What to expect in proposed performing arts center?
The picture is cloudy
February 15, 2008Unavoidably, when voters in any locale consider public funding for a performing arts facility, they're buying (or not buying) a pig in a poke. The proposed Bexar County (or Your Name Here, for a price) Performing Arts Center is pokier than most.
At this writing, one can't be sure what the county will get for $100 million in visitor tax revenue if voters approve Proposition 4 on the May 10 ballot. The odds favor a large multipurpose theater that will work reasonably well for the San Antonio Symphony and San Antonio Opera, but beyond that the picture is cloudy. In particular, it's hard to see what (if any) local performing arts organizations would use the smaller of the two proposed venues, and the proposed "educational facility" is entirely undefined.
First, here's the basic lay of the land, according to the memorandum of understanding approved this week by Bexar County, the city of San Antonio and the private, non-profit Bexar County Performing Arts Center Foundation:
If the proposition passes, the city will give the 5,000-seat Municipal Auditorium and the nearby Fire Department headquarters building to the foundation, which will prepare a master plan and capital budget for retrofitting the two buildings. The foundation is committed to raising at least $20 million from the private sector to pay for any capital costs beyond the county-funded $100 million and to provide a reserve fund of $10 million to $20 million to endow a portion of operating costs. The foundation also must undertake a forensic analysis of the Municipal Auditorium to determine for sure if it is structurally suitable for the extensive gutting and modifications a retrofit would require. (The probable answer is yes, but you never know.)
According to the memorandum of understanding, the complex "is expected to consist of:"
• A 1,700 to 2,000-seat, 180,000
gross square foot (approximately) multiple purpose, variable acoustic
hall with double pit lift
"• A 250-450-seat (approximately), multiple purpose, multiple form, acoustically sound Studio Theater
• A 3,000 square foot (approximately) rehearsal hall
• Adequate lobby space of 8-10 square feet per person
• An educational facility
• Administrative and resident company offices
"• A 250-450-seat (approximately), multiple purpose, multiple form, acoustically sound Studio Theater
• A 3,000 square foot (approximately) rehearsal hall
• Adequate lobby space of 8-10 square feet per person
• An educational facility
• Administrative and resident company offices
That menu poses some problems, but to understand them one has to go back to the business plan developed by consultant Bud Franks.
Franks assumed ballpark construction costs of $100 million for that list of facilities. The figure was based on the costs of comparable facilities built recently in other cities and looks reasonable. He also figured soft costs (mainly design fees and contingencies) of $32 million and a $10 million endowment for operating costs, for a total of "$143 million." (I come up with a total of $142 million, but I wasn't a math major, so I could be wrong.)
The finance subcommittee of the county's cultural facilities committee figured that $32 million could be raised from the private sector. Thus, the committee asked for $110 million from the county visitor tax fund. But the county commissioners cut that back to $100 million. If Franks's cost estimate is more or less on target, we'll get less of a facility (in quality or quantity) than has been proposed, or the private sector will have to give more to make up the balance. Fat chance of that.
One shouldn't make too much of the apparent cost squeeze before the facility has even been designed. But the plan could be hit with a double-whammy if a protracted recession this year and next holds down pledges during the planning phase, when the project's scope will be determined, and then a roaring recovery sends construction costs skyward when the design goes out for bids, likely in mid-2010. Thus, the project could be scaled back twice from the menu "expected" by the memorandum of understanding.
That undefined "educational facility" provides some wiggle room: It could end up being a blackboard and a box of chalk. Or the "studio theater" could be eliminated.
The studio theater is a major weakness in the proposal. Even if the space could be designed to meet the conflicting acoustical needs of unamplified music, dance and spoken theater, Franks's business plan assumes rental rates and production fees that few local arts groups can afford -- and the few that might be able to afford them need more seats than the theater will hold, even at the high end.
Franks also assumed the foundation would take $5 per ticket in fees. The ticket fees alone would mean a big price hike, on a percentage basis, for small-scale local theater, dance and music performances, which now average less than $20.
The facility might be worth the added costs if it is acoustically and technically superior to the mixed bag of churches, galleries and auditoriums the local groups are using now. The performing arts center's visibility and cachet might compensate for audience resistance to higher prices. But I doubt that any local group will take that risk. The foundation will have to subsidize local non-profits' use of the studio theater if it is to become a prime community venue.
Regarding the larger theater, Franks's assumptions for usage, costs and revenues are sound, based on the actual experience of the symphony, the opera company and Arts San Antonio.
The question is: How good a venue will it be? If it turns out to be equal, acoustically and technically, to Fort Worth's Bass Performance Hall, a multipurpose hall could be quite good -- certainly much better than the Majestic Theater for the symphony and Cockrell Theater for the opera. Scott Cantrell, music critic for the Dallas Morning News, has wide experience of halls around the country, and he gives Bass high marks for orchestral acoustics -- though not as high as the best single-purpose concert halls.
Recent advances in the design of convertible theaters offer a reasonable hope for even better orchestral acoustics than Bass, though still probably not with the ideal combination of warmth, richness and clarity found in the best concert halls. To be fair, many single-purpose concert halls have turned out to be acoustically disappointing, if not worse, and required millions of dollars in modifications.
For the best chance of acoustical success, the foundation will have to define the acoustical aims, with heavy input from symphony musicians and artistic adviser Christopher Seaman, and give a first-rate acoustician a free hand to design a space that will achieve those aims -- and commit to paying whatever it costs to execute the design. To do less and hope for the best would be foolish.
It also would be foolish not to invest in broadcast and recording production capabilities. And I'll endorse a suggestion from Lee Hipp, principal tuba with the symphony, for "Internet2 broadcast capability and wifi through the entire facility. This facility should be the most technologically advanced hall in the world through a grant and services provided by AT&T. This should also be used as a significant portion of the educational mission of the facility."
Speaking of the educational mission, let's mention what an "educational facility" worthy of the name entails -- a dozen or more acoustically isolated practice rooms, a bunch of pianos and other instruments, studios equipped with current computer and electronic music technology, teaching and rehearsal spaces, small performance spaces, a library of books, sheet music and recordings, and so on. Austin's Armstrong Community Music School is an excellent example. Something like that won't come cheap -- and it might not come at all.
That memorandum of understanding? It's "non-binding."
Mike
Greenberg
