protect URLs, search visibility, accessibility, analytics, and publishing controls. The people responsible for the content need a workflow they can use confidently.
That startup project gave us a reason to revisit our own choices. AI has since made the case for a simpler site stronger, including in places where we once would have recommended a CMS.
The question for your organization is how far that equation has moved. Keller Solutions has built and maintained both kinds of sites. We can help you decide what still earns its place and make the transition while preserving what your team depends on.