Theatre Design & Technology - Spring 1978 - 12

tants. The San Jose project is the culmination of a number of
auditoriums designed by our firm of which four have employed
movable ceilings or shells similar in construction and principle to
that in San Jose.
The architects, engineers, and theatre consultants associated
on the project believe that it will be a genuine tragedy if an
unfortunate construction accident shoUld deprive the citizens of
San Jose, California, of their faith and confidence in one of the
soundest and finest environments for the performing arts available in the world today.

In the fall of 1973, Floyd Gier wrote: "The firm of Albert C.
Martin of Los Angeles has been retained to prepare plans
and specifications to repair the ceiling and do other remedial
work. They hope to complete plans and specifications in
about four months. They estimate the construction phase will
take approximately eight months, and when completed, the
ceiling will be permanently fixed in position." [Italics added.)
The damaged ceiling was cut up and caried out at a cost of
$111,925. Inearly 1975, the theatre reopened with a fixed
ceiling with only two poorly positioned lighting coves instead
of the original three. But it looks handsome enough and is,
supposedly, absolutely safe. No one will say so in San Jose,
but it may be assumed that no one wanted, after such an
accident, to sit under another movable ceiling, no matter how
thoroughly endorsed by experts.
The decision to have a fixed ceiling was not just a matter of
making audiences feel secure. It was determined that in order
to replace the ruined movable ceiling with a safe, effective
one, the replacement would have to be at least twice as heavy
as the original. But the building itself could not support such a
weight, nor was there adequate room for the necessary counterweighting.
After the settlement of San Jose's suit, William Pat heal of
the City Architect's Office was not eager to discuss the possible shortcomings of the theatre's design, but he did cite a
figure of $2.7 million as the total cost of restoring the theatre.
Randy Earle offered an explanation for the cost: "There were
major structural problems in the building's construction
which did not meet California earthquake standards." He
noted that only $500,000-the city gives a figure of
$396,000-was needed to replace the ceiling, and that local
newspapers reported a total cost for the rehabilitation of the
theatre of $3.8 million.
In March, 1977, Don Atkinson, San Jose Assistant City
Attorney, was asked if the $2 million out-of-court settlement
was not a disappointment, since the repairs exceeded it by so
much. (One headline in the San Jose Mercury read: "San
Jose holds $1.8 Million Bag.") Atkinson did not agree: "It's a
good settlemenl," he said. "It was a very complicated case."
His office calculated that costs to the city in trying the case in
court would have run $145,000 to $175,000. That was daunting, considering the expenses already incurred in reconstruction, bond payments, and lost booking revenues. Atkinson
explained that in such cases the trial judge often tries to work
out a settlement in order to avoid the costs and time of an
extended trial. In fact, said Atkinson, the judge indicated that
he thought San Jose might well be offered less than the $2
million. So the results, in Atkinson's opinion, were not disappointing. Professor Earle insists, however, that there were
nearly a million dollars spent in legal fees before the trial that
did not take place. According to City Attorney Peter Stone, as
reported in local papers, some $2,266,000 was spent to deal
with faulty design and construction, but only $1.3 was directly
connected with faulty design.
As announced in the press, the sharing of the $2 million
owed to San Jose was worked out thus: $1,575,000 to be paid

by the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation, Taliesin Associated
Architects, the architects William Wesley Peters and Aaron
Green, engineer Renan Dominguez, and the engineering firm
of Wilson, Andros, Roberts, and Noll. Other defendants and
their shares were: Barnhart Construction Co., $66,666; special steel contractors C. E.. Toland and Sons, $66,666; the
PDM Steel Co., $50,000; McLean Steel Co., $66,666; Hales
Test Labs, which tested the welding in the theatre's steel
structure, $50,000, and Stagecraft Industries, whose riggers
were involved in the accident, $125,000.
Before the theatre became a reality, it was clear that San
Jose's leaders were determined to have a cultural center,
despite the fact that when the project was submitted to the
voters as a possible bond issue it not once but twice failed to
win the required two-thirds majority. As usual, projections
were made about the thronging audiences and the income
that would be generated by such a development; San Jose
would stop spending its leisure-time money in San Francisco,
and so on. What remained rather vague, as in so many cultural center proposals, was just which performing arts should
be presented in the theatre. What was felt as a need for a
theatre was a need for a building, rather than for an effective
space for existing theatre, dance, and music groups to continue their fine work. At least, no specifics of such use were
worked out. Failing electoral approval, the theatre was built
by a non-profit corporation and the city then rented the
space. In twenty-five years, when the bUilding would be effectually paid for by the rentals, the theatre would revert to the
city.
The financial burdens of this op~ration were projected in a
1975 report by Jack Corr and Fred Keeley, entitled "The
Community Theatre and the Fiscal Irresponsibility of the San
Jose Establishment: A Civic Lesson." Although the authors
point out that these are not official figures, they estimate
annual lease payments (rent) at $715,000 and operating costs
at $580,000, minus an income of $171,000, for a total expenditure of $1,124,000. In eighteen years this will mount up
to $20,232,000. Adding to that an estimated theatre cost of
$5,508,026 (not including the various costs attendant on the
reconstruction and legal actions), and the report sets the cost
of the San Jose theatre at $25,740,000 or a per-seat cost of
$9,533. *
These figures are somewhat misleading. It is not customary
to set per-seat costs by including twenty years of operating
expenses in the computation. Still, the San Jose Center for
the Performing Arts cost more than it should have, and its
movable ceiling was at least partly responsible. Furthermore,
this great expenditure did nothing to improve the inadequate
technical facilities of the theatre. According to Earle, an
equivalent sum of money would be needed to complete the
stage rigging system, replace the fixtures specified by Izenour, replace the malfunction-prone lighting control system,
upgrade the 9-in-1-out sound reinforcement system, provide
adequate front-of-house lighting positions, and otherwise improve the facility. "The net effect of this fiasco will be felt for
many years," says Earle. "The disaster will continue to take a
serious toll, with reduced, if any, arts facility funding." Taxpayers have poured vast sums of money into what many
perceive to be an inadequate theatre.
Despite this, the San Jose Center for the Performing Arts is
now functioning, serving not only the entire Santa Clara Valley, but drawing audiences from the San Francisco-Bay Area
as well. It offers a wide range of commercial concert and
dramatic attractions, and is equally available to civic groups,
San Jose State University, and others.D

* The Gorr/Keeley report, from which these figures came, miscalculated the per-seat cost at $95,333 and went on to indicate that
inflation would drive the figure to over $100,000 per seat-eds.

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