Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2008 - 40

dictated much of the design from desire for a "statement" of a
building combining with zero knowledge of performing arts.
Another example is a community college needing to answer for spending more than $32 million for a fairly routine
performing arts building originally approved at $15 million-
much of the money going to exotic equipment not found in our
finest professional theatres and opera training conservatories,
let alone a small start-up arts program at the pre-baccalaureate
level. Looking across the country, we can see campus after
campus where vast millions ($100 to $150 million budgets
are not at all unusual) are casually spent on buildings while
there is scarcely funding for a small performing arts faculty or
for better programming to put better work on the new stages.
While these monster "bricks and mortar" budgets now seem
curiously unchallenged as an inevitable price for the fashion,
mystique, and complexity of this building type, the actual art
which goes on inside doesn't seem to thrive remarkably. (One
begins to wonder if there can be enough quality "product"
to stage in all these new venues; are we actually building beyond what the market will support at quality level?) Compare
this with yesteryear's pattern when esteemed arts programs
at major and long-established colleges and universities often made-do with fairly marginal facilities over the years and
nonetheless evolved distinguished traditions of teaching and
theatre production. If the very essence of theater can occur
with "three boards and a passion" is the performance payoff
in keeping with the cost? And shouldn't university arts centers
encourage some innovation at the heart of the design?
What follows from this is that schools can all too easily
spend money on facilities out of proportion with the fundamental reason for the building, namely the instructional and
performances program and the staff to bring it to life. Today's
sticker-shock reality now means that most campuses about
to add a performing arts building have two choices: (1) cut
back on space and building scope to try to stay within some
affordable budget, or (2) raise more and more money (private donors to augment public funding perhaps) to be able to
build a facility comparable to what used to be possible only a
few years back. In the meantime, there's no doubt the schools
will get less building for more dollars.
Along with the tendency to trumpet the grand new performing arts building as the prime accomplishment in and
of itself, I notice a good deal of worship of technology for its
own sake. Thus large arts centers and many of the smaller
ones tend to arrive absolutely loaded with a maximum quantity of stage rigging, stage machinery, stage lighting instruments
tacked on all over the place, monster-mix sound systems, and
the like. True, having the right equipment is essential for certain production values but do we often enough custom-select
a reasonable scope of equipment? Above all, the design of
the building itself is the first thing to get right. Perhaps the
biggest danger here is the questionable practice of having the
theatre consultant's fees calculated as a percentage of the cost
of the equipment specified for the job. Are we sure this isn't

an invitation to load up on top-price equipment and lots of
quantity?

A Better Approach?
Amid this criticism and concern, aren't there some truly fine
performing arts facilities being designed and built today? Yes,
there are definitely some very good, fresh, and thoughtful
designs being produced. (Perhaps a counterpoint article?)
Nonetheless, a first concern ought to be the many projects
which simply repeat generic and flawed tendencies in a bright
package. It's time to think twice about designers with long
lists of prior projects, a growing file of CAD-layouts and solutions, but a profitably formulaic approach. Deep critique and
re-dedication is overdue for all involved, including the client.
I suggest the performing arts facility "industry" would benefit
from critique and re-dedication in three areas:

The Architect-Consultant Relationship
I think the evidence now shows there is something missing
in the typical partnership of the generalist architect working with a theatre consultant, acoustical consultant, and
other experts. Too often, this usual team still leaves gaps in
expertise. Some theatre consultants do have a bit of architecture background, but very few are also full-time practicing architectural designers or complete theatre architects.
Instead, many theatre consultants' primary experience is in
the technical theater and backstage world and while that is
obviously very important it does not automatically ensure
skill and sensitivity in the artistic production side of things
or qualifications for delivering a balanced architectural solution for an arts building. The typical team can become a
committee of relatively narrow specialists, each in love with
his or her own expertise zone. Input tends to be compartmentalized and discontinuous-and a central vision with
mastery of all the specialties and special requirements just
isn't there. Key staffers in large architectural firms who work
with major performing arts consultants have picked up much
of the lingo of theater architecture and acoustics and related
fields, but that hardly translates to core understanding of the
arts. I have often seen large teams of high-profile consultants
burn up a year's worth of very big fees to come up with a
schematic design of an arts building which used to be done
by one or two multi-skilled architects in a fraction of the
time-the process has become an empire in itself. Wouldn't
our arts projects be far better served if the design team includes not just an architect with an approximate notion of
performing arts design, and not just a conventional theater
consultant, but an authentic theater architect-with firsthand arts expertise and sensitivity and passion in the entire
spectrum of concerns and complexities, and in-field experience implementing the design on through construction? He
or she should now be the key to better design.

F

A

L

L

2008

theatre

design

&

technology

39
Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 2008
