Planning & Design Meetings Meeting #6 4/29/2009 - Minutes
Palo Alto HS THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
Palo Alto Unified School District
31 March 2010
P. 1
PALO ALTO HIGH SCHOOL
Palo Alto Unified School District
THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
DATE: 29 April 2009, 3:30 pm-5:00 pm
SUBJECT: Performing Art Center Conceptual Design
ATTENDEES: Sign-in sheet (attached)
The following are the highlights of the meeting:
1. Erwin Lee (EL) welcomed the committee and began a power point presentation of
the program and conceptual design work done to date. Following is a summary:
Previous decisions were reviewed including the increased budget which has not yet
been approved by the School Board.
Highlights from the last sub-committee meeting were reviewed including the
decision to pursue a full fly loft, to use the program represented in Scheme B, and
to study the massing and scale of Schemes B and E.
EL showed photos of the future Theater site taken from Embarcadero, from Town
and Country and from El Camino. EL noted that this part of the campus is not very
visible from Embarcadero until one gets close to the driveway entry, due to the
grade and trees. The views from El Camino are also restricted due to tree coverage.
The recent landscape master plan was shown along with enlarged versions with
schemes B and E inserted. Plans and elevations of schemes B and E were shown
followed by several 3D massing studies. EL noted that the elevations of the new
Theater are meant to strongly relate to Haymarket.
Last slide juxtaposed designs of schemes B and E by inserting the massing studies
in a photo taken from the parking lot by the corner of El Camino and Embarcadero.
EL asked the committee to consider the scale and massing of these options and if
possible to recommend to the FSC which option to pursue. EL added that the
committee also needed to decide whether or not to include the orchestra pit and
trap room currently shown on both schemes.
EL noted that the massing does not tell the whole story without further articulation of
the facades.
3. Michael Nagar noted that he wasn’t opposed to the orchestra pit and trap room as
long as the pit had the ability to raise and become part of the stage. Tom Hodges
(TH) noted that given the consensus of the committee the orchestra pit and trap
room should be added to the program.
4. The following discussion followed on the relative merits of both design schemes:
Stu Berman (SB) noted that the massing models might benefit from more detail
especially at the tall lobbies, because the Board might not understand them.
Palo Alto HS THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
Palo Alto Unified School District
31 March 2010
P. 2
Aimee Lopez (AL) noted that it’s advisable to provide conceptual detail to the
Board.
Jedd De Lucia (JD) noted that the massing models should be checked to make
sure there’s adequate height for the balcony level at the lobbies. JD pointed out
that the balconies on both schemes extend over the lower levels.
Stephen Pond (SP) asked what happens between Building 100 and the Theater.
EL responded that the space would be enclosed and is meant to be used as a
gathering area and gallery for students. However, this would happen during the
Building 100 modernization and not with the Theater project.
Question was asked if the performance hall in schemes B and E were different
and JD responded that both were identical, only the lobbies were different and
the back of house spaces given the different geometry.
Jeff Willner (JW) noted that Scheme B was the more attractive option because
of its simpler massing elements and overall appearance from the corner.
SP asked James Hilmer (JH) which scheme he preferred for functionality and
JH responded that scheme B had a better relationship to the future scene shop
in Building 100.
SB noted that the rotation in Scheme B resulted in non-rectilinear spaces JD
added that Scheme E was the efficient scheme but that both had adequate
room for back of house functions.
SP noted that he liked how the lobby in scheme E worked as one big room. EL
added that the entry doors could be located on the wall facing the parking lot.
However, Scheme B worked best with doors facing the Haymarket Theater and
utilizing the plaza area.
Question was asked how the seating was distributed between the two levels. JD
answered, the basic breakdown is 350-400 on the first level and 200-250 on the
second level.
Question was asked of JD which scheme he preferred. JD noted that he didn’t
have a strong preference. From the exterior, Scheme B seemed to be more
attractive with the curved lobby. The lobby of Scheme E handles its three
functions very well by having distinct zones of circulation for patrons to the rest
rooms, concessions and performance hall entries. Scheme B is less successful
though it could be improved.
EL reminded the group that the interior plan configuration could be adjusted in
both schemes to take advantage of the positives from each one.
5. Discussion followed on the next steps and project schedule:
The overall consensus was a preference for Scheme B but there were qualities
of Scheme E that several members thought worthy of keeping.
TH suggested that DLM look at an additional scheme that combines the straight
lines of Scheme E with the rotation of Scheme B. TH added that the Board
might take exception to the broad curve of Scheme B as being too radical.
EL responded this combination scheme will be produced and shown to the
committee first before it’s shown at the upcoming FSC meeting on May 5th.
The committee agreed to show the various schemes to the FSC without specific
recommendations and to provide more input at a later date.
Palo Alto HS THEATER SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING
Palo Alto Unified School District
31 March 2010
P. 3
6. Schedule:
Next Monthly Theater Sub-Committee meeting will be scheduled for June 10th at
3:30 PM.
END
Prepared by Christopher Ades of Deems Lewis McKinley. Please advise if you feel that any of the above
items are inaccurate or need further clarification or detail.
cc: Attendees
File