Theatre Design & Technology - Fall 1978 - 27

-------------Letters
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ceiling Collapse

I am writing in response to the article in TD&T (Spring 1978) by
Glenn Loney which concerned the collapse of the movable ceiling at
the theatre in San Jose. I am disturbed by the presence of a great
degree of muddled intent behind the article. If Mr. Loney's object
were just the factual reporting of an accident, then I would question
the objective purpose of its publication in the journal, especially in
view of the fact that the damage suits concering the accident were
settled out of court, leaving the legal claims as to any faults involved
publicly unresolved.
The tenor of the article suggests that Mr. Loney does have a
message between the lines. It is to that message that I feel compelled
to respond.
Mr. Loney begins by stating, "The accident gave ammunition to
those who had opposed building a theatre, as well as to those who
questioned the wisdom of an adjustable ceiling." What a shabby
statement! The fact that the ceiling fell has nothing at all to do with
whether this theatre or any theatre should have been built, or whether
it should have had an adjustable ceiling.
The article continues, "San Jose's technical problems began-as
had been the case with so many civic theatres-with a desire to
construct a multipurpose auditorium/theatre/opera house/conference hall. In short, a theatre which could be all things to all events; a
client need that is always difficult, if not impossible, to satisfy." I hope
that we can agree that the content of this discussion may be about
"multiple-use" facilities, not "multipurpose." The principal "purpose"
of a multiple-use facility is to allow that facility to serve more than a
single use, not for it io be "all things to all events."
The article says that Randy Earle, Technical Director with San Jose
State University, "insists with good reason that several halls could
have been built for the price of the failed adjustable one." If Mr.
Earle's "price" includes the legal costs, reconstruction costs, and lost
program revenues, etc., in addition to the original cost of the building, then his "price" has no meaningful significance. To academically
plan how money required for the correction of accidents or failures
might otherwise have been spent, is a meaningless exercise.
If Mr. Loney or Mr. Earle believes that several single-use halls
could have been built for the price of a single, multiple-use hall of
roughly the same size, then he has been greatly misled. There is no
question that the cost of conversion equipment required to produce a
single, multiple-use hall is small indeed when compared with the
capital costs for two or more single-use facilities. Not to be discounted also are the additional operating costs (energy, maintenance, repair, etc.) for two or more halls when compared with the
operating costs for a single hall. Economics is indeed, or should be,
the one and only reason for building a multiple-use facility.
If the citizens of a community have the will and economic resources to build and operate a separate $6,000,000 concert hall, a
$6,000,000 opera/ballet theatre, and a $6,000,000 drama theatre,
then they should do it, George lzenour notwithstanding. There are
few communities with this will or resource, I believe. There are many
more communities which can find $6,000,000 or so for a single,
multiple-use facility. If, as Mr. Loney points out, a bond issue for the
single facility was turned down twice by the citizens of San Jose, is it
then reasonable to expect the same citizens to have supported more
than a single facility at two or three times the cost?
The failure to understand relatively simple economics is demonstrated by both Mr. Loney and the 1975 report by Jack Corr and Fred
Keeley, which was utilized by Mr. Loney in his article. I will use their
figures to try to clarify the economic issue.
USITT/Fall, 1978

The capital costs of the San Jose Project are apparently associated with lease payments (rent) to be paid by the city, an annual
amount of $715,000. (A yearly annuity of $715,000 will service a
principal of $6.5 million at a .11 constant for 25 years.) The operating
costs were stated to be an annual amount of $580,000. The sum of
these figures is $1,295,000, which must at least be received as revenue if the facility is to be self supporting.
As a multiple-use facility, it should have the potential of being used
250 times a year. (Could a single use concert hall be filled 250 times a
year in San Jose?) A total of 250 performances, with a utilization of 65
percent of 2700 seats, results in 438,750 tickets per year. The yearly
lease, (representing the capital cost), plus the operating expenses is
the sum of $1,295,000. This sum, divided by 438,750 tickets per year
results in an average per ticket per performance expense of about
$3; a not unreasonable figure.
It is not necessarily my position that gross program revenue from
ticket sales should be sufficient to cover both program costs, and
operating and capital costs. I am aware that this may only rarely be
possible in this country. For the planning of any new performing
facility, the appropriate balance of form, function, use, program,
organization, and costs including capital, operating, and program,
are considerations which can and should be determined by the community itself during the planning phase.
The raison d'etre for multiple-use facilities, including those with
multiple-capacity potential, is to prOVide a means for allowing a
maximum use of performing facilities while minimizing the financial
burden upon the citizens of a community which must support them.
Peter Frink
Philadelphia, Pa.
Frink and Beuchat: Architects

_______ Izenour vs. Mackintosh

The articles presented by lzenour and Mackintosh in the last issue
of TD& T (Summer 1978) surely call for comment. lzenour's "thorough
study" principle should lead him to realize that the Bayreuth Festspielhaus is far more indebted to the architect Gottfried Semper
(1803-79) than to wither Brandt or Bruckwald (or even Wagner?).
Similarly, his three cited examples, 1876-1900, representing "the
broadest spectrum of revolutionary ideas for any period of comparable length in the history of Western theatre design" pale in
significance against the period exactly one hundred years earlier. In
the same way "empirical" Mackintosh should beware of seeking
solace in earlier traditional forms, paradoxically made available in the
twentieth century through the creation of a socialist ambience.
The development of the contemporary theatre form-that related
to drama through representation-has been a slow process of evolution from circa 1475 to the present day. Its progress can be plotted
directly against the decline of a bourgeois system based on capital. In
other words, whereas the Court and few private theatres of the
Renaissance and Mannerist periods were available to none but a few
today all have access to what was previously the privilege of some:
No wonder Mackintosh's "full circle" ends in Peter Brook.
The genesis of the Bayreuth design was the partnership between
Semper and Wagner during the Dresden years (1842-49), brought to
(Continued on p. 32)

Theatre Design & Technology

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