Theatre Consultants

[andystone]

I'm just wondering what you guys think of theatre/technical consultants?

 

After working for years on the installation side of the business I have come across numerous new or rennovated venues where the technical aspect is overspecified as a consultant is involved (i.e. socket outlet boxes in every nok and cranny but no money left for luminaires) or just badly specified as the council or architect decided to have a go and didn't have a clue.

 

I realise that most of you would probably have a good idea of what you want, but in my experience you probably don't get asked.

 

So, what is the answer???

 

Andy

Stagetec

[gareth]

As with any profession, there are good ones and there are bad ones. (Have to say, from personal experience Carr & Angier get my vote as the former!)

 

But you can always tell when the people building a new venue have used a consultant who know their stuff, as there's (usually) all the right bits in all the right places. On the other hand, it's equally obvious when the architect (and perhaps the planning department if it's a council venue) have decided to save a few bob and have a go themselves, coz there are always so many things in the venue that make a touring technician stand around with a puzzled expression on their faces, asking "... but WHY?!".

[andystone]

OK, Carr and Angier know their stuff and I have worked on quite a few of their projects, but it seems to me that they are always trying to cover themselves by specifying loads of everything in terms of infrastructure, but then the money runs out and the venue has no equipment.

 

Andy

Stagetec

[gareth]

OK, Carr and Angier know their stuff and I have worked on quite a few of their projects, but it seems to me that they are always trying to cover themselves by specifying loads of everything in terms of infrastructure, but then the money runs out and the venue has no equipment.

I see what you're saying, Andy. And to a point I agree. But isn't it the function of a theatre consultant to ensure that a new venue is designed in such a way as to be able to cope with whatever demands may be made of it in the foreseeable future? It's pretty hard to do this without getting the infrastructure right, and to do that you need to make it as comprehensive as possible.

 

You're right to say that the provision of equipment shouldn't be an afterthought, or shunted down the priority list at the expense of having nice comfy leather chairs in the marketing office or whatever - but at least part of the responsibility for ensuring this must lie with the people who are setting the budgets in the first place. Enough needs to be set aside to make sure that there are sufficient funds to kit the venue out to a suitable standard.

[Bryson]

Oh, now you've got me started...

 

This is a major topic of discussion in my house. My flatmate is the "proud" technical manager of a new venue designed some years ago (but not built until recently) by a consultant. That building (and I've worked in it) has some seriously weird bits and pieces in it.

 

I, on the other hand have a new venue in which we did not use a consultant (it's only small). And yes, I have made mistakes. But we can't see any massive problems - it was all designed with the uses we know we're going to get in mind, and it's been kept pretty simple.

 

The other issue is how far the design varies form the actuality of building. I've learnt from recent experience that as much as they resent it, you do need to hover over the shoulder of the contractors and check it is being built the way they claimed it was going to be. (Today I will be mostly demanding the dimmed lighting in my control room that I was promised, not the fluorescents I seem to have acquired...)

 

I think the ideal lies in the middle ground - consultants are all very well, but many of them haven't actually run a show or rigged a light or done anything "real" for several years (in some cases, decades!). Early, and heavy involvement with the users is the way forward.

[Ben...]

I, on the other hand have a new venue in which we did not use a consultant (it's only small).  And yes, I have made mistakes.  But we can't see any massive problems - it was all designed with the uses we know we're going to get in mind, and it's been kept pretty simple.

To go slightly off topic; remembering the thread a while back where you asked for suggestions of things you might have forgotten, and in the optimistic hope of encountering the same situation sooner or later, I know that I'd be interested if you could find the time to write a 'lessons learnt' type article.

[Bryson]

Will do, but not in this thread. It'll be quite long, and it's not entirely over yet, so I'll leave it until then.

[andystone]

OK, Carr and Angier know their stuff and I have worked on quite a few of their projects, but it seems to me that they are always trying to cover themselves by specifying loads of everything in terms of infrastructure, but then the money runs out and the venue has no equipment.

I see what you're saying, Andy. And to a point I agree. But isn't it the function of a theatre consultant to ensure that a new venue is designed in such a way as to be able to cope with whatever demands may be made of it in the foreseeable future? It's pretty hard to do this without getting the infrastructure right, and to do that you need to make it as comprehensive as possible.

 

You're right to say that the provision of equipment shouldn't be an afterthought, or shunted down the priority list at the expense of having nice comfy leather chairs in the marketing office or whatever - but at least part of the responsibility for ensuring this must lie with the people who are setting the budgets in the first place. Enough needs to be set aside to make sure that there are sufficient funds to kit the venue out to a suitable standard.

Yes, I can see where your coming from, but it seems to me that when a new venue runs over budget the first thing to be cut is the equipment, is this right?

 

Surely, the infrastructure is no good unless there is equipment to connect to it?

 

Perhaps this would depend on the venue as a producing house will have more need for equipment whereas a touring house would have more need for infrastructure.

 

But surely the consultant should have input as to where whatever money is left after the overspend on the building, is spent - and where should this go, what is most important?

 

Andy Stone

Stagetec

[Stu]

Yes, I can see where your coming from, but it seems to me that when a new venue runs over budget the first thing to be cut is the equipment, is this right?

 

Perhaps this would depend on the venue as a producing house will have more need for equipment whereas a touring house would have more need for infrastructure.

Point A - yes this seems to be the case in my experience

 

Point B - A touring house can have both the need for infrastructure and equipment - we do medium scale tours, on which one week it's the house stock / desk and next week could be touring stock / desk. Of course when we offer our stock, we should be able to offer the best we can - so I think it's a bit of both.

 

Stu

[gareth]

Yes, I can see where your coming from, but it seems to me that when a new venue runs over budget the first thing to be cut is the equipment, is this right?

Unfortunately that seems to be the case all too often these days. If there's only enough left in the pot for either an extra half-dozen parcans or that big chrome Gaggia espresso machine for the management offices, we all know what's going to get the chop - the admin staff couldn't possibly function without their fancy coffee in the mornings, how could they possibly last until their knocking-off time of 4:30 without it? ;)

[andy_s]

2 definitions:

infrastructure: stuff buried in the wall that you can't always get to later to redo or add to.

kit: stuff you can buy a bit at a time and rent in the meantime.

 

and its a lot more fun to play with new kit than with new infrastructure. There's a very valid argument for letting the consultants do the boring bits.

(of course I realize that in the real world it takes a long time to save up for stuff)

 

 

regarding extending the infrastructure: how many people have specified 50% or more spare capacity in their trunking runs, and has anyone ever actually opened a building with said spare capacity still intact? And was the trunking in the right place for the new addition?

[andy_s]

extra half-dozen parcans or that big chrome Gaggia espresso machine for the management offices, we all know what's going to get the chop - the admin staff couldn't possibly function without their fancy coffee in the mornings,

I think that good coffee is important too, and I fully intend to ensure that the technical staff have the same rights of access to the shiny gaggia thing as the admin types when we get our new theatre.

 

My view of consultants is that if you expect them to provide expertise you don't have, then you get the building or facility the consultants think you should have, and that may be appropriate, and that's why you are paying them. If the client has a good base level of expertise which they expect the consultant to use their expertise to amplify or extend, then you should pretty much get the thing you want.

 

We should remember that although theatre technicians are undoubtedly the experts in running their own venue, that doesn't always leave time to keep abreast of developments in technology, good practice, etc. Even living and working in London, I am not always able to attend trade shows, seminars etc when I would like to. When I worked in the provinces, it was even harder to do. A good consultant will be able to put all this extra into the pot.

 

We should also remember that you pay a consultant to give you advice. If the advice is innappropriate, unaffordable, or you just don't like it, then it is your prerogative as client to dipense with that advice.

 

I should add that I'm not a consultant!

[David Ripley]

Hi all

 

I've experienced a refurb with a well known Consultancy who I would now not touch with a barge pole. Or rather certain members of that company.

 

Having said that, when we had to redo a lot of the sound and LX systems as they basically didn't do what we wanted, the huge infrastructure they had installed actually made this quite easy

 

I think the main problem I found was that the contract for the refurb was between the Theatre Consultants and the Council. The theatre trust were just these 'interested bystanders' until the handover day.

 

As a result whenever I sneaked into the venue to have a look I was either chased out or if I did spot a glaring error (often pointed out by the sparkies etc doing the install) I was told it wasn't my problem until the building was handed over at which point it would be snagged.

 

As I result there was a lot of extra expenditure and guess what? No money for new lanterns etc.

 

Contact me off forum if you want names and horror stories!

 

David

[Andrew C]

Following a few 'differences' over the kit part of a budget being eaten into, I try to buy the kit ASAP and store it until the rest of the project is finished.

 

The script goes;

 

Consultant or beancounter, "There was woodworm in all the joists, we can't afford the sound equipment."

 

Me, "It's in the loft already."

 

Beancounter, "We can't afford it!"

 

Me, "We already have! "

 

Beancounter, "Send it back!"

 

Me, "We've security marked it, so we won't get our money back..."

 

;)

[Thirdtap]

regarding extending the infrastructure: how many people have specified 50% or more spare capacity in their trunking runs, and has anyone ever actually opened a building with said spare capacity still intact? And was the trunking in the right place for the new addition?

 

Brilliant point. With this in mind I think it makes sense for the infrastructure to be complete and little or no new toys, sorry equipment. Rather than spending money on say a shiny new xl4000 wiggly manager lighting desk then having no way of adapting control areas (from the control room to the auditorium). The infrastructure should serve you for a long time where as the XL4000 will become useless much quicker say 5 years.

Equipment can always be hired in for productions or make do with whats available.