Symphonic Spaces: A Coupling of the Senses An Analysis of Experiential Optimality Inherent in Symphonic Concert Hall Design

Davis Butner History and Theoretical Studies

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

1

Symphonic Spaces: A Coupling of the Senses An Analysis of Experiential Optimality Inherent in Symphonic Concert Hall Design

“When architecture commands our attention throughout history only as a visual art, we greatly diminish its full physical potential and limit the depth of its study. The aural perception of space contributes to the

experiential identity of an environment.” - Ted Sheridan, “Hearing Architecture” 1 Considering significant relationships within the fields of architecture and music, one could

not find a more perfect example of fusion between spatial + aural design than in the evolution of

concert halls. A complex epicenter of social, political, artistic, and socioeconomic influence, the

concert hall has served as a physical manifestation of cultural evolution in its most amalgamated

state. Of course, the construction of such an environment must achieve a level of visual stimulation

in which a given civilization can appreciate, if not transcend the toils of everyday life through artistry

and performance. Yet, it is an architect’s focus on the aural capabilities of a designed space which

distinguishes the design of concert halls from the visual hierarchy of architectural design. In fact,

modern concert halls can indeed be viewed as musical instruments in themselves, shaping the sound

produced from within to reach listeners with the fullest richness and potential. In this sense,

architects presented with the task of designing a concert hall must overcome a growing tension

between two highly important factors within the design process: envisioning a space in which

optimal visual characteristics threaten a rigid system of acoustical regulations and proportions.

Responding to such tensions, one will quickly realize that the ‘art’ of concert hall and

acoustical design is largely based on precedence. Only through a close analysis of previously realized

halls can one truly determine a careful balance of visual prominence, structural capacity, and

audience arrangement which will produce a hall suitable for its musical and/or cultural purpose. 1 Ted Sheridan, “Hearing Architecture: Exploring and Designing the Aural Environment,” Journal of Architectural Education 57, No. 2 (Nov. 2003): 37, JSTOR.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

2

From the following analytical discourse, I hope to raise a number of questions concerning the

evolution of concert hall design, not only from a purely critical perspective, but also for a more

practical and experiential purpose. Referencing three major U.S. and European precedents,

beginning with McKim, Mead & White’s early 20th century neoclassical design for Boston

Symphony Hall, followed by a modernist response to 1950’s concert hall design captured in Robert

Matthew & Leslie Martin’s vision for London’s Royal Festival Hall, and finally Diller Scofidio +

Renfro’s 21st century technological renovations to New York’s Alice Tully Hall, I aim to explore a

diverse range of acoustically based design solutions responding to a timeline of trending architectural

styles within distinct urban contexts. Most importantly, through such close analysis of the acoustical

and visual criteria met by each hall with reference to choices of shape, ornamentation, and the

various relationships of stage to audience, I hope to answer a fundamentally practical question: where

are the best visual AND acoustical positions within a given hall? Moreover, how can one determine

this solely based on architectural observations, rather than simply the price of the ticket? Finally,

through an experientially based case study of Philadelphia’s Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts,

can we conclude that concert hall seating is priced on a fundamentally visual, rather than acoustical

scale, and if so, what revisions could be made to adjust seat pricing to tailor towards a more

optimized visual + aural experience?

Defining Audience Desires

When questioning design practices intended to provide the ideal performance experience for

a given audience, one must first logically define what sort of experience audiences would consider as

ideal. Understandably, concert goers offered a range of seating positions relative to the stage may

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

3

subscribe to a number of visual preferences, in part based on that which is being performed. In

particular, regarding a symphony orchestra setting, audience members may choose either to sit

within the first few rows of the ground floor of a concert hall simply to view musicians from an

intimate perspective. On the other hand, concert goers hoping to get a wider glimpse of the

complexity on stage may prefer a more distant, elevated seat, rather than one so close to the action.

Furthermore, one cannot assume that the center of the hall would always serve as prime real estate at

every concert. Take for example a piano performance in which the piano is positioned parallel

lengthwise to the front of the stage. Seating on the left hand side of the concert hall immediately

becomes more desirable simply due to the visual perspective one may have of the pianist’s hands.

In each of these aforementioned instances, visual perception has been stated as the deciding

factor in dictating a preference of seating. Yet, haven’t we forgotten the most crucial element of a

symphonic experience, the sound of the hall? Oftentimes sound is almost entirely overlooked,

though key to a desirable concert experience. What then, would be the ideal sound experience

within a concert hall, as defined by an audience? According to Rob Metkemeijer in his analysis of

desired acoustical traits within a concert hall, first and foremost states that “music played by natural

instruments needs to be blended, smoothed, and amplified by the space… achieved in part through

controlled reverberation. This is very different from seeing the space, where all boundaries are

perceived as parallel information at the same time.” 2 Likewise, referencing a quote from American

acoustics expert, Leo Beranek, Metkemeijer explains, “a significant factor for the quality of sound in

a hall is its intimacy, which hinges on the time delay of the first reflections after the direct sound…

2 Rob Metkemeijer, "The Acoustic Space," in Music, Space and Architecture, Maarten Kloos (Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura, 2012), 55.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

4

even large halls with such reflections will produce intimate sound.”3 With each of these principles in

mind, one must shift to the most basic rules of spatial acoustics in order to gain a sense for the

overarching factors apparent in designing such optimal concert hall environments.

Fundamental Rules of Acoustics

Roderick Ham, in his critical analysis of the acoustic nature of London theaters, claims

“acoustics is more an art than a science. The very word seems to strike terror into the hearts of many

architects, who feel it is an arcane science that only the initiated can understand.”4 While this

certainly hammers in the idea that acoustical science has largely developed from lengthy trial and

error, there are a number of steadfast conventions which may directly govern the dispersal of sound

throughout a given hall or enclosed space. Nevertheless, the objectivity involved within such

specialized design practices provides room for the pure artistic, innovative creativity of the architect.

In reference to the three aforementioned halls in question, we may thus narrow our focus to a set of

four physical criteria which seem to evolve with the structural creativity apparent in each concert hall

design, visible within the hall to an observant audience.

A primary factor in the dispersal of sound logically deals with the reflectivity of a given

surface and material, further enhanced by its position and/or shape in the context of a sound source.

A straight, dense surface, for instance, would reflect sound at an angle equal to the angle of the

sound’s approach from a specified source.5 On the other hand, when dealing with curved surfaces, a

convex surface would have the ability to equally scatter approaching sound over a wide range of

space, clearly serving an ideal purpose in the amplification of sound across a concert hall. Yet, 3 Metkemeijer, “The Acoustic Space,” 55. 4 Roderick Ham, Theaters: Planning Guidance for Design and Adaptation (London: Butterworth, 1988), 32. 5 Peter Grueneisen, Soundspace: Architecture for Sound and Vision (Basel: Birkhauser, 2003), 59.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

5

concave surfaces, though potentially useful in a curvilinear design, have the property of converging

incoming reflected sounds towards a single foci which may attribute to an undesirable imbalance

within an enclosed hall.6 (see FIG. 1) One can clearly notice in glancing at the plans for Boston

Symphony Hall, the long, straight side walls of the hall which provide the optimal reflective

potential towards the rear center of the audience located on the balcony (see FIG. 2). In

comparison, the seemingly concave walls of Alice Tully Hall, by being broken up in the center

through a series of vertical protruding panels, have the effect of angling sound more directly towards

the center of the hall itself, providing wider range of optimal aural seating. (see FIG. 4) Such

principles can even be applied to optimize ground level seating. Seen as early as Boston Symphony

Hall, and later repeated in both The Royal Festival and Alice Tully Halls, a sloping floor provides

similar curvilinear reflective qualities to scatter sound equally around a given spatial enclosure.

A second crucial acoustic principle in the realm of concert hall design sheds light on the

desired proportionality of hall height and width. Again, reflecting the trial and error techniques of

early acoustical methodologies, such proportions were most defined with the breakthrough of

Boston Symphony Hall, developed in tangent with early 20th century physicist and early acoustician,

Wallace Sabine, and his work on a universal equation for reverberation. Considering the lengths of

Boston’s old Music Hall in comparison to the idealized sounds of Leipzig Gewandhaus, Sabine

concluded that added length and height, not width, would create a more intimate, sustained sound.7

Thus, one may observe in plans for both Boston Symphony Hall (see FIG. 2), as well as subsequent

plans and sections for London’s Royal Festival Hall (see FIG. 3), a significant difference between the

6 Ham, Theaters, 33. 7 Emily Thompson, The Soundscape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening in America, 1900-1933 (London: The MIT Press, 2002), 42.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

6

generous length and height of both halls, in proportion to the hall width, resulting in a consistent

‘shoebox’ shape as will be discussed in the following section.

Third, extreme caution must be taken with the design of a concert hall balcony. While a

staple of most large concert hall designs, the balcony can often become an obstacle for sound rather

than a precise channel, particularly affecting seats in the rear of the level underneath the balcony

itself. Referencing our distinguished halls, we may see a range of successful and relatively

unsuccessful balcony shapes in comparing the plans and sections of Alice Tully and The Royal

Festival Halls. Within Alice Tully Hall, the balcony is kept short in order to avoid covering much of

the ground level seating.8 Conversely, in The Royal Festival Hall, a massive balcony eclipses almost

a third of the available ground level seating within the hall. Whereas the sloping of the ground floor

towards the stage manages to angle some reflected sound up within the alcove underneath the

imposing balcony, those sitting far beneath its shadow are put at a significant aural disadvantage in

exchange for an optimal view of the entire stage. (See FIG. 7)

Finally, one must address the modern technological advantage of reflectors within concert

halls as a more recent acoustical phenomenon responding to an age old concern over the aural effects

of exposed sharp corners. A major concern over the design of large performance halls has always

been the avoidance of echoes within such a giant open room. Concert halls, much like instruments,

must help maintain refined, highly precise tones, that which is nearly impossible to uphold with the

existence of a natural echo. Of course one must not confuse an echo with the concept of

reverberation: echoes being the natural repetition of a sound reflected back and forth within a space,

8 Diller, Scofidio + Renfro, Lincoln Center Inside Out: An Architectural Account (Bologna: Damiani, 2012), 251.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

7

unlike reverb, the sustainability of a sound within a space. Fortunately, more recent acoustical

discoveries have noted the exposure of sharply angled wall corners as a main culprit in the cause of

undesired concert hall echoes. Particularly by avoiding right angles at the interception of two

adjacent walls and/or ceiling through the use of reflective paneling, such echoes can be highly

prevented.9 Easily spotted in both Alice Tully and The Royal Festival Halls, the angle of each

noticeable reflective panel would provide clear information as to the optimal direction and

convergence of sound within each hall’s seating arrangement. (See FIG. 3, 4) Considering the

perpendicular orientation of each reflective panel, one may visually pinpoint specific regions within

each hall toward which the majority of reflected sounds would travel. While such a region is fixed in

The Royal Festival Hall within the first few rows of the balcony as well as the central section of

exposed ground level seating, the same is not the case for Alice Tully Hall. Rather, the adjustability

of reflective wall and tip fly paneling in this most recent hall design allow for various configurations

of such optimal aural regions within the hall in response to the qualities of music being performed.

Shaping the Hall

“In sound-architecture the shape of space itself is defined by travelling sound…: ‘so as to change’ the

proportions and the message of an existing space.” – Bernhard Leitner, “Sound Architecture”10

Having introduced a number of significant acoustical guidelines legible within each

characterized hall, one must also take into account each general hall shape in considering overall

aural tendencies within a given acoustical space. In the following chronological analysis of specified

projects (spanning a significant range of standardized hall layouts), one may begin to understand the 9 H. Heathcote Statham, “The Structure and Arrangement of Concert Halls,” Proceedings of the Musical Association 38, (1911-1912): 70, JSTOR. 10 Bernhard Leitner, quote in Music, Space and Architecture, Maarten Kloos, 54.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

8

evolution of concert hall shape in the development of each hall plan, responding within a growing

urban context.

Beginning with Boston Symphony Hall, one notices a simple stone rectangular form

outlined by lengthy side walls in proportion to an intentionally narrow width. A prime example of

‘shoebox’ hall design, such a plan is said to ‘favor a ‘singing tone’ at the cost of excessive distance

from the balcony to the orchestra.”11 While balcony seating is visually less than ideal (giving

audiences a choice of a frontal view of the stage with the help of binoculars or a neck cramping line

of sight from the side walls towards a profile view of the stage), the hall provides an optimal

acoustical environment for a careful balance of orchestral power and precision, perfect for the

symphonic tastes of Boston. Though the hall can manage a powerful Brahms Requiem, it is the

daintiness of Mozart and dynamic contrast of Beethoven heard ever so clearly which astound

audiences the most.

Interestingly, the same concert hall shape would eventually be designated for The Royal

Festival Hall, but not first without some controversy. With this we turn to a second standard

concert hall design, seen with the fan shape. Contrasting from the acoustical strengths of a ‘shoebox’

hall, the fan was considered a layout fit for better definition, but at the increasing risk of echoes!12

While the fan shape came at too great a risk for its implementation within the highly anticipated

Royal Festival Hall design, a successful example of the fan concert hall shape can be found in the

notoriously unique plan for the Bayreuth Festspielhaus, conceived by the composer Richard Wagner

himself. As quoted by the iconic Argentinian conductor, Daniel Barenboim in reference to the hall:

11 Miles Glendinning, “Teamwork or Masterwork? The Design and Reception of the Royal Festival Hall,” Architectural History 46, (2003): 294, JSTOR. 12 Ibid.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

9

Wager understood the phenomenology of sound and the importance of the ear so well that he designed a theatre, the Festspielhaus in Bayreuth, where the orchestra is ‘sunk so deep that the spectator would look over it’. He did not devise this, as people often claim, only so that the singers could be heard over the exceptionally large orchestra that he used. Rather, he needed to render the orchestra invisible and condemned ‘the constant visibility of the mechanism for tone production as an aggressive nuisance’. In other words he also wanted to separate the ear from the eye, not letting the eye know when the music was about to begin, since neither the orchestra nor the conductor could be seen. Therefore the ear is doubly alert: the eye has to wait until the curtain goes up, whereas the ear has already perceived the nature of the drama.13

A space in which sound and sight were separated, the hall can be regarded as highly successful due to

a number of factors. Firstly, one may notice an avoidance of echoes within the hall due to the

upward direction of sound from an orchestra pit sunk underneath the stage. Yet more importantly,

the invisible source of sound heightens an audience’s aural perception, shifting one’s awareness

towards the emotional power of Wagner’s music without the visual distractions of sound producing

instruments.

Briefly acknowledging the existence of circular concert hall designs, we must turn to chamber

music as a suitable performance remedy to the problematic use of intimate circular plans for

symphonic concert halls. While circular performance spaces such as London’s Royal Albert Hall do

exist, according to H. Heathcote Statham of the Royal Music Association, such halls “are an entire

mistake, for audiences like to ‘face the music’, and with a circular hall it is almost impossible to

arrange this for all of them.”14 (see FIG. 8) As a case where aural capabilities cannot overcome a lack

13 Daniel Barenboim, Everything is Connected: The Power of Music (London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2008), 35. 14 Statham, “The Structure and Arrangement of Concert Halls,” 72.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

10

of visual sightlines, Royal Albert Hall demonstrates an opposing imbalance to the importance of

visual + aural equilibrium within concert hall design.

Finally, one may observe a popular contemporary concert hall shape through the concept of

‘egg-in-a-box’ design, seen most clearly in Alice Tully Hall, while likewise reflected in the relation of

an outer encasing and gallery space for London’s Royal Festival Hall. Differentiated from ‘shoebox’

hall designs, egg-in-a-box halls are unique in that they refer to the encapsulation, outward framing,

or even suspension of an inner concert hall within an outer promenade framework of gallery and

social indoor spaces.15 Successful for their prime ability to insulate a given hall from excess noise in

an external urban context, both Alice Tully and the Royal Festival Halls exemplify the highest

achievement in modern acoustical design, creating internal spaces entirely unaffected by an

increasingly congested urban exterior.

A Question of Ornamentation

While acoustical analysis has been the sole focus of our discussion so far, it seems imperative

that visual aspects of concert hall design be taken into account in understanding a careful balance

between the aural + visual, particularly with respects to the acoustical benefits of structural

ornamentation. As quoted, for example, in criticism of London’s Queen Elizabeth Hall, constructed

not long before The Royal Festival Hall, “the result is that though the building for its size is an

excellent one for sound, the taste of the decorations is so bad that part of the pleasure to the ear is

spoiled by the accompanying displeasure to the eye.”16 A harsh comment to say the least, one is

made aware of the equal importance of visual stimulation within the concert experience, largely

15 Glendinning, “Teamwork or Masterwork?” 299. 16 Statham, “The Structure and Arrangement of Concert Halls,” 87.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

11

succeeded through the careful use of creative acoustically designed ornamentation within a given

hall. In this sense, visual stimulation, while expressing an architect’s creative physical artistry, doubly

serves as method for scattering sound by creating intentionally uneven wall surfaces. Whether or not

planned with an acoustical sixth sense, such regions of ornamentation may offer clues towards the

unique aural qualities of acoustically successful performance halls.

Firstly, a discussion of ornamentation brings with it stylistic factors associated with the

trending architectural styles popular at the time of a given hall’s conception. For Boston Symphony

Hall, a trend in Neoclassical design suggested highly ornamental elements referencing Greek and

Roman empiricism, hence the addition of stone statues within each large window alcove of the hall.

While mainly due to a period of heightened structural ornament (coinciding with the highly

ornamental work of Louis Sullivan in Chicago), the decorated side walls of Boston Symphony Hall

serve as natural sound diffusers. (see FIG. 2) Sound is miraculously scattered throughout the hall

due to a variety of rough and/or uneven stone surfaces. The same concept can be observed in the

design for The Royal Festival Hall, yet all the while guided by a purely modern aesthetic. Stripped

of any and all neoclassical ornament, the hall’s absence of texture is compensated by a modern

ornamental element through the addition of offset ‘swallows nest’ boxes.17 A similar combination of

varied surfaces is in this case created by a highly regulated pattern, thus achieving a similar level of

acoustical perfection. Lastly, the smooth surfaces of Alice Tully Hall, neatly communicating a

technologically minimalistic appearance, are offset by a discrete, yet highly intentional textural

pattern on the upstage wall. (see FIG. 9) Offering the same acoustical potential as earlier ornamental

17 Hope Bagenal, “Taste and Concert Hall Design,” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 78, (1951-1952): 24. JSTOR.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

12

concert hall approaches, such simplistic details seem to directly oppose the highly ornate features of

an antiquated Boston Symphony Hall. Whereas Boston symphony hall’s visual complexities can be

found in its ornamental vigor, in contrast, the complexities of Alice Tully hall are realized in the

shape and flexibility of the hall itself rather than a focus on the visual ornamental detail. Rather than

indirectly serving an acoustical purpose, DS+R’s minimal surface detail serves to reflect sound and

nothing more.

Case Study: Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts

“Just as art is best exhibited in non-museum spaces, the most exciting performances are seen outside the

confines of traditional theaters.” - Rem Koolhaus, “Sight and Sound”18

With close reference to the visual and aural concepts thus far discussed, a final personal case

study of Philadelphia’s Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts will adequately summarize a cutting

edge solution to visual + aurally stimulating concert hall design. Taking into account both the

successes and failures of the hall in terms of shape, ornamentation, and seating arrangement in

relation to previously discussed halls, I will offer my own insight in distinguishing the optimal seats

within the house.

In approaching the Kimmel Center from a purely visual perspective, it seems crucial to

comment first and foremost on the monumental egg-in-a-box concept of the center’s design.

Centrally located on Philadelphia’s Broad Street, the hall is surrounded by “urban white noise”,

including street and pedestrian traffic, as well as an underlying city subway system. By placing an

entirely separate set of performance hall structures within an arched glass façade, architect Rafael

18 Rem Koolhaus, quoted in Site and Sound: The Architecture and Acoustics of New Opera Houses and Concert Halls, Victoria Newhouse (New York:The Monacelli Press, 2012), 254.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

13

Viñoly achieves an enclosed neutral space between the precision of the inner halls and the chaos of

the external city. Moreover, the architect seems to visually play with the monumentality of

monolithic forms for the exterior of his halls, guiding visitors towards the Verizon symphonic

concert hall by means of a ¾ profile approach, potentially referencing one’s approach to the

Acropolis. (see FIG. 10)

Nevertheless, upon entering the hall, one could not be more surprised at the contrasting

intimacy of the designed space, most notably shaped into the profile of a cello. Viñoly claims his

influence for the design came from his own familiarity with the cello from an early age.

I used to play the cello, and there is a very direct connection between playing the instrument and creating a space like Verizon Hall. When making music, the intellectual and emotional aspects of playing must be connected to the kinetic, muscular efforts involved. They’re the same thing. And the best architecture comes from knowing they’re the same.19

In taking a more literal approach to hall symphony hall design, perhaps to avoid the potential

vastness of a three tiered performance hall, the hall itself attempts to mimic the same principles of a

string instrument, including a beveled ceiling, curvilinear sides, and of course a breathtaking wooden

finish throughout. Yet, the one, arguably most important aspect of a string instrument lacking in

the design for the symphonic hall would be the existence of a ‘sound post’, linking reverberation

from the ceiling to that of the floor. (see FIG. 11) Rather, the architect attempted to

overcompensate by introducing a negative space, or a void, between the interior instrumental shape

of the hall and the hall’s monolithic exterior. Virtually a ‘egg-in-an-egg-in-a-box’, the addition of

19 “Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts,” Arcspace.com, http://www.arcspace.com/features/rafael-vinoly-/kimmel-center-for-the-performing-arts/ 23 March, 2013.

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

14

extra airspace surrounding the hall, while avoiding the potential for echoes, seems to add an

unnecessary amount of absorption. For a soft, wooden room already filled with cushioned seating,

the existence of such extra space has the effect of drying out sound produced on the stage. Rather

than a rich, resilient ‘Philadelphia’ sound for which the orchestra is so well known (dating back to

their 20th century residency in the nearby Academy of Music), the orchestra often sounds rather

repressed and composed, even in boisterous areas of Beethoven, Mahler, and Tchaikovsky.

Such acoustical problems are amplified further given the loftiness of the ceiling. Rather than

directing sound outward towards the audience, the lack of overhead reflector paneling below the

third tier (in an attempt to avoid hindering a line of sight from the upper balconies), causes sound to

travel straight towards the upper rear of the hall. Thus, it seems, though rather removed from the

intimacy of the stage itself, the rear upper balcony of Verizon Hall often becomes the best acoustical

vantage point within.

In transitioning to a discussion of optimal seating in the hall, one must first note differences

in seating arrangement from previously studied designs, most notably observed in the existence of a

‘conductor’s circle’ of seats wrapping behind the symphony stage to face the conductor. While a

considerably popular seating location, perhaps due to its unique perspective to the orchestra, the

space is rather poor in an acoustical sense, as instruments within the given ensemble are oriented

towards the majority of seats within the hall. Likewise, the existence of wrapping side balconies,

much like those found in Boston Symphony Hall, provide interesting angled views of the stage, yet

also include a significant blind spot located at a particularly concave section of balcony. (see FIG 5)

Finally, before hypothesizing as to the optimal seats within the house, one must first

acknowledge a number of significant acoustical modifications undertaken since the hall’s first

Dav

is B

utne

r Sy

mph

onic

Spa

ces

15

opening. From the perspective of on-stage performers, the unbearable dryness of the hall due to

high levels of absorption had the effect of exposing one’s playing while making it rather difficult to

hear sounds from across the stage. Most notably, a solution took place by filling in the negative

space located behind the stage underneath the conductors circle seating. By inserting a new

reflective surface behind the stage itself, sound absorption from the perspective of the stage was

drastically diminished, while also providing a surface from which sound could project towards the

middle and lower tiers of the audience.

Thus, in conclusion, one must speculate where the optimal visual and aural experience

would be within the hall. Considering each acoustical principle discussed within the following

discourse, the Kimmel Center, while exhibiting a high level of acoustical achievement, seems to fall

short on a number of optimal aural fronts. Thus, in considering prime visual areas within the hall,

such as the loge, sides, and central balconies, one must single out rear sections of the hall as a

particularly decent location within the space. Due to sloping ground surfaces on each level of

seating, audiences in the rear have surprisingly decent views of the entire orchestra, furthered by the

tremendous amount of sound reflected upward and outwards towards the back of the hall by the

loftiness and narrowing of the curvilinear space. Understandably, this varies quite significantly from

seat pricing due to the importance of visuals within a given seat location, preferably idealized at the

front and center of each tiered balcony. Yet, from the following example, one may realize that seat

optimal seats in a given house are not necessarily those outlined by a price tag. Rather, by

positioning oneself in a direct line of sight to visualize the entire orchestra, at a direct perpendicular

location from side walls or reflective paneling, one is guaranteed a remarkably well-rounded concert

experience.

Referenced Figures

FIGURE 1: Reflective Surfaces

FIGURE 2: Boston Symphony Hall

wall ornament

Smoothed Corners

Smoothed Corners

Ideal acoustical region

Average acoustical region

FIGURE 3: Royal Festival Hall

Sound Refracting Boxes

Start of BalconyLength of Hall

FIGURE 4: Alice Tully Hall

FIGURE 5: Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts

Conductor’s Circle

Zone B (most expensive)Zone CZone DZone AZone EZone GZone F (least expensive)

FIGURE 6: Current Pricing Scheme for the Kimmel Center

FIGURE 7: Underneath the Royal Festival Hall Balcony

FIGURE 8: Plan of Royal Albert Hall

FIGURE 9: Textural Wall in Alice Tully Hall

FIGURE 10: Approach to the Kimmel Center’s Verizon Hall

FIGURE 11: Perspective Explosion of Cello (note location of the ‘Sound Post’)

Works Cited Bagenal, Hope. “Taste and Concert Hall Design.” Proceedings of the Royal Musical Association 78,

(1951-1952): 11-29. JSTOR. Barenboim, Daniel. Everything is Connected: The Power of Music. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2008. Diller, Scofidio + Renfro. Lincoln Center Inside Out: An Architectural Account. Bologna: Damiani, 2012. Glendinning, Miles. “Teamwork or Masterwork? The Design and Reception of the Royal Festival

Hall.” Architectural History 46, (2003): 277-319. JSTOR. Grueneisen, Peter. Soundspace: Architecture for Sound and Vision. Basel: Birkhauser, 2003. Ham, Roderick. Theaters: Planning Guidance for Design and Adaptation. London: Butterworth, 1988. “Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts.” Arcspace.com.

http://www.arcspace.com/features/rafael-vinoly-/kimmel-center-for-the-performing-arts/ 23 March, 2013.

Kloos, Maarten and Rob Metkemeijer. Music, Space and Architecture. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura, 2012. Newhouse, Victoria. Site and Sound: The Architecture and Acoustics of New Opera Houses and Concert Halls.

New York:The Monacelli Press, 2012. Sheridan, Ted and Karen Van Lengen. “Hearing Architecture: Exploring and Designing the Aural

Environment.” Journal of Architectural Education 57, no. 2 (Nov. 2003): 37-44. JSTOR. Statham, H. Heathcote. “The Structure and Arrangement of Concert Halls.” Proceedings of the

Musical Association 38, (1911-1912): 67-92. JSTOR. Thompson, Emily. The Soundscape of Modernity: Architectural Acoustics and the Culture of Listening

in America, 1900-1933. London: The MIT Press, 2002. Tommasini, Anthony. “Critic’s Notebook: Carnegie Hall vs. the Kimmel Center”. The New York

Times, May 14, 2002, Arts. Works Consulted Blesser, Barry and Linda-Ruth Salter. Spaces Speak, Are You Listening? Experiencing Aural

Architecture. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 2007. Jaffe, J. Christopher. The Acoustics of Performance Halls: Spaces for Music from Carnegie Hall to the

Hollywood Bowl. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. “Kimmel Center Acoustics.” Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts.

http://www.kimmelcenter.org/facilities/acoustics.php 23 March, 2013. “Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts Completes $1.3 Million Acoustic Work in Verizon Hall.”

Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts. http://www.kimmelcenter.org/news/index.php?id=297. 23 March, 2013.

La Belle, Brandon, and Steven Roden. Site of Sound: Of Architecture and the Ear. Los Angeles: Errant Bodies Press, 1999.

Kronenburg, Robert. Live Architecture: Venues, Stages and Arenas for Popular Music. New York: Routledge, 2012. Young, Gregory, Jerry Bancroft and Mark Sanderson. “Musi-Tecture: Seeking Useful Correlations

between Music and Architecture.” Leonardo Music Journal 3 (1993): 39-43. JSTOR.