I assume budget draws the
line where the
theatre consultant's "input" stops...or when the architect's "presumed expertise" kicks in.
Budget, politics, ego or any of a number of factors and that is just for the agreed to scope of work. Beyond that, aesthetics, personal conflicts, timing and so on can also affect how much of what is recommended is then incorporated into the design, especially when the Consultants work for the Architect and thus make recommendations to them rather than to the Owner.
I'm definitely not saying this is always true, I have worked with Architects where we were an integral part of the process from day one and with whom it really was a collaborative effort throughout. It is also not always the Architect's decision, sometimes the Owner drives this, be it in trying to minimize design fees or as a result of
Value Engineering.
I just realized that there was an important distinction in what I said. To a great degree most theatrical related consulting is recommendations. Unlike electrical, mechanical, structural, civil,
etc. where you are greatly designing to code and the criteria and process is not as subjective, most theatrical systems involve a significant subjective
element in the design. While there are objective and code based criteria for elements such as seating
spacing, exiting, fire
curtains,
etc., there is no standard criteria or legal requirements for good theater
acoustics or sightlines or lighting or sound. They have to be installed safely and to code, but the acceptable or desired performance of these systems is purely subjective. And that means that the design is also subjective and thus more a recommendation. I can make very detailed recommendations for
acoustics or present a carefully design audio
system but I cannot identify a code requirement or generally accepted standard that would prevent an Architect or Owner from ignoring or changing every single recommendation made. Please keep that in mind as sometimes what ends up in the project is not necessarily what the Consultant intended and in those cases there is often not much they can do (not that we don't sometimes really try).
What I found interesting in the story is that design professionals on public projects are usually required to carry Professional Liability Insurance coverage, often referred to as Errors & Omissions or E&O coverage, in addition to General Commercial Liability Coverage. This is essentially coverage for costs resulting from what is determined to be blatant design errors, not that someone didn't like the result or it wasn't what they wanted, but where accepted design practice was not followed, sort of like malpractice insurance for Doctors. I'm a one person shop and because it is required for many projects I carry $2,000,000 total/$1,000,000 per occurrence Professional Liability coverage. While you never know how accurate some reports are, it at least sounds like this is the type of situation that is meant to
cover. If the school files a claim on their insurance then I would guess that the school's insurer might go after the Architect, perhaps that is easier or more politically preferable than the school going after the Architect directly. Anyaways, something else to consider when hiring any design professionals.
