Christopher Blair’s guest post on Adaptistration today on the subject of concert hall design is particularly relevant to me because we have been reviewing architects for a pretty major renovation of our facility. Unfortunately, my staff and I weren’t invited to the meeting where the architects were interviewed, nor did we have much opportunity to interact with them as they toured the facility so all we have to go by are the presentation packets they submitted during the interview. The presentation packets are heavy on why the architects and their team are so great and light on what their vision for the facility is. My technical director has been making inquiries about their work on some of the local projects they have listed to find out what the consensus on their work might be. (By the way, I am not using this blog as my outlet to complain. I have had conversations expressing these frustrations to the vice chancellor of operations. He is not entirely in control of what meetings we are included in and is having us participate as much as he is able. It is characteristic of a government bureaucracy that it tends to focus on its needs over that of the users.)

What I do know of the proposals is that all the candidates unanimously join us in our desire to raze our box office, a monolithic column which obstructs views of our gorgeous lobby mural, has no shelter from the rain for ticket buyers, is cramped and has poor lighting. Of course, we have our own requirements for the renovation which include improved restroom facilities, better drainage and lighting system. Though the details are scant, some of the architects are take a more utilitarian approach than others who are focused on the experience of the patron as they arrive in the parking lot until they get to their seat. Right now, that is the quality that is elevating some over others. Of course, there is also the matter of whether we can afford that vision or not.

One interesting thing that emerged from each of the proposals was that many of the same companies the lead architects were proposing to handle some of the specialty areas like environmental engineering keep appearing again and again. I don’t think I have it in me to pursue a degree in engineering as a second career, but if I were to do so, I saw some areas of low competition.

Coincidentally enough, I initially had one of the same concerns about the renovation to the stage floor that Christopher Blair had. Our current floor is pretty old larch. So many people were coming away with splinters that we covered it with a temporary masonite/plywood layer. One of the solutions proposed by an architect would be to replace it with a composite that wouldn’t splinter but would have enough spring to accommodate our frequent dance performances. While our stage is not laid over concrete as in one of the examples Blair cited, but one of my first concerns was how it might change the acoustics of the room. Even though we don’t really operate as the concert halls Blair designs for, there were some issues with the temporary flooring muting the sound someone wanted to produce almost immediately after we laid it down. My suspicion though is that it won’t adversely impact the sound in the room in any significant way. Still, it was satisfying to have confirmation from Blair that the relationship between the floor and the sound of a room are important consideration.