Appendix D:
Comparable New Mid-sized Halls
§
91,500 sq ft performing arts
center, seats 1,302
§
Used by local performing arts
groups (music, dance, opera, theater) and touring groups
§
$30 million to build, opened
in 1997
Funding
partnership between the University, City and Foundation for the Performing Arts
Center
The 91,500
square foot performing arts center, which opened in 1997, cost $30 million to
build. Developed under a joint agreement among the three entities, the
performing arts center is owned and operated by
During the
programming, design and construction of the performing arts center, a steering
committee was formed comprised of University, City, and FPAC representatives
utilizing the partnership percentage. The steering committee’s role was to
ensure that the program requirements were clearly adhered to buy the design
team and contractor during the construction phase.
The
acoustical performance requirements were the priority that set the design
parameters for the hall. The acoustics of the hall have been designed to
maximize the potential for a large pipe organ, symphonic and choral music.
The Main
Performance Hall seats 1,282 on three levels to allow for variable audience
capacity and to optimize sightlines. The proscenium has an adjustable width,
hydraulically operated forestage to create an orchestra pit, and capability to
accommodate an orchestra shell.
Additional
features include a second performance/rehearsal room that can accommodate
250-300 seats and a 170-seat classroom that can be adapted into a recital hall.
The building also houses a green room, offices and storage area.
The
day-to-day operation of the Center is the responsibility of 4senior managers,
who are hired by and report to the
The 1999
budget for the Center was $1.5 million. Expenses include staff, maintenance and
utilities. The three partners fund operations with annual contributions of
$260,000 from the University and$130,000 each from the City and Foundation. The
Center operates under a cost-recovery formula. All utilities, cleaning and
security fall under the University umbrella. In return, no student or campus
group pays rent other than front-of-house costs and labor. The minimum for a
non-profit weekend rental (Friday and Saturday) is $1,125; for private or
commercial use, the same costs a minimum of $2,125.
In its
first year, the Center hosted 152 performances and 131 events. In 1999,
155 performances were scheduled as well as 153other events. The University
sponsors about 60-65 percent of events and performances. Annual attendance in
the inaugural year was 109,882 with ticket revenue of $2.3 million. In its
second year, the Center welcomed 107,289 patrons with ticket sales totaling
$2.5million. Now in its fifth year, the center is doing quite well with
over 115,000 patron tickets sold.
Originally,
an endowment was envisioned to fund Center operations. When construction went
over budget, the $1 million endowment was used for the deficit. Now the
organization has targeted an endowment goal of $8-10 million. This is
management’s main criticism with the planning for the building.
§
Facilities include a
1,201-seat Baum Walker Hall, 220- seat thrust stage theater, and 100-seat
studio
§
$16 million to build, opened
in 1992
§
3 halls used for over 700
events per year
§
Classes
§
Performances by both local and
touring groups: music, Broadway, dance, comedy shows
2003-2004 Operating Budget:
Contributed
Income $2.4 million
Earned
Revenue $3.3 million
Operating
Expenses $5.7 million
The 85,000
square foot
The Center was
a joint initiative of the
The City and
University entered into an inter-local agreement to plan for the construction
of the new Center. In 1986, the University and City established the Walton Arts
Center Council as an independent non-profit corporation to construct,
manage, operate and maintain the
The Center
runs a presenting program which receives priority schedule access to the
facility ahead of University programs and local cultural arts organizations.
University and non-profit access to facilities is provided at lower rates
than commercial renters, but are otherwise unsubsidized. The black box venue
was developed with local theatre organizations in mind and is primarily used as
a rental facility.
The Center is
run by 45 employees with an annual operating budget of approximately $5.8
million. Earned revenue accounts for roughly 61 percent of
its annual budget, with annual fundraising, endowment earnings and public sector
support providing the balance. In order to provide significant
annual support from its investments, the Center launched an endowment campaign
drive, which added over $8million to the fund. In 2004, the Center launched a
programming endowment drive with a target goal of $20 million.
McCallum Theater,
§
1,127 seats in an intimate,
European opera house-style space
§
$22 million to build in 1988
§
Project funded entirely by
private money and a donation of land from the state
§
Majority of events are
McCallum-presented events; some local rentals to educational and local
nonprofits
2003-2004 Operating Budget:
Contributed
Income: $3.0 million
Earned
Revenue: $6.2 million
Operating
Expenses: $9.2 million
In 1973, a
group of
The McCallum
Theatre was built through a coalition of private interest. Construction of the
64,000 square foot facility was paid for entirely by private contributions on
land belonging to a 2-yearcommunity college, College of the Desert, donated to
the theatre through the state. The theatre organization pays no rent for the land
and operates independently from the college. The total cost of the facility was
$22 million; with only 17 percent of its funding in the bank prior to
groundbreaking, fundraising was done at a frenetic pace in the first
years. The performance hall has a maximum capacity of 1,127 seats. Additional
space includes a small rehearsal room and a grand founder’s room.
The McCallum
Theatre is a non-profit organization governed by a Board of Trustees, and
has established a separate foundation Board that oversees a growing endowment
that is almost $11 million as of 2004. The annual operating budget is $8.4
million, and about60% of that is earned income. There are 35
Since they
are located in the desert, during the first years, the season was quite
short. The theatre would have programs from November until around Easter. In
time, the success of the theater has created a longer season, now with
approximately 250 events from September to May, and educational programming
running through July. The McCallum aims to present every possible art form,
from opera to dance to pop stars to ice shows to comedians to, of course,
theater. The theater also rents its hall to outside users, which constitutes
about 10% of total activity.
The
management likes to boast that their average sold capacity is80%, versus about
60% nationally. Around 150,000 people make up the audience each year, with many
thousand more school children who benefit from free programming
throughout the schools.
Living Arts Centre,
§
225,000 sq ft multi-use
facility
§
1,315-seat Hammerson Hall,
300-seat studio Theatre, 110-seat lab space
§
Classroom space and studio
space
§
Has 3 resident companies
(local arts organizations), presents touring groups and offers classes
§
US$50 million to build, opened
in 1997
2003-2004 Operating Budget:
Contributed
Income: $1.07 million
US Earned
Revenue: $4.15 million
US Operating
Expenses: $5.22 million US
The Living
Arts Center in Mississauga, which opened in November 1997, includes a 1,300
seat Concert Theater, a 1,200 seat lecture hall, a 400-seat multi-purpose room,
artist studies, exhibition and teaching space, broadcast center, restaurant and
gift shop. The total project cost was C$68 million, which would be
approximately US$50 million at current exchange rates. Funding was split
approximately as follows: 30% from the City, 25% from the Province, 20% from
the Federal Government, 15% from individuals and 10% from corporations. Capital
fundraising included a $2 million endowment to support operations of the
Center.
A Master Plan
by Mississauga Arts Council and Parks and Recreation Department in 1981
introduced the concept of a performing arts center for
The study
recommended 1,200 to 1,500 concert theater, 400 seat
studio theater, series of galleries, workshops, creative spaces, classrooms.
The initial project budget was set at $57,000,000 (in1990$). The study also
projected a Year 2 operating budget totaling $2,400,000 with 75% of that total
supported by earned revenues. Further, the facility was projected to break even
in 3 to 5 years.
This was
probably the first building conceived as home for the performing, visual
and digital arts. From the very beginning, there was a unique and
understandable vision that was developed by artists, business people and other
community leaders. That vision was for a building connected to the future, with
new performance forms and media. Interestingly, a futurist was engaged as a
part of the project team. Project leaders imagined a building where people
could drop by at any time, and be likely to bump into an artist around every
corner. There would be lots of unique money making opportunities, and the
building would be open from
In fact, the
final result has turned out remarkably close to the original concept. But
along the way, the planning, design and construction of the project was
difficult, and controversial. At one point the concert theater became a
“Commons,” an informal performance space. The capacity of spaces grew and
shrunk a number of times, and programmatic components were added and dropped repeatedly.
There was a continuing battle over local access versus first class
presented events, and the City’s bureaucratic approach to development. In fact,
the project has gone through four C.E.O.’s in the last 3 ½ years, before the
building had even opened!
According to
those who worked on the project, what kept it close to its original vision was
the continuing presence of those who had conceived the vision. Their sense was
that the only way to get it done was to stick to the original plan, and they
were terrified that any deviation from that plan would doom the project.
So far, there are 156 performances booked in the main hall for the first
year. As there were only 125 performances budgeted, management has been able to
reduce community rental rates, which has quieted the debate on community access
for the time being.
As a result
of the project, there is significant development underway around
§
1,563-seat performance hall
and 350-seat theater
§
Used for performing arts and
corporate presentations— facility is outfitted for broadcast
§
Home to eight resident
companies in addition to presenting touring groups
§
$50 million to build, opened
in 2002
2004-2005 Operating Budget:
Contributed
Income $0.9 million
Earned
Revenue $1.1 million
Operating
Expenses $2.0 million
The Eisemann
Center is an 116,900 SF facility located in Galatyn Park, a mixed-use
development envisioned to support the Telecom Corridor and related businesses
in North Dallas. The project was planned by Dallas Area Rail Transit, the City
of
The Center
features a 1,563-seat multipurpose theatre, a 450-seatadaptable theatre, and a
3,150 SF meeting and banquet hall. Owned and operated by the City of
The
Aside from
business and convention activity, which makes up about 25% of the schedule, the
facility is used by regional groups such as the Dallas Ballet and Plano
Symphony, as well as by outside entertainment presenters who bring in such
shows as Smokey Joe’s Café and Aida. In addition, the Center runs two
presenting series: the Hill Performance Hall Spotlight Series, presenting a
variety of dance, musical and theatrical performances such as the Paul Taylor
Dance Company, Garth Fagan and Cirque Éloize; and the Theatre Comedy Series
presenting shows appropriate for its 450-seat venue, including Late Nite
Catechism II, Forbidden Broadway Shoots for the Stars and The Male Intellect:
an oxymoron?
The Center’s
presenting, however, is limited, accounting for only 28 performance events out
of the 475 in the 2004-2005 season. This is driven by several factors. To
begin, the presenting program is aimed to limit risk given the Center’s
dependence on public funding. Secondly, local cultural organizations are
provided scheduling priority over the Center’s presenting program. Of note,
existing cultural organizations that migrated to the Center are also provided
reduced access rates from other non-profits by 33%.