New venue

[top-cat]

Another good place to look is the "Case Studies" sections on Theatre Projects and CharcoalBlue's websites. These companies design and build theatres and particularly with new builds cropping up more in the Middle East and Asia in the last few years there are some extremely high spec venues out there which these companies have built and written up on for their websites so there should be some good inspiration.

 

For me, some things which spring to mind and make me say "good build" are:

 

Level load-in onto stage with truck height dock and if possible also a separate raised section for vans.

 

High dock door and load in clear of aerial obstructions

 

Step free, preferably plus elevator, access to FOH position / control room from loading dock

 

Elevator access to grid and fly floors / gallery

 

LX Panels in all useful places (around stage, fly floors, spot positions, lighting bridges etc) with dim lines, hot lines, DMX, Cat5, comms, etc and proper labelling on them all

 

As much Cat5 from FOH C/R to stage as possible

 

Lighting bridges in FOH with stair or preferably elevator access

 

Removeable grid slats

 

Motorised fly bars with encoders and overload / underload sensors

 

Loads of power available, and heavy mains in all useful places

[Stuart91]

Employ an acoustics consultant.

 

+1 for this suggestion.

 

Many venue blunders can be worked around, or fixed in future years. "Fixing" unsuitable acoustics can be very expensive and it can be hard to get support for the spend. I've seen several venues, not actual theatres, but it wouldn't be a stretch to call them "performance spaces", rendered almost useless by poor acoustics.

[Bobbsy]

I'll leave it to others with more experience than me to give you suggestions about what you want in a theatre. However, I've worked with architects a number of times on TV Studio projects and have some suggestions on how to handle THAT relationship.

 

First off, however your employer is handling things, make sure you're involved right from the start. If there's to be some kind of "design and build committee" make sure you're on it.

 

Then, make sure you have a very clear idea of what you want and need--I know that's what you're trying to get here. Make sure YOU fully understand what your employers want and, where there's woolly thinking, make them clarify things.

 

At this point, spend a few days writing a VERY detailed specification for the architect (and get it approved by your employers). Leave the "pretty" bits to the architect but be clear on things like "a proscenium arch 15 metre wide and 10 metres high with a stage at least 15 metres deep from the proc arch to the back wall and an apron of 2 metres in front of the proc arch" and "at least 10 metres of wing space (and you'll need to define that) on either side". Go into detail of access for sets, number and size of dressing rooms, size of auditorium, number of seats and rake of seating, duct work for wiring (which I assume will be installed by specialists) etc. etc. etc. In my experience, architects will make sure you have a 15 metre ceiling if you specify in writing--but take anything not set down on paper as licence to do what they want.

 

Once you have you approved spec, make sure you sit down with the architect and go through it line by line, making sure they understand exactly what you mean and why it's important.

 

During the build there will likely be regular site meetings and inspections. Go to all of them and "snag" anything not meeting spec at the earliest possible opportunity. If the build is not to spec and you snag it they shouldn't charge extra to sort it out--but if you give tacit approval by not snagging...it turns into a bun fight.

 

Get to know the architect and the project manager on a personal level. Take them out for a drink and establish yourself as somebody who can give correct decisions.

 

Above all, have fun and take the opportunity to create a good space for you to work in.

 

Employ an acoustics consultant.

 

Yes! +1000.

 

I've worked with SANDY BROWN ASSOCIATES on several occasions and they are extremely competent, easy to work with and basically worth their weight in gold.

 

Getting the acoustics right to start with is cheaper than fixing them later.

[richard]

I agree with all that Bobbsy says, I would add though that when technicians blame the architect for not listening they should also remember that the client (ie their bosses) has signed the scheme off. It is very important that those managing the scheme listen to their staff (including technicians, box office staff and similar) and ensure that they instruct the architects accordingly. Sadly there appear to be some organisations that feel that since the architect is paid a lot and the technician isn't the architect must be right - which obviously is not always the case.

 

On the note of designing in how to maintain/repair equipment, the architect and wider design team has a legal obligation under the CDM regulations to ensure that this is considered at the design stage - there are stories of architects being sued in the past when venues have discovered that it costs them thousands to relamp light bulbs - it's worth finding concrete examples of this to point out when raising such issues!

[Junior8]

Just one more thing don't neglect to consider the flooring and take nothing re that on trust. The biggest build I was ever involved with actually ended up pretty well because once the real users met up with the architects most of the things that were needed were included. But we all took for granted that people who lay floors know what they are doing. We ended up with a sort of faux parquet laminate floor, floating on a membrane, that expanded and contracted daily and bulged at the walls. Worse it seemed incurable. This factor is especially important if the new building is going to provided with movable bleacher seats as the point loading of these when fully folded back is significant. In out case it stopped the floor moving there and worsened the problem elsewhere. Oh yes on that subject ensure they specify the right road surface outside the scene dock doors. Seeing a fully laden Transit sink through tarmac specified only for foot traffic is interesting!

[top-cat]

Just one more thing don't neglect to consider the flooring and take nothing re that on trust.

 

Not just the floor but the stage surface too - if you're having an under-stage space, fine. Raise it up on proper steel or concrete sections. If not, just lay a concrete slab and go onto that. Too many places I've been where the stage has been made of flimsy metal or even wood for no purpose other than cost; and the side effect being that stage loading is reduced to 20 gentle-footed children. You can even just lay steeldeck and then put a proper floor surface onto the top (usually some ply in between to smooth it out) but not some horrible wooden box thing please! Obviously even better than a general stage service is hydraulics or other moving floor (spiralifts are quite economical for instance, or chain drive). Hydraulic stage platforms reduce the need for temporary platforms being built on stage and also reduce manual handling of set since anything going at height can be built on the stage at ground level and lifted to height on the platform.

 

 

And having covered what's below you, what's above you is also important! For the sake of modern H&S, don't even think of dead-hung bars. Let it move, the safety implications are much better as it reduces work at height and almost eliminates material handling at height. And if possibly, really try to go with electric hoists or winch(es). I have been many places with hand winches geared to horribly low ratios where it takes 70,000 turns to bring a bar containing 10 par cans in. What's the result? The techs leave the bar in place and take the fixtures down off a ladder. If you're going to prevent work at height by use of moving bars, you have to at least make it in the techs' interest to do so. If you're going all out and having a grid, one with removable slats is always best. Make sure that walking around the grid is fairly simple and not too badly obstructed, and that there is a 'border' all round the grid of solid floor where you can store kit. A couple of lockers is a nice addition to the grid to encourage people to leave their phones in them and not where they could be dropped. If you're intending on rigging house motors motor-up, they can also be kept in the border to save lugging them up to the grid each time, unless of course you can get a lift right up there. Lighting bridges are by far the best way of focussing anything in FOH. In a new build these can easily be incorporated into the ceiling design so that they're not noticeable to the audience but still very much present for the lighting crew. Proper work lighting on these is a small detail often overlooked but always useful. And as previously alluded to, the more of these locations you can get to from a lift, the better, as less fatigued crew are more useful and safer crew. I've been places where even the gallows arms can be accessed by proper work platforms from a lift.

[alistermorton]

This might seem like a luxury, but don't forget to consider motorised stage movement too. We use our motorised revolve quite a lot, and having sections of stage that can be raised and lowered by operating motorised lifters adds to the flexibility.

 

I liked the easy access to the lighting in Questors at Ealing. All of the lighting positions are reachable directly from the control room via walkways (OK, no lift to them, but far better than needing ladder access) and there is lamp storage and repair space on the same level, so lanterns don't have to be brought down to ground level for maintenance.

 

EDIT to add

 

The lighting area also has several talkback ring points so that for example follow spot operators can plug in anywhere on the elevated workspace, and of course lots of power outlets.

[top-cat]

Something I forgot to say is that on BR we frequently bash the architects. It is often their fault and they often do some very stupid and impractical things in order to line their own portfolios with pretty pictures for next week's blog entry, whilst somebody else has to deal with a crappy load in for the next 40 years. But whilst everyone has done a good job of saying "keep on your architects backs and don't let them deviate", there has been a lack of point about doing this to ALL of your contractors. If you use general electricians, fire alarm installers, air conditioning engineers, etc etc; they do not understand the specifics of theatre either - and also want to make the best margins they can. So just when you think you've succeeded in getting your architects to install a 30ft tall roller shutter on the front door to get huge pieces of set in... your HVAC contractors will come in one afternoon and put a lardy great air con duct right across it only 10ft off the ground.

 

In my venue we have 2 up-down stage catwalks - one at SL one at SR with a bridge across U/S. Obviously, the handrails provide a nice convenient place to rest the air con on, so the guys installing it didn't have to do the laborious task of suspending it from the ceiling like normal. So my nice 8' tall catwalks still have to be crawled along because there was nobody in overall charge of the build to say "no, that's not what the catwalks are for". But even better installed was the fire sprinkler system. Again, the installers saw that installing the sprinklers directly over the catwalk, working from the catwalk below was going to be far easier than going up a tower to install them over the stage. So if there is a fire in my venue... the safest place to be will be the catwalks. These will have rivers running down them. The stage? Forget it. No chance. So because one fire system installer didn't want the laborious task of putting it in properly, we now have a totally pointless sprinkler system and 2 catwalks littered with sharp sprinkler heads at head-height for everyone to crack their nut on. But that's not even the best one. The best one is the fire alarm laser. This thing goes right across the stage, left to right, and if the laser is broken (by smoke etc) it activates the smoke alarm. Now whoever put this in did not think to check the locations - nor the heights - of the tab tracks, particularly those masking the wings. So guess what? Every time you draw the stage curtains, the guys in the security office go into panic and assume we are burning down.

 

These all happened because one party could not be bothered to talk to another party, and because nobody wanted to stand up and take responsibility for the overall management of the install. We have an almost completely useless fire system and catwalks which are pretty hazardous to everyone simply because contractors thought only of making themselves an easy day, and were not gripped by a project manager to supply a properly done product. And it's a shame because besides that we are gifted with a very good size stage, a beautiful auditorium, a spacious and well positioned control room, and generally quite workable infrastructure.

 

So whilst I agree that architects need to be kept on a leash and not given too much freedom... just make sure you have a theatre minded man of some authority on the ground throughout the install, else all the other contractors will think it is christmas too.

 

(Just for balance - the load in is probably our finest work. Just in the sense that we have a 20m x 20m stage area with 8 metres to the grid and large wings; plus an auditorium to seat 800... so every facility to put on a big show or event; but the stage load in door goes into an underground car park with a 3m ceiling height and no facility to get trucks less than about a 200m walk through the car park to that door. Massive, massive oversight in the name of keeping the building looking as uninterrupted as possible from the outside, it is by far our biggest shortfall and one that all of our suppliers remember! So the architects are still on my hit list don't worry).

[dsharp7th]

If you have time between creating the perfect dock and ultimate grid, consider the suitability of spaces like the foyer, bars and entrances for entertainment. Experience of overlaying events in theatres is that it is usually more by luck than design that any given space outside the auditorium works for 'fringe' entertainment, yet this can make a huge difference for multi-venue arts festival type shows, as well as lucrative private bookings and 'public after parties'. It could be as little as some strategic power outlets, easy to move furniture, and not erecting a giant conceptual sculpture in the middle of an open space.

[Chris.Morris]

If you have time between creating the perfect dock and ultimate grid, consider the suitability of spaces like the foyer, bars and entrances for entertainment. Experience of overlaying events in theatres is that it is usually more by luck than design that any given space outside the auditorium works for 'fringe' entertainment, yet this can make a huge difference for multi-venue arts festival type shows, as well as lucrative private bookings and 'public after parties'. It could be as little as some strategic power outlets, easy to move furniture, and not erecting a giant conceptual sculpture in the middle of an open space.

 

Symphony hall in Birmingham has pretty regular foyer gigs, there's now a certain amount of install tech just for the job. Other places I've worked that try to do foyer gigs are made it hard by having appalling acoustics out there - the acoustic consultant was only invited to do the auditorium, not the outlying areas.

 

Thinking Symphony hall reminds me of the ICC, which reminds me in turn: if you must have a lift, then make it massive, and big enough for set etc.

 

Suggesting things like that does of course make me think this will turn out to be a village hall sized venue and these suggestions will be of no help at all!

[Bobbsy]

Something I forgot to say is that on BR we frequently bash the architects. It is often their fault and they often do some very stupid and impractical things in order to line their own portfolios with pretty pictures for next week's blog entry, whilst somebody else has to deal with a crappy load in for the next 40 years.

 

I'd go so far as to say that it's NEVER the architect's fault. I can pretty much guarantee that, where major mistakes are made, somebody from the client has signed off on those mistakes. For me, that's where the major fault lies.

 

Unless you're very lucky, the architect won't be expert on technical matters in theatre design. It's up to the client (i.e. US or our employers) to tell them what's needed then check and double check that the spec is being adhered to.

[mac.calder]

There has been a lot of talk about over the stage rigging and the lighting bridges... With every touring show seemingly touring with at least a truss of movers and projectors to go in front of the stage remember to ensure there is an easy way to rig. A fore-stage grid so that you can drop points anywhere is nice - but at least a few decent eyelets that are easily reachable from an EWP or the LX bridges would do in a pinch.

 

Also any modern venue should be built with a stage capable of holding an EWP (whether a vertical man lift like a cougar or genie or a scissor or boom). A tallescope is the safest practical tool of the bad bunch due to restricted weight loadings on a stage.

 

I'll now share some learnings from my current venue:

 

A mid-stage lift 10mx6m that goes to the sub-stage/loading dock is great for getting truckloads of gear to stage level relatively quickly - however when the secondary method of getting gear up is a gantry crane the limitations of a mid-stage lift quickly become apparent. This becomes even more apparent when a large show bumps in and installs a deck over the stage for automation etc. If your stage is not at loading dock level have at least 2 effective methods of getting gear up and 1 or 2 additional methods - so a large moving platform, a goods lift, a man lift and a gantry for example.

 

If you need a harness and rope access training to rig motor point then you have screwed up majorly in the design phase.

 

Think about how the PA can be made aesthetically pleasing - work with the acoustic engineer to do this.

 

Look at where structural pillars are going. These are immovable - operating CW Lineset #80 in my venue (which is a black smother - rarely run during a show) is the most awkward line as the brake sits 150mm from the pillar - and they then placed acoustic dampening on the pillar - so one arm is almost always pinned into the pillowy-wall.

 

Really look at your work lights. If you have a fly system discount any lights pointing straight down from the grid.

 

If you are having counterweight flys - think of an effective way to move weights between loading floors. A gantry crane, a lift or a dumb-waiter for example.

[gibbothegreat]

I'd go so far as to say that it's NEVER the architect's fault. I can pretty much guarantee that, where major mistakes are made, somebody from the client has signed off on those mistakes. For me, that's where the major fault lies.

 

Unless you're very lucky, the architect won't be expert on technical matters in theatre design. It's up to the client (i.e. US or our employers) to tell them what's needed then check and double check that the spec is being adhered to.

The difficulty is getting the right person in the right place to check all that. I've been involved with three new venues. The first, in the early eighties, was done with a classic corporate theatre consultants managing the interface with the architect. Their main input was in the design of the auditorium, on which they had a particular hobby horse (Some of you can probably guess who I'm talking about.) There were several areas where attention to detail wasn't anything like sufficient, and it wasn't a wholly easy venue to work when new. It's worth saying that many of those issues have been dealt with over time, and it is now a lovely venue to play.

 

The second was one where we did the consultancy in house. This was a HUGE job, especially as we were still running the old venue simultaneously, and indeed the productions there became bigger and more complex to ramp up interest in the new venue. What was interesting about this was that we had an architect who wasn't always very sympathetic to the idea of practicality: certainly, if altering something to make it practical compromised his design vision, his view was that aesthetics trumped usability! And he was pretty difficult to convince/face down. The problem is that, if you're in that situation, yes, you can insist - but the architect can make sure that victory costs you.

 

The third had both sympathetic architects and a fine theatre consultant, but the client was a local authority and their project managers were the Building Services division. It's a likeable building, and much of the infrastructure is well thought out, but also has some glaring weaknesses - lack of storage space is the main one.

 

Which is to say, there's no easy way to get it right. But attention to detail is crucial, and a clear vision of what it is you want from it.

[top-cat]

Something I forgot to say is that on BR we frequently bash the architects. It is often their fault and they often do some very stupid and impractical things in order to line their own portfolios with pretty pictures for next week's blog entry, whilst somebody else has to deal with a crappy load in for the next 40 years.

 

I'd go so far as to say that it's NEVER the architect's fault. I can pretty much guarantee that, where major mistakes are made, somebody from the client has signed off on those mistakes. For me, that's where the major fault lies.

 

Unless you're very lucky, the architect won't be expert on technical matters in theatre design. It's up to the client (i.e. US or our employers) to tell them what's needed then check and double check that the spec is being adhered to.

 

In addition to what Ian just said, you also have to remember that good architects are usually good salesmen. They are very good at talking to the men in suits about why their design is so good and why the technical department are being narrow minded and not thinking about the bigger picture, and this kind of thing. It's not 'wrong' for them to do that, really. They are selling a design, so their design has to be most profitable to them. We in the technical side both design and supply, and it is not uncommon for us to skew our design and spec in order to sell the products we want to sell; and again, we use sales talk in technical discussions to convince our client that the option which makes us the most money is actually the best option for them.

 

Hence often we think the best thing to do is hire an independent consultant. But the truth is that very few people are truly independent. Any consultant who wants a secure retirement is going to want to get in on sales, and strike up relationships with manufacturers and installers alike to get the best for themselves. You would be very lucky to find somebody who sits firmly on the middle of the fence and has no bias somewhere.

 

The difficulty is who wins when the architect wants one thing and the techs another. And I have done installs where the architects are totally unwilling to budge - even when told in no uncertain terms by the technical consultants that the idea is pure, undiluted utter crap; and it is a dilemma for the man with the money. Of course on one hand he doesn't want a building which looks like the a massive concrete block monstrosity; and wants people to walk through his front doors and give a 'wow' to what they see; but at the same time recognises that if the touring shows don't want to to come through the theatre - because the design has made load and build costs prohibitive, that the theatre cannot succeed. You cannot over-simplify that decision making progress.

 

Really I think your best hopes of not having overly pushy architects that want unreasonable demands met and make life difficult for those who don't meet them; whilst having a technical consultancy who are sympathetic to the architects desires and a constructive approach to meeting them; is to do your research into similar size and purpose venues, and see who handled them on both fronts. You will see the same names cropping up again and again and these are the people you want to be involved in your project. Popping into A and B Smith Architects on the high street in your local town will quite possibly see 2 ill experienced guys getting very excited about a big budget and a 'creative space' and try to do something totally absurd. But equally, even bringing in a top end theatre architect, you should still involve a technical contractor beyond your own team. NOT because your team are in any way incompetent for the job, but just because companies who specialise in technical installs will have the know how and experience for dealing with the architect, the construction contractor, the council etc whilst your guys specialism is putting on shows.

[bruce]

Once the designs are established, the next thing to be aware of is "value engineering".

 

For those of you not familiar with the terminology, "value engineering" is project speak for "taking this great design which the client has signed off, and making it a bit cheaper".

 

It's at the value engineering stage that they ask questions like "do you really need 100 network sockets, would 50 not be adequate", or "could we replace those D&B speakers with...."

 

The client, of course, has to sign off on these changes, but the people doing that sign-off may not be the specialist group that did the initial spec.