Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1978 - 11

In October, 1972, a contract was awarded to level the
ceiling about six feet above the auditorium floor. It was determined that the ceiling section, with repairs, would still be
usable. Its stage right side was damaged, and some of its
framing was sprung. The front lip of the balcony had been
scraped in the fall, and there was some other interior damage, none of which seemed too difficult or expensive to rePCl.ir. At that time, the theatre's building authority backed the
idea of restoring the ceiling as an "adjustable" unit, rather
than a "movable" or "floatable" one. This was more a matter
of psychologically inspired terminology than anything else.
The ceiling, it was felt, should still be able to close off the
balcony, as originally intended, but the public must be assured that the ceiling would never be able to move during a
performance.
In December, 1972, the city brought its $3 million-plus suit.
The complaint alleged that the nature and timing of the accident was such that in the ordinary course of events, it could
not have happened but for the negligence of some of the
eighteen defendants named. Floyd L. Geir, Deputy Director of
Public Works-Operations for San Jose, stressed that the
naming of so many defendants by no means implied that all
of them were at fault in the ceiling's collapse. The intent of the
suit, he said, was to force an agreement among the defendants as to who was really responsible so that restitution could
be made.
In the absence of definitive statements regarding the cause
of the collapse, rumors abounded, and when the City Council
retained several structural engineers (who also happened to

View of collapsed ceiling on house-left side of auditorium. Some
remaining seats may be seen in lower left corner of photo.

View of auditorium roof, support cables, and upperside of collapsed
ceiling.

be seismic experts) to check out the building, some people
feared that the theatre was located on an earthquake fault.
Gier dismissed earthquake shock theories as a cause of
ceiling damage. Izenour and Peters were also asked if they
cared to make statements about the accident and its possible
causes. Despite the pending suit, Peters answered almost at
once. His formal statement read in part:
The ceiling was designed to meet all existing code requirements
and in conformance with the most advanced ideas of structural
and seismic engineering. Three engineering firms were involved.
The seismic analysis of the entire structure was performed by a
California structural engineering firm and approved by the appropriate reviewing authorities.
There is no reason to believe that seismic or structural design
considerations had any bearing on or relationship to the ceiling
accident. In fact, investigation has clearly confirmed that the
ceiling was dropped by employees of the rigging contractor who
were performing corrections required by the original misalignment of the rigging system in the original installation of the
movable ceiling. These employees have admitted that they disengaged the permanent supporting cables just prior to the fall.
Inadequate clamping of the temporary restraining cables installed by the rigging contractor failed to support the ceiling and
it fell.
The concern for completely safe and earthquake resistant structures which was a hallmark of Frank Lloyd Wright's practice
(consider, for example, the Imperial Hotel in Tokyo) has been
ours as well for almost two decades of continued involvement
with major building projects in California.
While advanced, the concept and design of the ceiling is not
novel, and is based on many years of experience with rigged
structures both on the part of the architects and their consulUSITT/Spring. 1978

Theatre Design & Technology

http://www.PCl.ir

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1978