Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 1984 - 10

room volume for different modes, but
The Center is not, strictly speaking, a
"tuneable" hall. Rather, the basic
shaping of the space has been created as
the required environment for all modes
- t he pattern 0 f laterally - reflected
sound energy still being the key, whether for symphony or musical theatre or
drama. Motorized acoustical banners
linked to a computerized control system will provide a secondary level of
adjustment from mode to mode-and
from Brahms to Mozart, for example,
within a mode.
Adjustability at the proscenium

or "shell" is only 14' upstage of the
proscenium wall, and the orchestra
plays on the A and B lifts, plus an extension platform. Three rows of seats
are removed in this configuration, resulting in an approximately 2900-seat
house in a symphony mode.
Although far shallower than a conventional orchestra shell, the 42' height
of The Center's enclosure did present
difficulties in rigging and shifting unusually high shell wall units which also
project outward at the top in an unbalanced condition. With some innovative design and rigging, these prob-

provide ample space with appropriate
flexibility for tight booking of different
kinds of presentation, and to offer artists and technical staffs a very complete
and exemplary working environment.
Compromise is the built-in curse of
multi-use auditorium design, as the
needs of one presentation mode overlap
into the requirements of another. In
The Center's case, however, compromise exists on only minor issues where
stagehouse and stage- house design factors apply to multi-use conditions.
Otherwise, size of spaces, correctness
of spaces, equipment, and adjustability

I /

....

area is also a major part of the design
response to the multi-use objective,
and reflects further acoustical concerns. Room shaping and seating fan
widths had to accommodate some extremes in multi-use flexibility, chiefly
in the transition from the very large
proscenium opening for symphony to
the smaller opening for drama or musical theatre. To change proscenium
width, mechanized panels on either side
of the opening repeat the unusual proscenium edge-shaping caused by the
natural progression of acoustical surfaces. For the proscenium height, the
entire speaker cluster system and attached architectural panels can fly in
and out to provide any desired vertical
trim (as well as access to the speaker
cluster for maintenance). Acoustical
requirements dictated a proscenium
opening 68' wide x 42' high to maximize the orchestra's coupling to the
house in symphony mode. Additionally, the orchestra will play out on a partial thrust so that it is far more a part of
the same room than in a traditional hall
where the orchestra is back of the proscenium line. The orchestra enclosure
8

lems have been solved to the point that
the entire enclosure is capable of being
flown in sections for storage out of the
way of opera scenery and similar heavy
space demand situations. And the resulting high and wide "throat" pays off
in a big acoustical advantage for symphony and choral work.
For other modes, of course, a narrower trim is required, since many road
productions will be designed for openings of 40',42', etc. For these, the side
panels move in to reduce the widest
point of opening from 68' to 52 " while
soft trim frames the opening to a rectangle at 42' or 40' or even less. For
vertical trim, the central cluster unit is
flown in to 30' or less above the stage.
For worst-case narrow trim proscenium opening, a maximum viewing cone
of 34° off centerline was adopted. 0
seat lies outside this condition and for
most modes extreme side seats are within a 30° viewing cone to the proscenium
opening edge.
Other design features are outlined
in the accompanying profile. The common denominator design objective for
all stage and support space has been to

Theatre Design & Technologyl SITT/Summer 198-1

are all provided to fit the full matrix of
essential needs for all modes.

The Design Process
I f good design teams still don't get it
all together in other arts centers more
often, why would Orange County's
Center fare any better? Was our design
process any less vulnerable? For now, [
will say that our design team did make
a special effort to take lessons from
other recent theatre architecture and
the team's work displayed some aboveaverage blending of sensitivities and
concerns of architecture, acoustics, and
all special theatre technologies.
After screening dozens of design
firms, seven semi - finalists, then three
finalists, were chosen in the spring of
1981. Intensive interviews, full presentations, and visits to theatres designed
by the respective architects then produced the final selection of CaudillRowlett-Scott and The Blurock Partnership, two firms that had many years
of experience working together and
very extensive theatre experience and
reputation. The architectural team and
theatre design consultant were brought

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Theatre Design & Technology - Summer 1984