# Theatre consultant recommendation



## Arun (Mar 4, 2015)

Hello everybody,

I'm looking at converting an industrial space into a small blackbox. I see a recurring theme based on reading a bunch of threads is to engage a theatre consultant. Can you provide a recommendation for the Toronto area?

We're a small non-profit and are on a tight budget. We don't know what consultants charge, but I predict working with a large outfit used to consulting for public projects is probably out of our budget. So...please recommend freelancers...Thank you.

A.


----------



## egilson1 (Mar 5, 2015)

@BillConnerASTC is a consultant and a very active member here on control booth. Send him a private message and I am sure he can help you.


----------



## RickR (Mar 5, 2015)

Something to consider in selecting a consultant. Their fees are a pittance to the project, but their job is to make the rest of the funds effective. "Saving" on them can backfire dramatically! 

The one expense that doesn't do you much good is their travel. Bill is moderately close, NYC & LA companies are not.


----------



## robartsd (Mar 5, 2015)

RickR said:


> Something to consider in selecting a consultant. Their fees are a pittance to the project, but their job is to make the rest of the funds effective. "Saving" on them can backfire dramatically!
> 
> The one expense that doesn't do you much good is their travel. Bill is moderately close, NYC & LA companies are not.


If you were doing a new construction project, the consultant visiting the site might not add much value; however, in a conversion situation their eyes may notice many things you wouldn't even thing to look for.


----------



## Arun (Mar 6, 2015)

Hi Bill,

I'm posting this here because my conversation functionality isn't working for some reason.

Thanks for your reply back. There's no immediate urgency. We've been looking to find a suitable space for the last 2 months, and finally found a few that look promising. As we started to plan, we realized we need help.

Our budget is tight - we're not an institution doing this. In Mississauga, there's really not much space - and if we include Toronto - the space that's available is quite expensive. We concluded that we need our own space so the creation process can occur without extreme time constraints. And then we can also start collaboration with other artists without worrying about daily / weekly rental costs, etc.

We were thinking we'd like a blackbox that can seat around 100 people in flexible configurations. The problem is we don't know precisely how much sq. feet space we need in the industrial space to allow 100 people + the actual performance space.

Our immediate questions are around how much sq. feet space we need for seating plus stage, how high the ceiling should be, and what amperage it needs. This is something we need answered quickly since its crucial for ensuring the space is suitable.

After, we don't have any ideas on the actual budget for the conversion from rigging, wiring, lights, sound, projection, seating, etc. I would definitely want to work with you - I know this is your expertise. I expect we'd want to chat directly and go from there.

Look forward to your reply.

Thanks.

Arun.


----------



## robartsd (Mar 6, 2015)

Bill has a current thread going about the new website for his consulting business. You might visit his website to contact by email.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 6, 2015)

In a "conversation" I told Arun I would contact them but also will post here about issues of consulting on very low budget projects. I've thought a lot over the years about this and will simply share some of that.


----------



## RickR (Mar 6, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> I've thought a lot over the years about this and will simply share some of that.



When to cut back and when to spend! 
This is a critical issue for almost every arts/educational group I've ever worked with. And you don't need to be working on a whole building, everytime we buy anything we make a cost/benefit decision. I look forward to hearing what you and others have to say!


----------



## de27192 (Mar 7, 2015)

With regards to the low budget thing... to be brutally honest I don't think I have come across such a project in a long time where the expectation of product hasn't wildly exceeded the budget allocated. It's easy to associate "on a low budget" with small and/or amateur spaces; but even with the huge places, it's frequently the case that whilst the budget is in the millions, the amount of work they want doing still means you're making the same budgetary decisions as on the smaller projects... just scaled up!


----------



## robartsd (Mar 7, 2015)

de27192 said:


> With regards to the low budget thing... to be brutally honest I don't think I have come across such a project in a long time where the expectation of product hasn't wildly exceeded the budget allocated. It's easy to associate "on a low budget" with small and/or amateur spaces; but even with the huge places, it's frequently the case that whilst the budget is in the millions, the amount of work they want doing still means you're making the same budgetary decisions as on the smaller projects... just scaled up!


Yes, but with scaled up budgets, a professional consultant's time is a much smaller percentage of the budget, creating a much better value.


----------



## tyler.martin (Mar 7, 2015)

Theatre consultants in Canada are fairly plentiful, even more so out east. One thing to note, is if you have an architect assosiated with the project then they may have preferred consultants to work with. With the dollar the way it is right now, using an American consulting firm will cost more. 

I've worked with and for some of the consultants on this list:

Eastern Canada:
Novita
Theatre Consulting Group
Martin Conboy Lighting Design
Field Concepts

Western Canada:
DWD
Schick Shiner & Associates
Bill Williams


----------



## de27192 (Mar 7, 2015)

robartsd said:


> Yes, but with scaled up budgets, a professional consultant's time is a much smaller percentage of the budget, creating a much better value.



My point was only that every job seems to be "low budget", as far as that the money available is almost always less than the cost of doing the job properly.

A theatre consultant can indeed make up a smaller percentage. But then again, the consultant will more likely be a multiple of consultants; and the length of their engagement will be longer - so how much smaller is variable.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2015)

I have thought about the "small projects" and theatre consulting often. First, for me, it simply costs money to open a project and make a minimum number of visits, so the consulting fee as a percentage of the total project cost is usually higher. So is the fee for architects and engineers and most institutions - like a school or university - understand that. A one time consumer of professional building design services may not. But that's my problem. Also, on a "real project" like a $3m or so and up high school auditorium and stage addition, I have no doubt that I will save them more than my fee, usually by my experience in the areas of general construction, and avoiding spending money on what someone thinks is required, though also by plans and specs for the theatre systems and equipment that generate fair competitive bids with good value. I'm continually amazed by what some architects and engineers as well as users think is important, and what they never consider. 

What seems harder is that these very low budget projects are the projects that are most in need of really good consulting - whether it be the theatre, a/v, acoustics specialties or the more basic bricks and mortar and MEP input. There is no money to wast and the contingency is either very small or taken out early. One hidden condition can be a super serious problem. 

I'm reminded of a recent call from a school that had raised money to renovate their (little) stage - new rigging (probably dead hung curtains and tracks), new lighting, new sound. I talked to them by phone for a while before they told me the total budget was under $100,000 - which doesn't go far - and of course they had not even addressed issues like needing a bigger door to get stuff in, ADA, and so on. All I could do is give them some telephone tine , a little research on vendors in their area that I could say were reputable and fair, and wish them the best. Filed in my "free consulting" folder and probably not very satisfying for either party. I hope by suggesting some priorities (like replacing the un-grounded dimming system with less than two dozen units - asbestos cords of course) and maybe thinking about painting some existing flats black to replace the tattered legs) they were better off.

So like any project, balancing the priorities - avoiding the gold plated a/v with unsafe ticky tacky rigging from Al's Mobile Rigging company - and not overlooking any essential functions is key, and I'd like to think I can help along those lines. Hopefully a combination of making it better, improving the return on the investment, and managing expectations so that what is built will still be well received and liked by users, performers, audience, etc., will justify - for the Owner - my fees.

And for sure, an early lesson I learned about the consulting business - and probably any business - is that there is not much profit in small projects. I think it's why not many professional theatre consultants even take them on. But I do - because they are fun in their own way and tend to be rewarding and the expertise appreciated.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2015)

Arun said:


> Hi Bill,
> 
> I'm posting this here because my conversation functionality isn't working for some reason.
> 
> ...



Arun - can you contact me off line - [email protected] - and we can discuss your project and see how - or if - I can help. Maybe it's just helping you get good help and finding good resources or maybe there is room in the budget that we can meet and I can visit the prospective venue.


----------



## de27192 (Mar 9, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> I have thought about the "small projects" and theatre consulting often. First, for me, it simply costs money to open a project and make a minimum number of visits, so the consulting fee as a percentage of the total project cost is usually higher. So is the fee for architects and engineers and most institutions - like a school or university - understand that. A one time consumer of professional building design services may not. But that's my problem. Also, on a "real project" like a $3m or so and up high school auditorium and stage addition, I have no doubt that I will save them more than my fee, usually by my experience in the areas of general construction, and avoiding spending money on what someone thinks is required, though also by plans and specs for the theatre systems and equipment that generate fair competitive bids with good value. I'm continually amazed by what some architects and engineers as well as users think is important, and what they never consider.



Out of interest, what are your best stories for things one-time theatre builders have thought to be important, and what they haven't considered?


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2015)

de27192 said:


> Out of interest, what are your best stories for things one-time theatre builders have thought to be important, and what they haven't considered?



Complete wall to wall ceilings in the auditorium, extensive casework in dressing rooms and control rooms, expensive clear finished wood floors on stage, and elaborate and expensive catwalk details come to mind. I'm sure there are others on a less frequent basis, probably many lobby centered.

Access is what is most ill considered - getting things and people on and off stage. Scenery to and from the exterior. Adequate passage to a shop. A route from the house and stage to the control room (How many times have I seen plans where it's out through the lobby, down the hall to a stair, up to second and back down a hall. It belongs behind main floor seating with nearly direct access.) A stage to lobby path that is not through the house. Access to everything high for service (though LED house lights help this but how many times I've walked into a building an heard of complaints about no way to change lamps.) Access to catwalks and grids. I'm a fanatic about comings and goings, and getting to all of the equipment. And especially access to rigging overhead - both a loading bridge and a way to inspect the loft blocks. I'm completely intolerant of underhung rigging with no access, no loading bridge, and probably no way to get a decent personnel lift onto stage, plus a stage that won't support it - a kind of grand slam of poor rigging planning.

And counterweight rigging without a purpose other than they thought it should be there, like the school I was in the other day - 17' high proscenium, 18' tall travelers and legs hung on counterweight sets, 21' high trim. WTF? And really, what good did it do to have borders on linesets here? That's ignoring ducts that run across stage and obstruct the stupid rigging.

From a purely aesthetic and support the performer point of view - wide and massive aisles, cross aisles, moats between stage and first row, etc. - all driving the last seat further away. This usually accompanies cross aisles at the front of balconies - and impossible sight line condition that cannot be overcome - and often significant violation of basic egress and accessibility regulations.

And noise - roof top units on top of the auditorium. Band rooms adjacent to stages without a prayer of isolation. Mechanical rooms ditto. If the auditorium and stage are not quiet, they are much less good.

Go back to the basics - a quiet windowless flat floor room with very adequate doors, a strong overhead structure, a big electrical feed, and a resilient floor that is kind to performers moving and can be attached to. Given those basics and everything else can be fitted out - maybe in a day or maybe a week or longer if o be permanent - but overhead hanging of stuff, risers and chairs, av systems, lighting systems - easy peasy.

A few of my least and most favorite things....


----------



## robartsd (Mar 9, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> And for sure, an early lesson I learned about the consulting business - and probably any business - is that there is not much profit in small projects. I think it's why not many professional theatre consultants even take them on. But I do - because they are fun in their own way and tend to be rewarding and the expertise appreciated.


This explains a lot about your motivation to participate in the CB community. Thanks for being here.


----------



## robartsd (Mar 9, 2015)

From annother thread regarding a HS theater that functions as a roadhouse though not designed for it:

MNicolai said:


> If anything, we lucked out that it was equipped just well enough to get dug in as rental venue to make it a self-sustainable facility operating in the black ...


I think it is worth noting that projects too small call also be difficult to make economically viable. Of course it is also possible for projects to be too big to become economically viable.


----------



## de27192 (Mar 9, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> Access is what is most ill considered



Well I completely agree with you here! I don't know how it bypasses so many people's train of thought.

I did a job in a brand new, built from scratch theatre. Walked on stage, noticed that the full height roof extended right down to the loading dock. *Brilliant! *Subsequently noticed though that the doors into the loading dock however were just normal 2.2m pedestrian doors. Which opened out onto a 2.5m high underground car park. The entrance to which was 100m away. So, whilst the loading ramp could easily take the biggest piece of set you could throw at it, you'd have to take it off the truck 100m away in a piece no more than 2 metres tall.

There was an advance truss, on CM motors. The motors were installed motor-up with installed cabling. Yep that seems sensible. Installed to the beam, and then the ceiling was added, so the motors were above the ceiling. This seems sensible at first - nice and neat, just small holes in the ceiling for the chain to pop out. But no. The motors were now _sealed _inside the ceiling. There was no access available, at all. No forethought for maintenance or inspection at all. Just sealed inside forever!

The stage trusses were on winches, with the pulleys spread along the beams and the winches at the end. The winches were huge heavy things, sat on cross beams between the I Beams. We could not fathom how the hell they got them up there. Cue asking some questions... oh yes, they lowered them in with a crane before the roof went on. So how do we get them out if they go wrong? Oh... I see, that's not an option without demolishing the swimming pool above it. Oh and as per your thoughts... yes the pulleys were out over stage with no access. And you couldn't get a tower / scaff / ladder / genie in; because the air conditioning mob, the fire sprinkler mob, and the CCTV mob, had all come in with their normal "f**k everybody else" attitude to installations, and run precisely twenty six thousand metres of cable tray in all directions possible so as to obscure as much of the fly tower as possible, remove access to the pulleys, and reduce the max trim height of the trusses by about 2 metres. 

Honestly the day I head up a big theatre install, the day will begin by a conversation with the contractors along the lines of _"if you even attempt to run a unistrut cable tray across space that is otherwise earmarked as open space, and not along walls / beams etc as would be sensible, I will cut the cable tray down and beat you around the head with it until you die."_


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2015)

Fire sprinkler contractors - grrrrr. I don't doubt the usefulness and the need for fire sprinklers, but trying to get them to layout and install sprinklers in anyway other than code minimum at lowest cost is really hard. I work to convince structural engineer to have holes fabricate in loft block beams - which costs next to nothing if planned - for sprinklers so they don't obstruct rigging, and getting the sprinkler contractor to use them is a lot harder than pulling teeth.


----------



## robartsd (Mar 9, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> Fire sprinkler contractors - grrrrr. I don't doubt the usefulness and the need for fire sprinklers, but trying to get them to layout and install sprinklers in anyway other than code minimum at lowest cost is really hard. I work to convince structural engineer to have holes fabricate in loft block beams - which costs next to nothing if planned - for sprinklers so they don't obstruct rigging, and getting the sprinkler contractor to use them is a lot harder than pulling teeth.


I worked with a fire sprinkler company several years ago when I was drafting owner-builder plans for residential and light commercial projects. I remember talking with the engineer and installer about precise placement of the sprinkler heads and noting that to them coordinating the head placement with other elements on the ceiling for reasons other than code requirements costs extra. I have no idea what their response to being asked to place the pipes in a certail place would have been. Might be useful to develop a information packet that includes photos of pipes damaged by rigging system cables. I'm sure you already see to it that the contract documents specify that the sprinkler system pipes are to route through the beams.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 9, 2015)

robartsd said:


> I'm sure you already see to it that the contract documents specify that the sprinkler system pipes are to route through the beams.



Yeah, and then the submittals come ignoring that and the inevitable meeting and the sprinkler contractor usually says "you really meant that?" like I simply did a sheet of details for sprinkler coordination for the fun of it. And sprinkler submittals get reviewed by the fire code people, so the contractor sends then there first and now its claims for delays and extra costs associated with the code review and someone - no of the theatre - asking if it's really necessary the battens go all the way as high as shown or could we just leave a half dozen out.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 9, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> Yeah, and then the submittals come ignoring that and the inevitable meeting and the sprinkler contractor usually says "you really meant that?" like I simply did a sheet of details for sprinkler coordination for the fun of it. And sprinkler submittals get reviewed by the fire code people, so the contractor sends then there first and now its claims for delays and extra costs associated with the code review and someone - no of the theatre - asking if it's really necessary the battens go all the way as high as shown or could we just leave a half dozen out.



We see similar shenanigans. The inevitable next step is a volley of emails and phone tag where we illustrate we did our due diligence in informing the relevant trades where coordination was necessary, and at that point the general contractor and/or construction manager and/or architect and/or owner and/or other stakeholders (i.e. the State) have to decide if they'll stand their ground with the offending contractor and force them to abide by spec at the contractor's expense, or allow a change order to the offending contractor's favor, or reject the coordination and in doing so allow the deviation from spec (which happens more often than you'd expect for a myriad of reasons -- project schedule, budget, not being a big enough issue to warrant getting lawyers involved if it looks like lawyers getting involved is what it's going to take).

I have a philosophy that anyone going into technical direction or theater management should have to take a crash course in how a theater gets built. There's a fair chance at one point or another they'll be a part of the process for remodeling, upgrading, or building a theater. Most often, you don't know what you don't know about the construction process until something goes haywire, and the consultant isn't often the final say in the matter. The projects where I've seen the most emphasis on proper functionality of the theater is where the owner is hands-on in ensuring their own destiny, or hands-on in deferring to the consultant's expertise. Whenever the owner is hands-off, their expectations end up far out-of-alignment with the architect's, and once that happens then all bets can be off on what the final product given to the owner will look like.


----------



## AlexDonkle (Mar 9, 2015)

robartsd said:


> I'm sure you already see to it that the contract documents specify that the sprinkler system pipes are to route through the beams.



What's in the specs and what actually gets built don't line up as often as you would hope, especially when it comes to non-standard disciplines like acoustics and rigging coordination. 


BillConnerASTC said:


> Yeah, and then the submittals come ignoring that and the inevitable meeting and the sprinkler contractor usually says "you really meant that?" like I simply did a sheet of details for sprinkler coordination for the fun of it. And sprinkler submittals get reviewed by the fire code people, so the contractor sends then there first and now its claims for delays and extra costs associated with the code review and someone - no of the theatre - asking if it's really necessary the battens go all the way as high as shown or could we just leave a half dozen out.



Gotta love contractor's "extra cost" to do what is clearly shown in the specs and drawings they bid on.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 9, 2015)

AlexDonkle said:


> What's in the specs and what actually gets built don't line up as often as you would hope, especially when it comes to non-standard disciplines like acoustics and rigging coordination.
> 
> Gotta love contractor's "extra cost" to do what is clearly shown in the specs and drawings they bid on.



There are plenty of contractors who will bid grossly lower than the other bidders, get the contract, and then make their bones on all the change orders they'll file after they've had the contract for a few months. Either because they don't know what they're getting into or because they've become jaded enough to believe that that's the only way they can bid jobs competitively and still get paid a fair rate to perform the full scope of work. By bidding it knowing where they can get away with negligence and make it up in change orders.

It only takes one or two religiously low bidders in a region to poison the well for everyone. The more-qualified contractors either stop bidding because they won't waste their time bidding against notoriously low bidders, or they'll cut corners wherever they're okay cutting corners so that they can be more competitive without totally whoring themselves out for no money.


----------



## RickR (Mar 9, 2015)

A certain contractor in my area has been asked (by several architects) not to bid on projects here. They've done 2 of my projects with exactly this strategy. Months of delays, massive extra work for the entire design team, just to get them to do what the plans say. 

So what is a consultant worth in those cases?


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 10, 2015)

RickR said:


> A certain contractor in my area has been asked (by several architects) not to bid on projects here. They've done 2 of my projects with exactly this strategy. Months of delays, massive extra work for the entire design team, just to get them to do what the plans say.
> 
> So what is a consultant worth in those cases?



Depends on your construction manager and how bulletproof your contract documents are. Even then, usually the only leverage the CM has is to withhold payment or pull the contractor's bond. Withholding the contractor's bond happens only ever in a blue moon it seems though and withholding payment can get sticky quickly, especially if it's "Pay when paid." Under "Pay when paid", nobody gets their final payment until the project is complete, and if the project is otherwise complete except for one trade, the CM would rather get paid and get the other trades paid and never see the work completed than drag out the payment process for months until the contractor finishes the work. _If_ they finish the work.

I know my particular state is stickier yet for state projects. Not only can completion for one trade hold up payment for all trades, but then all trades have their state contractors' and A&E points withheld. If you have too many points unavailable, you can't bid on new projects. So one contractor at the end can make it so an architect can't pursue new State projects until that project gets closed out.

So at the end when the contractor starts complaining about how rigorous the testing/commissioning/documentation processes are, the project team has financial incentive to absolve the contractor of those requirements for the sake of getting the project closed.

There's no substitute for getting a qualified contractor the first time 'round. No spec or consultant can guarantee the success of a project.

I've heard more than a couple times someone say "If you've got a good contractor, you don't need a contract. And if you have a bad contractor, your contract won't do you any good."

EDIT:
I should add -- not all projects are this bleak. In fact, most go off with only minor, to-be-expected complications along the way. I'm just trying to shine light on that the construction process has a lot of moving parts that can affect the outcome of the project. I'm absolutely serious when I say that the more hands-on the customer is, the better. There are a number of different firms and people looking out for the success of any given project, no one is in a better position than the customer to keep an eye out for their own short and long-term interests.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 10, 2015)

I can't speak for other trades but as regards the work for which we preiare plans and specs, like rigging, theatrical lighting, lifts, seats, pit fillers, and so on, we include a lot of contractor qualifications and pre-qualify a group of contractors. It has resulted in few misunderstandings about the design intent. I did loose one battle 20 years ago to not allow a notoriusly short cutting rigging contractor to be awarded the work. The system still has problems and probably will be replaced long before its expected life, but at least the details of project have helped me disqualify that same company a number of times.


----------



## MNicolai (Mar 10, 2015)

We also include qualifications but are almost never allowed to pre-qualify bidders, and the qualifications are often not enforced because stakeholders are willing to take the risk when they see all of the $$$$ they think they'll end up saving. Something about A/V doesn't scare stakeholders in the same way that tens of thousands of pounds of equipment hanging above people does. Another factor is that frequently A/V is a sub to the electrical, especially for state projects, and the state won't vet subcontractors.

Just got a call a couple days ago from a bidder who lost the bid but thought our recommended bidders for a project were a fair representation of competent contractors appropriate for a project of that type and scale. Didn't stop a low-baller from getting the job for substantially (and suspiciously) less.

I suspect part of the problem is there are more contractors out there who will live dangerously trying their hand at A/V than at overhead rigging. Lot more fish in the water.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 10, 2015)

I work a lot with av designers - ones not associated with a vendor - and they seem able to prequalify av contractors on most projects.

If Owners care enough to hire independent professional designers, they are simply more likely to work hard to heed the designers' recommendations - and not letting anyone and everyone bid is usually a crucial part if that.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Mar 10, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> The system still has problems and probably will be replaced long before its expected life, but at least the details of project have helped me disqualify that same company a number of times.



I'm curious: have you ever had to put language in your contract explicitly permitting you to share details about how a project went with later clients, so as to avoid being sued by a crappy sub like that?


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 10, 2015)

Interesting. I'm just careful to stick to the truth - like the aluminum sleeves joining steel battens that are slowly discinerating. No special language and the consultants all share their experiences.


----------



## Jay Ashworth (Mar 10, 2015)

I meant more 'gag lawsuits', where someone tries to sue you for telling the plain truth, simply because it's maligning to them for having done a bad job.

Akin to an apartment complex I read about yesterday, whose rental contract includes that you agree to a $10,000 fine if you write a negative online review of them... 
[Edit by Mod.: Link to story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/11/windermere-cay-yelp-review-10k-fine_n_6844592.html ]


----------



## AlexDonkle (Mar 10, 2015)

MNicolai said:


> We also include qualifications but are almost never allowed to pre-qualify bidders, and the qualifications are often not enforced because stakeholders are willing to take the risk when they see all of the $$$$ they think they'll end up saving. Something about A/V doesn't scare stakeholders in the same way that tens of thousands of pounds of equipment hanging above people does. Another factor is that frequently A/V is a sub to the electrical, especially for state projects, and the state won't vet subcontractors.



Same thing happens at our office. Proving that a sub isn't qualified is typically very difficult in practice. So long as the GC is qualified state and military officers typically just move forward with their chosen subs. Private jobs are much simpler. 


BillConnerASTC said:


> I work a lot with av designers - ones not associated with a vendor - and they seem able to prequalify av contractors on most projects.



Most states prohibit listing pre-qualified contractors by name in the specs AFAIK, so they rarely appear in architectural or MEP specs I've seen on state jobs. That said, most state reviewers rarely review AV specs and just focus on the major disciplines, so they commonly miss it. Military jobs we've worked on generally have similar policies.


----------



## de27192 (Mar 10, 2015)

As much as we seem to have centred on fire sprinklers, air con has to have been my favourite thus far.

Obviously when you hang air con ducting over stage, it needs to be supported whilst you screw the stud into the roof. Up high this can be difficult. How did one certain contractor avoid this? I promise this is the whole truth... they installed the air con duct (2' x 2' square tube) in the catwalks. When we quizzed them, they thought it was completely reasonable as it made the installation quicker and meant they did not have to charge us for access equipment. They tried to convince us they were doing us a favour. I just didn't know how to respond to such extreme stupidity.... yes guys we definitely had all those nice lighting catwalks installed at great expense to make the air con cheap to install.

Beyond that though, the vents pointed straight onto the flat floor of the catwalks. All the cold air was blowing hard into the catwalk floor, not down to stage as it was supposed to. There really is no limit to peoples' stupidity.


----------



## tjrobb (Mar 10, 2015)

We're running into the "bid low and ask for more" here. For obvious reasons I can't elaborate, but I'm in facilities and dealing with it daily. Judging by other projects, this is common for the company. Always vet someone before you commit.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 10, 2015)

AlexDonkle said:


> Same thing happens at our office. Proving that a sub isn't qualified is typically very difficult in practice. So long as the GC is qualified state and military officers typically just move forward with their chosen subs. Private jobs are much simpler.
> 
> 
> 
> Most states prohibit listing pre-qualified contractors by name in the specs AFAIK, so they rarely appear in architectural or MEP specs I've seen on state jobs. That said, most state reviewers rarely review AV specs and just focus on the major disciplines, so they commonly miss it. Military jobs we've worked on generally have similar policies.


Perhaps because I prequalify "manufacturing-contractors" or "systems integrators" no one says boo. You have to be able to keep the garage shop "contractors" out. Only that once did I have a problem. Even a recent NAVFAC project I got exactly the products I wanted installed by companies I had vetted and prequalified.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Mar 10, 2015)

One of the problems of a architect without a consultant is that they tend to rely on codes as a design resource. Its important to keep in mind codes and standards are not intended to be "good design" but are bare minimums for reasonable safety. If built just to code, its a D- grade building. I try very hard to get clients to aim higher. They may not all be A+ theaters, but I'm sure they are much better than average.


----------



## robartsd (Mar 11, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> One of the problems of a architect without a consultant is that they tend to rely on codes as a design resource. Its important to keep in mind codes and standards are not intended to be "good design" but are bare minimums for reasonable safety. If built just to code, its a D- grade building. I try very hard to get clients to aim higher. They may not all be A+ theaters, but I'm sure they are much better than average.


Of course architects know that codes are just minimum standards - that's why they put in all that nice "architecture". The root problem is probably that the architect thinks the client will express what they really want, while the client thinks the architect will know how to make it a good design.


----------



## RickR (Mar 11, 2015)

The specific case I mentioned above was all about the general contractor, so of course nobody asked my opinion. With that type of leadership even the highly qualified and respected rigging installer (pre-approved by us) was having trouble. The poor electrical subs were just trying not to end up in court.

My favorite complaint about Architects without consultants is that they tend to 'do what worked last time' regardless of changes. Once one took several pages of drawings and stuck them in a new project. Without noticing that you can't run ceiling track across a soffit.


----------



## TDN (Apr 3, 2015)

On top of recommendations for theatre consultants, are there any published resources, books and the like, that lay out recommendations for folks planning a new theatre? I got forwarded an email from a group who is looking to create a blackbox space and was looking for some advice. On top of recommending them bringing someone in to help shepherd them along, what are some resources I can send to them as they begin to talk to a developer?


----------



## derekleffew (Apr 3, 2015)

Eldon Elder, _Will It Make a Theatre..._, 1979. Somewhat dated, but still contains useful information. Buy it used.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 3, 2015)

TDN said:


> On top of recommendations for theatre consultants, are there any published resources, books and the like, that lay out recommendations for folks planning a new theatre? I got forwarded an email from a group who is looking to create a blackbox space and was looking for some advice. On top of recommending them bringing someone in to help shepherd them along, what are some resources I can send to them as they begin to talk to a developer?



When you say "...as they begin to talk to a developer..." all I see are red flags. Developers are about profits, and the performing arts rarely is. Of the 5 or so projects I have worked on where a developer was involved, like maybe accommodating a local group as part of a larger development, none ever made it off the talking stage and I have learned they make their money by not paying people. Perhaps you should recommend they talk to management of another theatre that involved a developer, if they can find one.


----------



## TDN (Apr 3, 2015)

Thanks Bill. My recommendation to them was to answer for themselves some questions as to who would use the space and what they hope the space will serve, and then pointed them towards the ASTC members page to find a consultant. But I've long held an interest in the design of theatre spaces (having worked in a number with great features and not so great features), and I've had trouble finding good resources all located in one place. We'll see how this project goes.


BillConnerASTC said:


> When you say "...as they begin to talk to a developer..." all I see are red flags. Developers are about profits, and the performing arts rarely is. Of the 5 or so projects I have worked on where a developer was involved, like maybe accommodating a local group as part of a larger development, none ever made it off the talking stage and I have learned they make their money by not paying people. Perhaps you should recommend they talk to management of another theatre that involved a developer, if they can find one.


----------



## BillConnerFASTC (Apr 3, 2015)

Hopefully, they can get an qualified consultant to help - maybe even a one day workshop session. As I have lamented previously, these smaller budget (at least it appears to be) spaces with fewer professionals are the ones that probably most need the really good help. As I recall, ABTT (Brit's USITT) has or had a program offering limited review at no or very little cost. Wish USITT could offer a program like that. I've thought about something along the lines of http://www.theatredoctor.co.uk/.


----------



## AlexDonkle (Apr 6, 2015)

BillConnerASTC said:


> As I recall, ABTT (Brit's USITT) has or had a program offering limited review at no or very little cost. Wish USITT could offer a program like that. I've thought about something along the lines of http://www.theatredoctor.co.uk/.


It's all fun and games until a quote from the "brief review" gets used in a lawsuit after the theatre's open...


----------

