Performing Arts Centers

McHugh Construction completes restoration of Chicago’s historic Ramova Theatre

rcassidy — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:41:57 +0000

McHugh Construction completes restoration of Chicago’s historic Ramova Theatre

rcassidy Fri, 04/05/2024 - 10:41

Adaptive reuse project turns 1929 cinema into a live performance venue, adds a brewery and a taproom, and revives the Ramova Grill in Chicago’s Bridgeport neighborhood.

Performing Arts Centers

Events Facilities

Contractors

Adaptive Reuse

McHugh Construction, one of the Midwest’s largest commercial contractors, has completed the $30 million adaptive reuse of Chicago’s historic Ramova Theatre from a long-shuttered single-screen cinema to an 1,800-person concert hall in Chicago’s Bridgeport neighborhood.

As part of the 36,000-sf project at 3510-3520 S. Halsted St., McHugh also built out space for Other Half Brewing, an independent craft brewery and taproom; Ramova Grill, an 18-seat diner; and Ramova Loft, a second-floor 200-person event venue.

JAZZ AGE MOVIE THEATRE CLOSED IN 1985

Ramova Theatre originally opened at the tail end of the Roaring Twenties and quickly became the jewel of the Bridgeport neighborhood with its neon red marquee and Spanish-inspired architecture. However, decades later ticket sales slowed, leading to its closure in 1985. Ramova’s historical and artistic significance was officially recognized with its addition to the National Register of Historic Places in 2021, the same year McHugh embarked on the building’s restoration.

“When we first arrived on the site, it was like a time capsule, with the ticket booth still in place – even with the same curtains from the day it closed,” said Andrew Totten, vice president of McHugh Construction. “But severe water damage destroyed large areas of the plaster ceiling, and the terracotta façade on Halsted Street was missing several parts.

The Ramova Theatre during reconstruction by McHugh crews. Photo courtesy McHugh Construction

“It was the exact type of complicated project our experienced restoration team loves to bring back to life,” he added. “McHugh has been around longer than the Ramova Theatre, so we knew exactly how and when to preserve, protect, rebuild, and start anew, like when we took casts of the building’s remaining terracotta pieces and had them remade. We were honored to return the building to its 1929 glory and create a magical experience for the community once again.”

For more than two years, McHugh Construction worked closely with project architect O’Riley Office, Baum Revision, and historic preservation specialists to meticulously restore the ornate architectural details in Ramova’s original Spanish-courtyard-style lobby and auditorium.

Pale-yellow stucco-style walls, red-notched archways and columns, decorative bronze wrought-iron faux windows and balconies, a clay-tile roof line, and a ceiling painted midnight blue – all were restored to evoke the beautiful and inviting hacienda ambiance.

VENUE OFFERS UNOBSTRUCTED VIEWS OF THE STAGE

Gone are the velvety movie theater seats. In their place is a 22,000-sf, barrier-free multi-level concrete floor in front of an expansive stage. Rows of spotlights hang from the ceiling, casting multi-colored glows throughout the concert hall. The venue’s new speaker system amplifies the onstage vocals and instruments, connecting artists with the audience. Multiple bars were installed in the back of the auditorium, and a second-floor balcony was revived to offer clear views of the stage.

“The South Side of Chicago is home to the majority of local artists, but it has had the least amount of high-quality space for them to perform and hone their craft – from an aesthetic as well as acoustic point of view,” said Tyler Nevius, Ramova’s developer. “The city and the South Side needed this.”

McHugh Construction restored Ramova Theatre’s neon-red marquee in adherence to National Register of Historic Places standards to light up Halsted and 35th Streets on Chicago’s South Side, just as it did in 1929. Photo: Clayton Hauck

With an eye to attracting big-name performers, Ramova’s new greenroom is worthy of any A-lister, with four separate suites – each with full baths – and an office for tour managers to conduct business, said Nevius. To protect artists from paparazzi and unauthorized personnel, McHugh created direct paths for touring vehicles to arrive, unload equipment, and privately access the greenroom and performance area.

“Andy Totten and I talked with quite a few artists as part of the process,” Nevius said. “First and foremost, we wanted to create a place where they would want to come and perform. One that looks great, sounds even better, and where people can enjoy a show in comfort, which meant a five-star air conditioning system.”

HISTORIC PRESERVATION EXPERIENCE KEY TO SUCCESS

That required McHugh and its subcontractor teams to draw on decades of historic restoration experience to conceal state-of-the-art HVAC, electrical, sound, and fire protection systems within the early 20^th-century fabric of the theater building. McHugh also tapped its in-house structural engineering team, McHugh Engineering Group, for expertise on structural modifications and additions to historic and complex structures.

“Multiple times we went to the McHugh office and worked on the whiteboard to understand how to fit everything into the venue,” Nevius said. “It was incredibly tight to shoehorn everything in while remembering what’s essential. For instance, it’s very important for the audience to have immediate and clear access to the bars and bathrooms.”

Hiring locals on the project was also a priority. “It was important to us to have our teams reflect the community we’re a part of,” Nevius said. “We began working with McHugh because we wanted to have local contractors and diversity on the jobsite, which can be hard to do in Chicago, where there is so much development going on so there’s competition for labor, but McHugh made it possible. We had a tremendous number of workers that live in area.”

As part of the 36,000-sf project at 3510-3520 S. Halsted St., Chicago, McHugh Construction built out space for Other Half Brewing, an independent craft brewery and taproom. Photo: Clayton Hauck

Ramova Loft, the 200-person venue on the second floor above the brewery and taproom, offers space for smaller performances by up-and-coming artists as well as events for local schools and community groups. The parking lot across the street from the building can also be used for community events such as farmers markets, and an empty lot adjacent to the south side of Ramova has been reimagined as a new outdoor beer garden.

“It’s rewarding to see all the dynamic uses come together at this one location to create an authentic community anchor,” Totten said.

The adaptive reuse project was funded by local investors, as well as big-name figures like Quincy Jones, Chance the Rapper, and Jennifer Huston. Tax-increment financing subsidies from the city of Chicago, a state grant, and a Historic Places loan added to the package. McHugh drew on its experience in Chicago public-private projects, such as 43 Green and 508 Pershing at Oakwood Shores in Bronzeville as well as Ogden Commons in Douglas Park.

McHugh Construction revived Ramova Grill, an 18-seat diner adjacent to the Ramova Theatre. The original diner closed in 2012 after 82 years serving South Siders. Photo: Clayton Hauck

ABOUT MCHUGH CONSTRUCTION

Since its founding in 1897, James McHugh Construction Co. has earned its reputation as a builder of landmark, one-of-a-kind structures in Chicago and other areas of the country. The company specializes in managing multimillion-dollar projects, from ground-up new construction to complex renovations and high-end interiors. As a multi-faceted general contractor, McHugh constructs high-rise concrete towers, steel structures, and buildings using alternative materials such as cold-formed steel, heavy timber, and cross-laminated timber. McHugh has built and renovated iconic structures such as Chicago’s Marina City, Vista Tower, Trump Tower, Aqua Tower, Blackstone Hotel, and Navy Pier (including the 200-foot-tall Centennial Wheel and, most recently, the Sable Hotel at Navy Pier, Curio Collection by Hilton, and the Offshore Rooftop and Bar). For more information, visit www.mchughconstruction.com.

Renovation restores century-old Brooklyn Paramount Theater to its original use

dbarista — Tue, 26 Mar 2024 15:47:46 +0000

Renovation restores century-old Brooklyn Paramount Theater to its original use

dbarista Tue, 03/26/2024 - 10:47

Cultural Facilities

The renovation of the iconic Brooklyn Paramount Theater restored the building to its original purpose as a movie theater and music performance venue. Long Island University had acquired the venue in the 1960s and repurposed it as the school’s basketball court.

Peter Fabris, Contributing Editor

The Brooklyn Paramount Theater previously served as the basketball court for Long Island University.

Cultural Facilities

Performing Arts Centers

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

The recently completed restoration preserved historical features while adapting to modern needs. Opened in 1928, the theater was renowned for hosting the world's first talking movies and showcasing legendary musical performers like Buddy Holly & The Crickets, Chuck Berry, Duke Ellington, and Ella Fitzgerald. Redesigned for owner Live Nation, it now accommodates contemporary artists while paying homage to its storied past.

Designed by Arcadis, the renovation incorporated a comprehensive marquee redesign, drawing inspiration from the original structure. The intricately designed ceiling was constructed with plaster, with special attention given to ensure its structural stability so that it is capable of withstanding intense bass vibrations of concerts. Collaborating with a lighting designer, the team illuminated the upper plaster dome, transforming it into a beautiful canvas enveloping the space in colored light to enhance the concert experience.

New life for Brooklyn Paramount Theater

By examining the venue’s original design and historical drawings from the 1920s, the design team salvaged intricate details and restored original architecture altered over the past century. The ticket lobby has been reimagined to align with modern aesthetics and security standards.

Upon entering the 2,700-capacity music hall, patrons are greeted by the featured bar before they encounter a sloped floor designed for optimal viewing. Old classrooms on the upper balcony were turned into mechanical areas to provide the space with modern comfort. The balcony’s original rococo columns with a colonnade, signaling the top of the venue, were replicated.

The second-level balcony boasts exclusive boxes and “Ella's VIP lounge,” paying homage to Fitzgerald's iconic performances in the 1950s. The intimate atmosphere of the VIP lounge showcases a small stage wrapped in a warm burnt-red drape. Over four dozen glistening gold disco balls add an additional level of sparkle to the space to set it apart from the rest of the venue.

Owner and/or developer: Live Nation / Long Island University
Design architect: Arcadis
Architect of record: Arcadis
MEP engineer: Highland Associates
Structural engineer: Thornton Tomasetti
General contractor/construction manager: Schimenti Construction Company

Brooklyn Paramount Theater

Frank Gehry-designed expansion of the Colburn School performing arts center set to break ground

dbarista — Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:03:32 +0000

Frank Gehry-designed expansion of the Colburn School performing arts center set to break ground

dbarista Tue, 02/27/2024 - 14:03

Performing Arts Centers

In April, the Colburn School, an institute for music and dance education and performance, will break ground on a 100,000-sf expansion designed by architect Frank Gehry. Located in downtown Los Angeles, the performing arts center will join the neighboring Walt Disney Concert Hall and The Grand by Gehry, forming the largest concentration of Gehry-designed buildings in the world.

Novid Parsi, Contributing Editor

The new building, the Colburn Center, will provide training and performance facilities for music and dance, as well as a 1,000-seat concert hall. The project will form the largest concentration of Frank Gehry-designed buildings in the world.

Cultural Facilities

Performing Arts Centers

Education Facilities

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

“This has been a long time in the making. The Colburn School expansion is a much-needed project for the community,” famed architect Frank Gehry said in a press statement. “I hope that it will be well-used and well-loved by the students of the Colburn School and the other cultural institutions of Los Angeles.”

The Colburn School provides music and dance education at all levels of development, from children as young as 7 months old to adults. Each week, the downtown L.A. campus welcomes about 10,000 people, and each year, over 2,000 students from around the world study at Colburn.

The new building, the Colburn Center, will be adjacent to Colburn’s Grand Avenue campus. In addition to training and performance facilities for music and dance, the Colburn Center will provide a concert hall for the region’s performing arts organizations—downtown L.A.’s first midsized concert hall, according to the Colburn School. The 1,000-seat, 17,200-sf hall will feature an in-the-round design, an orchestra pit, and a stage that can accommodate large-scale works.

Frank Gehry hopes to strengthen L.A.’s classical music community

“Our goal for this hall is that it will help strengthen the already robust classical music community here, solidifying Los Angeles’ leadership in this arena,” Gehry said.

The Colburn Center will more than double the facilities for the school’s Trudl Zipper Dance Institute, including a 100-seat theater for dance and four professional-sized studios for dance instruction and rehearsal.

The building’s new rooftop garden will be large enough for receptions and outdoor performances, while a ground-level garden will have a performance space that will be open to the public.

According to the press statement, Gehry’s design is “conceived as an ensemble of interlocking volumes, each of which houses a distinct program while interacting dynamically with the whole, the new Colburn Center will be built into a terrain that slopes down from Olive Street to Hill Street and clad in a pink metallic finish. The components are knit together by an expansive light-filled entrance and a pair of gardens planted at street and rooftop level.”

To date, gifts to the Colburn School total about $315 million toward its $400 million Building Our Future campaign. The campaign will cover about $335 million in construction costs and $65 million in endowment and operating costs for the Colburn Center and the Colburn School.

The performing arts center is expected to reach substantial completion in early 2027.

On the Building Team:
Owner: The Colburn School
Architect: Gehry Partners
Civil engineer: KPFF
MEP engineer: ARC Engineering
Structural engineer: Magnusson Klemencic Associates
Contractor: McCarthy

Rendering of the Colburn Center at the Colburn School. Aerial view. Courtesy Frank O. Gehry & Gehry Partners, LLP

Rendering of the Colburn Center at the Colburn School. View from Hill Street West towards dance school entrance, dance studios, and public garden. Courtesy Frank O. Gehry & Gehry Partners, LLP

Rendering of the Colburn Center at the Colburn School. Interior of 1,000-seat concert hall named for Terri and Jerry Kohl located on the West end of the project site. Courtesy Frank O. Gehry & Gehry Partners, LLP

Rendering of the Colburn Center at the Colburn School. View East from Olive Street towards entrance to the concert hall. Courtesy Frank O. Gehry & Gehry Partners, LLP

Rendering of the 100-seat studio theater at the Colburn Center at the Colburn School. Courtesy Frank O. Gehry & Gehry Partners, LLP

Rendering of the Colburn Center at the Colburn School. View from Hill Street and 2nd Street intersection. Courtesy Frank O. Gehry & Gehry Partners, LLP

Site of Colburn Center on Grand Avenue. Courtesy the Colburn School

Top 35 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Construction Firms for 2023

dbarista — Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:17:45 +0000

Top 35 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Construction Firms for 2023

dbarista Thu, 02/08/2024 - 14:17

Giants 400

The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, Holder Construction, McCarthy Holdings, Clark Group, and Gilbane Building Company top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest performing arts center and concert venue general contractors and construction management (CM) firms for 2023, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report.

BD+C Staff

Cultural Facilities

Performing Arts Centers

Contractors

Giants 400

Top 35 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Construction Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, The	$137,537,638
2	Holder Construction	$108,000,000
3	McCarthy Holdings	$78,005,363
4	Clark Group	$57,800,000
5	Gilbane Building Company	$45,480,000
6	Choate Construction	$42,036,238
7	PCL Construction Enterprises	$41,956,468
8	Skanska USA	$32,305,413
9	Robins & Morton	$25,125,249
10	AECOM	$23,300,000
11	Shawmut Design and Construction	$22,004,624
12	Messer Construction	$17,102,755
13	Hagerman Group, The	$12,500,000
14	Manhattan Construction	$11,708,390
15	McKinstry	$9,500,000
16	Kaufman Lynn Construction	$9,184,936
17	DPR Construction	$7,706,000
18	Kitchell	$4,858,987
19	Schimenti Construction	$4,200,000
20	TW Constructors	$3,852,000
21	EW Howell Construction Group	$3,300,000
22	Barton Malow	$3,118,060
23	McCownGordon Construction	$2,762,500
24	Miron Construction	$2,100,336
25	Weitz Company & Affiliates, The	$1,880,277
26	CG Schmidt	$1,862,301
27	JE Dunn Construction	$987,845
28	Hill International	$985,891
29	Findorff	$944,286
30	Skyline Construction	$821,295
31	LeChase Construction Services	$734,903
32	Swinerton	$484,967
33	CM&B	$393,111
34	Clancy & Theys Construction	$324,508
35	PMA Consultants	$179,259
36	Alberici-Flintco	$172,853
37	Balfour Beatty US	$126,656
38	Arc Building Partners	$77,843
39	S/L/A/M Collaborative, The	$28,536

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

A. Top 175 Architecture Firms
B. Top 115 Architecture/Engineering (AE) Firms
C. Top 75 Engineering Firms
D. Top 35 Engineering/Architecture (EA) Firms
E. Top 150 Contractors
F. Top 80 Construction Management Firms

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

01. Airport Terminals
• Top 65 Airport Terminal Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 65 Airport Terminal Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 60 Airport Terminal Contractors and CM Firms

02. Convention Centers/Conference Centers
• Top 40 Convention Center Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 30 Convention Center Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 20 Convention Center Contractors + CM Firms

03. Cultural Facilities – All Cultural Facilities Work
• Top 110 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – All Cultural Facilities Work
• Top 60 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – All Cultural Facilities Work
• Top 65 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – All Cultural Facilities Work

04. Cultural Facilities – Museums and Galleries
• Top 70 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – Museums and Galleries
• Top 40 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – Museums and Galleries
• Top 40 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – Museums and Galleries

05. Cultural Facilities – Performing Arts and Concert Venues
• Top 60 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – Performing Arts and Concert Venues
• Top 40 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – Performing Arts and Concert Venues
• Top 35 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – Performing Arts and Concert Venues

06. Cultural Facilities – Public Libraries
• Top 50 Cultural Facilities Architecture and AE Firms – Public Libraries
• Top 30 Cultural Facilities Engineering and EA Firms – Public Libraries
• Top 20 Cultural Facilities Contractors and CM Firms – Public Libraries

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

09. Government - All Government Buildings Work
• Top 170 Government Sector Architecture + AE Firms - All Government Work
• Top 90 Government Sector Engineering + EA Firms - All Government Work
• Top 100 Government Sector Contractors + CM Firms - All Government Work

10. Government - Federal Civilian Government
• Top 70 Federal Government Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 60 Federal Government Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 50 Federal Government Contractors + CM Firms

11. Government - Local Government Buildings
• Top 150 Local Government Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 80 Local Government Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 80 Local Government Contractors + CM Firms

12. Government - State Government Buildings
• Top 90 State Government Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 State Government Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 50 State Government Contractors + CM Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

14. Government - Veterans Administration Facilities
• Top 35 Veterans Affairs (VA) Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 20 Veterans Affairs (VA) Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 15 Veterans Affairs (VA) Facility Contractors + CM Firms

15. Healthcare – All Healthcare Facilities Work
• Top 175 Healthcare Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 90 Healthcare Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 115 Healthcare Sector Contractors and CM Firms

16. Healthcare – Hospitals
• Top 130 Hospital Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 80 Hospital Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 90 Hospital Facility Contractors and CM Firms

17. Healthcare – Medical Office Buildings, Dental Offices
• Top 110 Medical Office Building Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 50 Medical Office Building Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 70 Medical Office Building Contractors and CM Firms

18. Healthcare – Outpatient Facilities
• Top 100 Outpatient Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 40 Outpatient Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 60 Outpatient Facility Contractors and CM Firms

19. Hospitality – All Hospitality Facilities Work (Hotels, Resorts, Casinos)
• Top 130 Hospitality Facility Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 75 Hospitality Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 80 Hospitality Facility Contractors and CM Firms

20. Hospitality — Hotel, Resorts
• Top 120 Hotel Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Hotel and Resort Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 80 Hotel and Resort Contractors and CM Firms

21. Hospitality — Casinos
• Top 10 Casino Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 25 Casino Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 25 Casino Contractors and CM Firms

22. Industrial Buildings — Manufacturing Plants, Warehouses
• Top 100 Industrial Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 90 Industrial Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 100 Industrial Facility Contractors and CM Firms

23. Integrated Project Delivery (IPD)
• Top 20 Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) Construction Firms

24. Multifamily — All Multifamily Facilities Work
Top 190 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — All Multifamily Facilities Work
Top 75 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — All Multifamily Facilities Work
Top 115 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — All Multifamily Facilities Work

25. Multifamily — Apartments, Condominiums
Top 160 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — Apartments, Condominiums Work
Top 70 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — Apartments, Condominiums Work
Top 100 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — Apartments, Condominiums Work

26. Multifamily — Senior Living Facilities
Top 80 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — Senior Living Facilities
Top 40 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — Senior Living Facilities
Top 60 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — Senior Living Facilities

27. Multifamily — Student Housing Facilities
Top 90 Multifamily Sector Architecture and AE Firms — Student Housing Facilities
Top 30 Multifamily Sector Engineering and EA Firms — Student Housing Facilities
Top 40 Multifamily Sector Contractors and CM Firms — Student Housing Facilities

28. Office — All Office Building Work
• Top 200 Office Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 90 Office Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 120 Office Sector Contractors and CM Firms

29. Office — Buildings/Core+Shell
• Top 140 Office Building Core+Shell Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 80 Office Building Core+Shell Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 100 Office Building Core+Shell Contractors and CM Firms

30. Office — Workplace/Interior Fitouts
• Top 160 Workplace/Interior Fitout Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 50 Workplace/Interior Fitout Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 80 Workplace/Interior Fitout Contractors and CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

32. Public Safety/Justice Facilities
• Top 90 Justice Facility/Public Safety Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Justice Facility/Public Safety Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Justice Facility/Public Safety Contractors + CM Firms

33. Reconstruction Work
• Top 200 Reconstruction Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Reconstruction Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 140 Reconstruction Sector Contractors + CM Firms

34. Religious Structures/Places of Worship
• Top 80 Religious Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 50 Religious Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 40 Religious Facility Contractors + CM Firms

35. Retail — All Retail Buildings Work
• Top 140 Retail Sector Architecture and AE Firms — All Retail Buildings Work
• Top 75 Retail Sector Engineering and EA Firms — All Retail Buildings Work
• Top 80 Retail Sector Contractors and CM Firms — All Retail Buildings Work

36. Retail — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks
• Top 30 Retail Architecture and AE Firms — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks
• Top 40 Retail Engineering and EA Firms — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks
• Top 40 Retail Contractors and CM Firms — Entertainment Centers, Cineplexes, Theme Parks

37. Retail — Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers
• Top 90 Retail Architecture and AE Firms - Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers
• Top 60 Retail Engineering and EA Firms — Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers
• Top 60 Retail Contractors and CM Firms — Malls, Big Box Stores, Strip Centers

38. Retail — Restaurants
• Top 90 Retail Architecture and AE Firms — Restaurants
• Top 40 Retail Engineering and EA Firms — Restaurants
• Top 40 Retail Contractors and CM Firms — Restaurants

39. Science & Technology (S+T) Facilities - All S+T Buildings Work
• Top 100 Science + Technology Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Science + Technology Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top of 80 Science + Technology Facility Contractors and CM Firms

40. Science & Technology — Laboratories
• Top 100 Laboratory Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Laboratory Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Laboratory Facility Contractors and CM Firms

41. Schools — PK-12, Public, Private, Charter, Military
• Top 170 K-12 School Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 80 K-12 School Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 100 K-12 School Sector Contractors and CM Firms

42. Sports Facilities/Stadiums/Recreation Facilities
• Top 130 Sports Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 70 Sports Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 70 Sports Facility Contractors and CM Firms

43. Telecommunications Buildings
• Top 10 Telecommunications Facility Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 25 Telecommunications Facility Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 10 Telecommunications Facilities Contractors + CM Firms

44. Transit Facilities — Bus/Rail Terminals and Stations
• Top 40 Transit Facility Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 40 Transit Facility Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 25 Transit Facilities Contractors + CM Firms

45. University / College Facilities
• Top 170 University Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 80 University Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 100 University Sector Contractors and CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report

Top 40 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista — Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:17:39 +0000

Top 40 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista Thu, 02/08/2024 - 14:17

Giants 400

KPFF Consulting Engineers, Morrison Hershfield, ME Engineers, Thornton Tomasetti, and Arup top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest performing arts center and concert venue engineering and engineering/architecture (EA) firms for 2023, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report.

BD+C Staff

Cultural Facilities

Performing Arts Centers

Engineers

Giants 400

Top 40 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Engineering Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	KPFF Consulting Engineers	$6,911,192
2	Morrison Hershfield	$6,898,099
3	ME Engineers	$3,800,000
4	Thornton Tomasetti	$3,376,191
5	Arup	$3,338,289
6	TLC Engineering Solutions	$3,233,886
7	WSP	$2,777,000
8	Tetra Tech High Performance Buildings Group	$2,384,045
9	AECOM	$2,300,000
10	Schaefer	$1,889,528
11	Salas O'Brien	$1,521,773
12	Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates	$1,491,000
13	Alfa Tech Consulting Engineers	$1,440,000
14	Kohler Ronan	$1,397,793
15	IMEG	$1,037,500
16	Langan	$1,000,000
17	TW Constructors	$920,000
18	Wallace Design Collective	$600,000
19	NV5 Global	$535,336
20	I.C. Thomasson Associates	$500,000
--	McKinstry	$500,000
22	Kohrs Lonnemann Heil Engineers (KLH)	$369,046
23	Heapy	$346,839
24	Jaros, Baum & Bolles	$345,498
25	Syska Hennessy Group	$337,129
26	Osborn Engineering	$250,000
--	Dunham Associates	$250,000
28	GRAEF	$241,844
29	Newcomb & Boyd	$235,919
30	DLZ Corporation	$230,529
31	Affiliated Engineers	$221,735
32	Highland Associates	$200,000
33	Martin/Martin	$175,013
34	EVstudio	$144,000
35	Magnusson Klemencic Associates	$131,686
36	BG Buildingworks	$120,000
37	CMTA	$99,263
38	JQ Engineering	$96,679
39	Vanderweil Engineers	$78,500
40	PBS Engineers	$65,000
41	H.F. Lenz	$15,000
42	PCS Structural Solutions	$6,432
43	Teecom	$4,500
44	French & Parrello Associates	$3,600
45	Davis, Bowen & Friedel	$1,718

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report

Top 60 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Architecture Firms for 2023

dbarista — Thu, 08 Feb 2024 20:17:33 +0000

Top 60 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Architecture Firms for 2023

dbarista Thu, 02/08/2024 - 14:17

Giants 400

Populous, DLR Group, Gensler, HGA, and Perkins Eastman top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest performing arts center and concert venue architecture and architecture/engineering (AE) firms for 2023, as reported in Building Design+Construction's 2023 Giants 400 Report.

BD+C Staff

Cultural Facilities

Performing Arts Centers

Designers

Architects

Giants 400

Top 60 Performing Arts Center and Concert Venue Architecture Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	Populous	$40,458,813
2	DLR Group	$17,140,000
3	Gensler	$8,951,697
4	HGA	$8,539,220
5	Perkins Eastman	$8,210,032
6	Wilson Butler Architects	$5,295,744
7	TVS	$3,995,195
8	Skidmore, Owings & Merrill	$2,894,000
9	EwingCole	$2,687,000
10	Davis Brody Bond	$2,610,179
11	Diamond Schmitt Architects	$2,528,936
12	TreanorHL	$1,435,336
13	Gresham Smith	$1,424,084
14	Quinn Evans	$1,269,960
15	LMN Architects	$1,186,000
16	RATIO Design	$1,184,970
17	GBBN	$1,110,000
18	SWBR	$1,056,853
19	Parkhill	$1,051,156
20	EUA	$845,000
21	Smallwood	$809,974
22	ZGF	$747,584
23	NAC Architecture	$620,331
24	Design Collaborative	$600,790
25	Arcadis North America	$596,614
26	Stantec	$553,140
27	DAG Architects	$483,101
28	BAR Architects & Interiors	$428,355
29	Cordogan Clark & Associates	$425,000
30	Sasaki	$402,775
31	SmithGroup	$395,596
32	H2M Architects + Engineers	$381,321
33	Lord Aeck Sargent Planning & Design	$360,880
34	HOK	$331,180
35	Elkus Manfredi Architects	$329,735
36	HMC Architects	$304,642
37	BHDP Architecture	$270,231
38	Crawford Architects	$259,000
39	Mithun	$248,318
40	Miller Dunwiddie	$226,670
41	LS3P Associates	$219,788
42	KSS Architects	$213,330
43	Handel Architects	$207,322
44	RSP Architects	$205,000
45	AHL	$204,542
46	LHB	$188,270
47	FSB Architects + Engineers	$187,786
48	McMillan Pazdan Smith	$174,180
49	Cushing Terrell	$161,607
50	Marmon Mok	$140,476
51	Perkins&Will	$128,942
52	Moody Nolan	$97,581
53	FitzGerald	$86,000
54	Champlin Architecture	$75,195
55	FGM Architects	$61,414
56	MKM Architecture + Design	$45,325
57	HuntonBrady Architects	$38,100
58	SMMA	$27,758
59	INVISION Architecture	$26,828
60	TowerPinkster	$23,608
61	CSArch	$19,730
62	Manning	$16,000
63	FCArchitects	$10,508
64	Goodwyn Mills Cawood	$7,500
65	Cuningham	$3,236
66	Legat Architects	$2,500
67	Michael Baker Intl.	$1,400

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report

Waterproofing deep foundations for new construction

dbarista — Wed, 17 Jan 2024 21:21:32 +0000

Waterproofing deep foundations for new construction

Amos Chan, P.E., BECxP, CxA+BE, Walter P Moore

dbarista Wed, 01/17/2024 - 15:21

This course covers design considerations for below-grade waterproofing for new construction, the types of below-grade systems available, and specific concerns associated with waterproofing deep foundations.

Below-grade waterproofing systems can be critical features of building enclosure design, particularly when the structure has a deep foundation. As the foundation goes deeper, there is a greater likelihood that it will encounter the groundwater table and hydrostatic conditions, which makes choosing the right below-grade waterproofing system even more important.

When selecting and designing a below-grade waterproofing system, the primary factors to consider include the type of foundation system, the project’s site conditions, product performance properties, and construction sequencing. The design specifications for a building’s foundation are influenced by the building size and structural system, as well as the site’s soil and geological composition.

Foundation systems are typically either categorized as shallow foundations or deep foundations. Shallow foundations are used when the structural loads can be adequately distributed to a relatively shallow level of soil. Examples include structural slab-on-grade foundations, footings, and grade beams. Deep foundations are used when there are more significant loads that need to be transferred to deeper soil or bedrock. These types include piles, caissons, and drilled shafts, among others.

While the structural engineer is responsible for the foundation design, the waterproofing consultant needs to understand the type of foundation being used to anticipate the various interfaces and conditions the below-grade waterproofing design will need to reflect. The proximity of the foundation to the groundwater table and potential presence of soil contaminants are critical factors to evaluate, and they can substantially influence decisions about the type of waterproofing membrane to select for the foundation elements.

To obtain a general idea of how high the groundwater table can be at the project site, one should review the geotechnical investigations report. These investigations are typically performed at the early stages of the project and can involve various subsurface and soil assessment methods, including borings. The report may document whether groundwater was encountered in any of the borings, and it may identify the historic high-water-table elevation or provide a recommended design groundwater table elevation. This elevation should be compared with the building’s foundation elevation, as well as the lowest of any foundation elements—such as the grade beam, footing, elevator pit, or sump—to ascertain whether hydrostatic conditions should be assumed for the project.

When reviewing the geotechnical investigations report, one should stay cognizant of the fluctuating nature of groundwater elevations and understand that the geotechnical investigations typically capture one specific moment in time. While the report can provide good insights, it does not always paint the full picture of the site’s hydrogeology. The geotechnical investigations report can also provide insight into past uses of the site, and whether contaminated soils are present. For example, former gas stations and auto repair shops are likely to have petroleum or methane contaminants in the soil. Other contaminants can include acid and alkaline water, insecticides, and fertilizers.

In coastal regions, subsurface saltwater is another consideration; the presence of subsurface saltwater may warrant the use of specific versions of waterproofing membranes designed for these conditions.

When selecting the appropriate below-grade waterproofing system for the project, one should also consider the owner’s budget and what they consider to be a level of acceptable risk. This information will inform your decisions and recommendations regarding certain waterproofing product features, such as whether membranes are fully welded, adhered, or taped. Construction sequencing may influence items like backfilling and soil retention systems, and by understanding the construction project’s timeline, you can guide the selection of waterproofing products with application methods appropriate for the sequencing.

Below-Grade Waterproofing Membrane Systems

Before diving into the different below-grade waterproofing product options, it is necessary to understand the difference between damp-proofing and full waterproofing membranes. Damp-proofing is defined as “the treatment of a of a surface or structure to block the passage of water in the absence of hydrostatic pressure.”

Some vapor retarders are considered a form of damp-proofing. In below-grade applications, vapor retarders are most commonly thinner sheets of polyethylene plastic intended to prevent the transmission of moisture vapor. Vapor retarders offer varying degrees of protection from vapor transmission, depending on the material’s vapor permeability. Vapor retarders with the lowest range of permeability are often referred to as vapor barriers, with vapor permeance values of 0.1 perm or less.

Installation of post-applied waterproofing membrane. Photo: Walter P Moore

ASTM E1745, Standard Specification for Plastic Water Vapor Retarders Used in Contact with Soil or Granular Fill under Concrete Slabs, provides three classes for vapor retarders, all of which share a maximum water vapor permeance of 0.1 perm but have different levels of tensile strength and puncture resistance.

The 2021 International Building Code (IBC) specifies under-slab damp-proofing to be polyethylene sheets of a minimum thickness of 6 mil with joints lapped a minimum of 6-in.These vapor retarders are typically recommended in non-hydrostatic conditions where there is a low probability of direct contact with groundwater. Per the IBC, the parameters of hydrostatic conditions occur when the “existing groundwater table is above or within 5 feet below the elevation of the lowest floor level where such floor is located below the finished ground level adjacent to the foundation.”

Seams between sheets of vapor retarder are usually taped. Flashing at penetrations and terminations may use accessory tape, mastics, and/or termination bars. Below-grade waterproofing membranes are intended to protect the foundation elements from groundwater intrusion, especially in hydrostatic conditions. While waterproofing membranes can be vapor retarders or even vapor barriers, vapor retarders may not always act as waterproofing membranes capable of resisting water migration.

Most below-grade waterproofing membranes can be classified in the following categories: bentonite, thermoplastic, composite, self-adhering, or fluid applied. For sheet waterproofing membranes, the membrane seams may be taped, adhered, hot air welded, or torch applied, depending on the product technology.

The membrane manufacturers typically have specific accessory products to be used with the waterproofing membrane to form a complete below-grade waterproofing system. The IBC requires under-slab waterproofing membranes to be either “rubberized asphalt, butyl rubber, fully adhered/fully bonded high-density polyethylene (HDPE), or polyolefin composite membrane or not less than 6-mil polyvinyl chloride.”

IBC requires that waterproofing on below-grade walls extend a minimum of 12 in. above the maximum elevation of groundwater table. In most cases, the 2021 IBC requires as a minimum a 6-mil polyethylene vapor retarder under concrete floor slabs where hydrostatic conditions do not occur. Hydrostatic conditions are considered when the groundwater table is above or within 5 feet below the lowest subsurface floor elevation. Waterproofing is required per the IBC when the geotechnical investigation indicates hydrostatic conditions, and a groundwater control system is not provided in the project design.

For shallow foundations in non-hydrostatic conditions, a vapor retarder may be all that is needed. For deep foundations, there is a greater likelihood that hydrostatic conditions can be encountered, and full waterproofing membrane systems would therefore need to be used. Even in deep foundations with non-hydrostatic conditions, it may be prudent to include waterproofing membrane on vertical foundation elements such as walls, as most polyethylene vapor retarder products are primarily intended for horizontal under-slab applications.

In new construction projects, below-grade waterproofing membranes can be installed before foundation elements are constructed; these systems are referred to as pre-applied or blindside applications. Alternatively, the below-grade waterproofing membranes can be installed after foundations are in the ground; these systems are called post-applied systems. When choosing between pre-applied and post-applied membranes, the decision is usually driven by construction logistics, site constraints, and foundation construction methods. Installation of post-applied membranes requires soil excavation to keep foundation elements exposed after the concrete has been cast. That may be a reason to choose pre-applied membranes for some sites because deeper foundations would require a wider footprint of soil excavation if post-applied membranes were to be used. If shotcrete is being used on foundation elements in contact with the below-grade waterproofing membrane, pre-applied membrane systems are the only option.

Pre-applied Below-Grade Waterproofing Membranes

There are several types of pre-applied (blindside) waterproofing membranes, including bentonite, thermoplastic, and composite. Bentonite membranes typically consist of sodium montmorillonite clay granules integrated into geotextiles. Some products include an HDPE layer and a polypropylene layer for additional waterproofing protection. A distinguishing feature of bentonite membranes is that bentonite swells when it comes into contact with water, creating a monolithic barrier against the foundation. Bentonite can swell up to 15 times its original dry volume, and it has the ability to repeatedly re-swell when dried and hydrated again. To be fully effective, bentonite waterproofing membranes must be compressed against the concrete foundation elements to form a mechanical bond.

Seams can be mechanically fastened, or adhered using adhesive or mastic products, depending on the manufacturer. Thermoplastic waterproofing membranes for foundations are made from materials similar to those used in thermoplastic roofing products. Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), ketone ethylene ether (KEE), and thermoplastic polyolefin (TPO) along with reinforcing fabrics are key components of the waterproofing membranes.

The below-grade thermoplastic membranes tend to be in thicker forms than their roofing counterparts. Supplemental layers such as polymers or butyl adhesives provide the bonding mechanism that allows the membrane to integrally bond with the concrete foundation cast against it. Some thermoplastic membranes may also use HDPE. Seams are either heat welded or taped. Composite membranes consist of several layers combined in one membrane, typically including an HDPE layer, a protective coating layer, and an adhesive layer. Seams are self-adhered together. While each layer serves an intended purpose in the waterproofing membrane, there is a possibility of delamination between the individual layers, as the component in contact with the foundation is the only one fully bonded to the concrete.

Other pre-applied below-grade waterproofing products include modified bitumen-based membranes, such as styrene-butadiene-styrene (SBS) polymer, often with a polyester or fiberglass reinforcing layer. These tend to be thicker membranes, and their seams are heat welded.

Post-applied Below-Grade Waterproofing Membranes

Post-applied waterproofing membranes can be either self-adhered or fluid applied onto the foundation. Because the waterproofing system is usually designed to be continuous around the foundation, installers may need full access to the exterior surfaces, and achieving that access may involve a significant amount of excavation.

Self-adhering waterproofing membranes designed for below-grade applications typically consist of rubberized asphalt with an HDPE film. When using self-adhering membranes, primers may still be required to achieve proper adhesion to the concrete. Membranes should be kept clean and free of dust and debris, particularly at laps, as the waterproofing system relies on strong membrane-to-membrane bonding at seams to maintain full effectiveness.

Fluid-applied waterproofing designed for foundations can be trowel grade or formulated for spray applications, and they are asphalt emulsion based and polymer modified. Because these products form monolithic waterproofing layers during installation, fluid-applied systems do not share the risk of seam failure that sheet membranes inherently possess. Maintaining a consistent, uniform thickness throughout the application process is the primary challenge with fluid-applied waterproofing membranes.

Deep Foundation Challenges

When site conditions and project design warrant the use of deep foundation systems, the structural components that the design team chooses may increase the complexity of the below-grade waterproofing design. Soil retention systems and any related elements that may disrupt the continuity of the waterproofing should be addressed and detailed during the design phase. Even supplementary items, such as concrete protection slabs, should be accounted for in the overall waterproofing strategy and discussed with the waterproofing manufacturer to ensure all items with which the membranes come into contact have been comprehensively reviewed and approved.

The following sections review elements that can be sources of deviations from an even and consistent substrate for the waterproofing membranes. Manufacturers will typically have system-specific guidelines and accessory products for these conditions, but it is still recommended to verify with their technical representatives whether the correct approach is being pursued on your project as the manufacturer will likely have specific warranty requirements.

Lagging Walls for waterproofing foundations

A lagging walls system is a common method of soil retention. The lagging walls consist of steel H-member soldier piles with infill material—either precast concrete, steel boards, or, most commonly, wood planks or boards—stacked between the steel flanges to prevent soil from entering adjacent excavated areas. These systems can be front lagged, which means the wood planks are positioned at the front of the soldier piles in the direction of the excavated area, or they may be middle lagged—with the wood planks positioned in the center of the soldier piles—or back lagged—with wood planks positioned in the back.

For the purposes of below-grade waterproofing installation, front lagging is the most preferable of the three options because it provides the most even and continuous surface for the waterproofing system. Middle or back lagging introduces gaps between the outer face of the wood planks and the soldier pile’s outer flange. Some waterproofing manufacturers may not allow gaps in the substrate over a certain width for the waterproofing membrane or drainage board—if being used—and infill such as spray foam insulation may be needed to reduce the gap widths.

Foundation Piles

Pile foundations are often used when larger loads must be transferred to a deeper level of soil or rock. When designing the below-grade waterproofing system around piles, it is important to consider the following questions:

What is the pile material? Concrete and steel piles tend to be the most common. Verify with the waterproofing membrane manufacturer which substrates are acceptable to them.
Will the pile be composed of more than one material? For example, concrete piles in a steel casing can present different risks than piles made of concrete alone. Waterproofing consultants may need to coordinate between the waterproofing manufacturer and the structural engineer to determine whether the risks can be avoided with a pile flashing detail that is acceptable to all project stakeholders.
Will the piles connect to pile caps? The shape of pile caps—in section—can have implications on the waterproofing membrane installation. A minimum dimension for the pile embedment into the pile cap will be required by the engineer for proper load transfer, but there should also be sufficient pile height for the waterproofing membrane under the pile cap to lap and flash onto the pile surface, as required by the waterproofing manufacturer. Between these two considerations, the greater dimension should be used.

These items can sometimes require several rounds of discussion and coordination involving the waterproofing manufacturer, structural engineer, and pile designer or engineer—if included—to satisfy each party’s requirements and to consider alternative design approaches. It is best to start these discussions early to prevent costly change orders or delays in the schedule.

Ground Anchors And Soil Nail Walls

Both ground anchors—also referred to as tiebacks—and soil nail walls are examples of soil retention systems that use steel elements—rods, bars, etc.—inserted into the ground and acting in tension. Ground anchors are prestressed before installation, whereas soil nails are not. Most of the steel rod or bar length does not interface with the waterproofing, but both systems typically have an exposed head of the steel elements with a bearing plate that faces the site excavation.

Waterproofing manufacturers may have a prefabricated cover to be installed over each anchor head, and the prefabricated cover is then integrated with the below-grade waterproofing membrane. If the specific conditions of the ground anchors or soil nails do not permit the use of the prefabricated covers, it is advisable to consult with the waterproofing manufacturer as it will likely be necessary to generate custom or project-specific details and accessories.

Internal Bracing

When tiebacks cannot be used due to property line or site constraints, alternative options for supporting the shoring wall, such as internal bracing, may need to be pursued. Bracing within the excavated site can involve rakers and/or struts. Rakers are diagonal components placed vertically against the shoring wall and on the ground, whereas struts are placed horizontally at excavation corners bracing two sides of the shoring walls.

If the foundation walls are poured around the raker and strut penetrations, the concrete and the below-grade waterproofing system will need to be patched once the bracing is removed. The waterproofing membrane patch should be integral with the rest of the below-grade waterproofing as indicated in the manufacturer’s instructions. Before the concrete patches are poured, water stops should be installed continuously along the perimeter of the patch, as each bracing penetration would have a cold joint with the rest of the concrete wall.

Shotcrete Walls for waterproofing foundations

Shotcrete presents several challenges for effective below-grade waterproofing that stem from the nature of the application process. These issues primarily arise from overspray of the shotcrete as well as the potential for more voids and cold joints than would occur in cast-in-place concrete construction.

Experienced shotcrete applicators and contractors are essential, as excessive overspray can affect the overall adhesion between the shotcrete and the waterproofing membrane. Shotcrete is typically installed vertically in “lifts,” which may introduce more cold joints than traditional cast-in-place concrete. Additionally, in blindside applications, the shotcrete applicators should take extra care in ensuring full coverage around reinforcing steel to minimize the amount of voids between the foundation and waterproofing membrane.

The positioning and frequency of reinforcing steel can occasionally block shotcrete from reaching and bonding to the waterproofing membrane, which could create weak points in the below-grade waterproofing system. Some waterproofing manufacturers have blindside membrane products specifically designed for shotcrete applications and specify that these products must be used on the shotcrete portions of the foundation. These topics should be thoroughly discussed with the design and construction teams, with the available options for waterproofing the shotcrete portions of the foundation evaluated against the owner’s risk tolerance.

Supplemental Concrete Slabs

In addition to the concrete slab-on-grade foundation, contractors may also propose providing a rat slab or protection slab. Rat slabs, also referred to as mud slabs, are placed over the excavated soil, often to provide a uniform surface for the waterproofing membrane installation. While the use of rat slabs can be an alternative to meeting the grading and compaction requirements specified by the waterproofing manufacturer, it is important to ensure that the rat slabs are smooth and free from surface inconsistencies that can puncture the membrane.

The manufacturer may also have concrete surface profile requirements for the exposed face of the rat slab that serves as the membrane substrate. Protection slabs are placed over the waterproofing membrane and are intended to protect the membrane from construction traffic and other potential damage before the slab-on-grade foundation is poured. In this case, the waterproofing membrane would become directly bonded to the protection slab instead of the structural slab-on-grade foundation, which is the more important component to be waterproofed. A cold joint would now exist between the protection slab and the structural slab-on-grade foundation.

For protection slabs to be effective instead of a potential liability, they should be properly designed with sufficient thickness, reinforcing, and cover. If the protection slab is too thin, it may be especially susceptible to cracking, which could compromise the waterproofing membrane’s performance. It is recommended to provide an additional layer of blindside waterproofing membrane over the protection slab, with this layer to be fully bonded to the structural slab-on-grade foundation, particularly in hydrostatic conditions.

Reinforcing Bar Considerations for waterproofing foundations

As concrete foundations go deeper, more reinforcing steel is installed. To keep the reinforcement in the correct position, reinforcing bar ties, which connect to metal clips, are often used. Each clip is a penetration through the waterproofing membrane and must be addressed in a method approved by the manufacturer.

Another risk is that reinforcing bars are too close to the waterproofing membrane. That could pose structural issues, such as insufficient cover on the concrete foundation element, as well as waterproofing issues since the waterproofing membrane should be in direct contact with concrete to achieve proper adhesion. Dobie blocks, which are small concrete cubes with metal ties, can be used as a simple way to position the reinforcing bars a standard distance away from the waterproofing membrane.

Conclusion

With any foundation, whether shallow or deep, it is critical to properly design and install the below-grade waterproofing system as the system will be exponentially more difficult to access or repair as construction progresses. Although deep foundations are more challenging to waterproof, early discussions and collaboration with the design team and engineers can be beneficial in developing a foundation design that is waterproofing friendly and minimizes risk.

About the Author
Amos Chan, P.E., BECxP, CxA+BE is an enclosure consultant with Walter P Moore’s Diagnostics Group. He can be reached at achan@walterpmoore.com.

Performing Arts Centers

Healthcare Facilities

Hospital Design Trends

Transportation & Parking Facilities

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

BD+C University Course

Moisture Control/Building Envelope

Structural Materials

Resiliency

BD+C University Course

Off

Performance-based facilities for performing arts boost the bottom line

dbarista — Wed, 17 Jan 2024 20:28:42 +0000

Performance-based facilities for performing arts boost the bottom line

C.C. Sullivan, Contributing Editor

dbarista Wed, 01/17/2024 - 14:28

A look at design trends for “budget-wise” performing arts facilities reveals ways in which well-planned and well-built facilities help performers and audiences get the most out of the arts.

New technologies, innovations, and tools are opening doors for building teams interested in better and yet less-expensive performing arts facilities. A look at design trends for “budget-wise” performing arts facilities reveals ways in which well-planned and well-built facilities help performers and audiences get the most out of the arts.

“A growing number of K-12 school districts, small-sized higher ed institutions, and small- and mid-sized communities are stepping up their game when it comes to performing arts facilities—with more well-appointed dedicated or multipurpose theaters,” says Carmi Bee, FAIA, President of RKTB Architects, which just finished the community venue Sam’s Stage in Massachusetts, as well as multifunction auditoriums for various New York City schools. “The key is to dream big and then to plan smart to make the most of a limited budget by incorporating the latest technology while fine tuning project scale, stages, circulation, and seating.”

Performing arts settings are synonymous with flexible, multipurpose, technology-dense spaces, says Tara Ogle, AIA, LEED AP, Associate Principal and Director of Architecture with Page & Turnbull, which has been working on theaters for a boarding high school in Claremont, Calif., and a Bay Area middle school, in addition to several community theaters. “Schools are looking to leverage limited funds to support a range of programs as they plan for the future, so their projects are shifting from a very specific performance focus to spaces that can host a broad range of activities, often paired with symbiotic programs like recording and broadcast booths, maker spaces, and even robotics and virtual reality labs,” says Ogle. “Some go as far as providing the ability to break large spaces into smaller teaching areas, and then back together again.”

This is especially important for the K-12 market, where cost control tussles with desires for maximum flexibility and adaptability, often the main aim for performance spaces, says Barry Nebhut, Principal with VLK Architects. “Our first rule is, don’t put your budget in the house. Put your money and budget in the technical side, where the education happens,” he says, citing current work building four high schools around Austin, Texas, each with a performing arts center. “If that means making a smaller house, I’ll often advocate for that. Who wants to stage their dance recital with a three-quarters-empty house? Instead, perform the annual musical over a few days’ run with a smaller house.”

VLK offers a rule of thumb: For a high school, size the auditorium for a single grade level. For example, a 2,000-student high school would need a theater with 500 seats. “And don’t spend your money buying fancy seats!” Nebhut admonishes school districts.

For the auditorium design, many schools break the house into four quadrants with a raked front section, a cross aisle about the same height as the stage, a rear seating section and, in some cases, balconies. This strategy helps give the sense of a full house even when some seats are empty.

Larger high schools often build two performing arts venues: a flexible but traditional proscenium-style theater and a black-box theater, which can accommodate overflow rehearsal needs and adequate stage time for such programs as dance, music, and stagecraft.

Beyond that, many institutions and municipalities are adding outdoor facilities for both performing arts and a broad range of outdoor learning opportunities, says Page & Turnbull’s Ogle. “Where in the past we’d prioritize acoustic and daylighting control within black-box theater environments, clients today are more interested in spaces with a direct outdoor connection,” she says. “Luckily, technology is stepping up to this need, with flexible sophisticated daylighting controls and operable door and wall systems that provide the best of both worlds.”

Wilson Butler’s design for the Boston Arts Academy highlights the accessibility achievable today. The school’s 500-seat proscenium theater delivers a flexible teaching and presentation venue for students in grades nine through 12. Central to the design are fully accessible catwalks and technical areas that expand learning opportunities for all students. Photos courtesy Wilson Butler Architects

For the College of Communication & Fine Arts at Loyola Marymount University, for example, the new 22,500-sf Drollinger Family Stage is a permanent, open-air, multipurpose venue for the campus and its broader community, says Carlos Madrid III, Principal at Skidmore Owings & Merrill (SOM), which designed two performance facilities on the campus. “The project team’s directives for the last few years have been to create more multipurpose, adaptable, and flexible venues for a multiplicity of users,” he recalls. “So on top of dance, music, and theater, we suggested this outdoor stage could also support film and large-scale traveling arts while serving double duty as a café hangout—it even hosted the Los Angeles mayoral debates in 2022.”

The elegant, 24-foot-tall facility employs a grid of castellated steel ceiling beams with conduits run through its structural pipe columns. The entire roof system was shop-fabricated and shipped to the site for installation, which allowed for a high degree of precision and minimal on-site welding.

Costs and controls for performing arts facilities

Combined and multiple-user facilities are helping bring better, more advanced performing arts facilities to small-budget partners. “In conjunction with our firm’s convention center work, we’re seeing several community theaters colocate new, flexible venues along with a small- to medium-sized convention center renovation,” says TVS Principal Emery Leonard, AIA, LEED AP.

In these amalgams, says Leonard, the two institutions work together to create a larger cultural district, improving cultural placemaking rather than single, isolated uses. “These new cultural districts also work to attract mixed-use development to an area, creating a real 24/7 community,” Leonard adds, noting that TVS is currently master-planning a new arts high school colocated with a restored performing arts center.

Small community theater companies are also independently seeking cost-effective solutions for expanded programs and adaptable technology, says Andrew Franz, AIA, LEED AP, who brings a performance background to his role as Principal of Andrew Franz Architect. “We’ve studied the feasibility of a below-grade expansion for one client, a downtown theater group, resulting in a path to doubling their existing footprint and adding a new black box theater,” he says. “This kind of approach allows a simultaneous upgrade of the existing theater while creating additional rehearsal and event areas.”

For Sam’s Stage at the Truro Center for the Arts in Cape Cod, Mass., RKTB Architects designed what its client touts as a “beautiful stage able to offer an array of performances in dance, music, and poetry.” Built with “deceptively simple timber construction with integrated infrastructure for lighting and amplification, as well as an acoustically supportive roof,” the dance-oriented facility employs a sprung floor for the safety and comfort of performers. According to RKTB’s Bee, in addition to floating dance floor construction, some venues employ a portable sprung-floor panel system made with pre-built panelized sections.

Alternative stage systems can help stretch a budget, but the first step is to rightsize the venue and ensure the scale and functionality are appropriate to (a) programmatic need and (b) funding available, says A. Scott Butler, AIA, Founding Director of Wilson Butler Architects, which specializes in the arts and entertainment sectors. “The building team may find that finishes, both exterior and interior, might be a very small slice of the total pie, perhaps around 5%,” he says. “So you won’t reduce your budget by value engineering finishes—you have to reduce the size of the pie, and hold that line from schematics through CDs.”

Put another way, says Butler, “For a project that would cost $1,000 per square foot, you won’t suddenly find an alternative design for $800 per foot, so work with higher education institutions and project leaders to set realistic expectations: What does the school really need, realistically—with input from cost consultants, acousticians, and others—to deliver on their programs?” Then the team literally creates that pie chart, including not just brick-and-mortar budgets but also soft costs for consultants and engineers, and carefully estimates all construction elements including exterior shell, glazing systems, site work, interior finishes, MEP systems, and specialized theater equipment.

Adding to the equation is time and scheduling, says Tallal Bhutta, Founder and CEO of BDB Construction, which has experience in adapting commercial structures for use by universities, congregations, and community groups. “The goal is to exceed the owner’s expectations related to budget and schedule by means of a highly integrated approach to project delivery, which ensures high-quality results in a faster and tightly controlled process,” he says. “The construction firm should be involved in the earliest project phases, from predevelopment to schematics, and a partner from conception to completion.” This includes best practices in project management and coordination, supporting Bhutta’s recommendation of a “consultative role where the general contractor helps review design decisions for timetable impacts, constructability issues, and possible cost reductions.” For renovations or conversions of spaces, teams must better predict unforeseen conditions, and quickly address changes—especially creep—in work scope.

Page & Turnbull’s Ogle agrees, adding: “Plan for supply chain delays. This is a tricky one within an academic environment, where we’re often trying to fit construction in over the summer.” Also, she says, find the right partners who understand the project particulars and “are ready to jump in and actively solve problems as the environment changes.”

Keeping the design simple helps immensely, adds Butler, who also works on entertainment venues for cruise ships. “Rightsize the stage and venue to make the pie smaller and suitable to the typical users,” he says. “On ships, they can’t have very big crews, so we specify automatic rigging instead of manual rigging and lifts instead of platforms, as well as moving reflectors and motorized lighting, which are state-of-the-art systems now moving into many land-based projects.” All of them reduce maintenance needs, similar to the wide use of LED lighting, which requires fewer changes and lamp replacements as compared to older systems.

For the University of Nevada, Reno’s University Arts Building, architect DLR Group designed a narrow bowl shape that creates reverberation and the effect of being enveloped by sound. Diffusive wood paneling further enhances the venue’s acoustics. According to DLR, the lower wooden walls in the space are highly diffusive, broadcasting sound in many directions; upper side walls conceal variable acoustic drapery and acoustic diffusive panels. Photos: David Huff

“Technology has been exploding with LED lighting and also sound systems today,” says VLK’s Nebhut. “It’s not going down in cost, but greatly increasing capabilities for what systems can do even at a K-12 or community theater level.” He adds that theatrical control systems are also advancing radically, with huge soundboards now giving way to iPad controllers and sound reinforcement systems with multiple setups for dance, music, and theater. “Put your money into those systems now, first,” he advises. “Each one is a learning opportunity for students, too, with future career application in the real world.”

Sound Choices for performing arts facilities

Architectural and theatrical systems are also offering new ways to plan and execute on another elemental design variable: acoustics. Savvy building teams begin planning for venue acoustics in the earliest phases, beginning with in site selection and options for adjacent occupancies. “Understanding adjacencies around noise-sensitive spaces is a must in a blocking-and-stacking program to minimize extraordinary construction, mitigate noise transmission, and provide the best opportunity for clarity in speech,” says Raymond Kent, ASTC, Assoc. AIA, Principal and Senior Design Leader with DLR Group.

To allow for acoustic isolation between spaces, Rebecca Krull Kraling, AIA, LEED AP, Planning Principal with HGA, offers a few options for performing arts facilities:

Use increasingly robust wall systems and structural separations.
Plan the facilities with buffers between spaces (reducing the need for extensive wall and structural isolation measures).
Surround performance venues with circulation, creating a buffer between it and adjacent spaces.

Kraling used the third technique for the Huss Center, a new performing arts home on Saint Paul Academy and Summit School’s campus in St. Paul, Minn. Another tactic used for a new dance and theater building at Macalester College, also in St. Paul, Minn., made ancillary spaces into buffer zones: “For example,” she says, “if a facility needs two rehearsal rooms and each one requires storage, locate the storage between the rehearsal spaces as opposed to putting the rooms directly adjacent to one another, making the rooms’ construction less costly.”

Acoustics for multiple-use venues adds additional complexity, says Frank Reder, Associate Principal and U.S. Acoustics Discipline Lead with Buro Happold, who has worked on such world-class venues as the Obama Presidential Center and the Sphere in Las Vegas, along with much more modest facilities. “For today’s multiple-use performing arts spaces, acoustical planning can get very complex, and our goal is to create the very best solution for all anticipated uses,” he says. Advocating for diversity and expanded audiences, RKTB’s Bee points to his firm’s work on a multi-use center for the Village of South Orange, N.J., which commissioned a community performing arts center boasting a 425-seat, state-of-the-art auditorium, but also five first-run movie theaters and a multipurpose community space, all serving multiple performance types.

Even for classrooms doing double-duty as band and choral rehearsal spaces—or for multiuse, hybrid spaces such as cafetoriums, gymnatoriums, and even cafegymatoriums—it’s the same goal, adds Jonah Sacks, Director of Architectural Acoustics with Acentech: “The team needs to ask, What’s needed to achieve great acoustics for every use?” Among the factors to study are spatial volume—especially height—as well as the smart placement of “acoustic reflectors, variable acoustic absorption, and flexible furniture,” explains HGA’s Kraling.

The process involves the full building team, engaged in a review of proposed buildings, spatial volumes, support spaces, and acoustical elements, says Brandon Ross, AIA, LEED AP, Managing Partner for Texas with PBK. “Working with subject matter experts to ensure the facility’s volumes, geometry, systems, and adjacencies are reviewed in detail and optimized from the very beginning of the design process eliminates unnecessary redesigns or other schedule delays,” he says. “Meeting with acousticians early and maintaining close communication throughout keeps everyone on the same page and ensures the process runs smoothly.”

Adding to that, increased remote attendance impacts design choices, says Nicole Cuff, Principal for Acoustics with Acentech. “Facilities need to provide an excellent experience for users enjoying a performance live, as well as users (not in the space) enjoying the experience remotely,” she explains. “Facility users need to record and livestream performances, connect with remote participants, and broadcast recorded audio to performance spaces, throughout all market types.”

For the local crowd, says the architect Butler, bring the orchestra out into the auditorium space with a pit or thrust stage, so sound doesn’t get lost into the stage house. He points to examples such as Wilson Butler’s multipurpose hall for Auburn University in Alabama, which employs relatively conventional systems and works for music with tunable acoustics, which can change the reverberation time of a room.

“People are just getting smarter about acoustics; they expect better, and project teams are answering to higher aspirations from their clients and audiences,” says Buro Happold’s Reder. “The acoustics team being involved throughout, from the very first project planning meeting, is so important to helping avoid downstream adjustments and to integrating solid principles for comprehensive and positive acoustical outcomes that really enhance sustainability and wellness.”

Step Right Up, Sit Right Down

Accessibility is another point for high-quality venues, not just the front of house and seating areas, but for all new facilities, says DLR Group’s Kent. “Accessibility and universal design must reach beyond the audience and be inclusive of performers, technicians, and designers,” he says. “For example, automated rigging systems can be designed to be operated by people with limited mobility. Control booths and front-of-house mix positions should also be accessible.”

Wilson Butler’s design for the Boston Arts Academy highlights the accessibility achievable today. The school’s 500-seat proscenium theater delivers a flexible teaching and presentation venue for students in grades nine through 12, many of them pursuing careers in the visual and performing arts.

Many institutions and municipalities are adding outdoor facilities for both performing arts and a broad range of outdoor learning opportunities. Photo: Courtesy Page & Turnbull

Each year, they gain first-hand experience in theater operations, from stage rigging to audio and lighting systems. Central to the design, says Butler, are “fully accessible catwalks and technical areas that expand learning opportunities for all students.”

SOM’s Carlos Madrid emphasizes the universality and access afforded by “flat-floor/black box theaters, a typology providing a very clean, universal envelope with seating such as collapsible tiered metal seating and varied setups from cabaret or runway to conventional theater to a theater-in-the-round.”

Seating options for such flexible-use performance spaces should be considered carefully, says HGA’s Kraling, asking, “Is it a ‘flat-floor’ space that will be used for rehearsal in an open-floor configuration and also a space that needs to seat an audience, which requires platforms and risers to create proper sightlines to the performance happening in the space?” If so, two general options afford this kind of flexibility: a retractable unit where one can pull risers—and sometimes seating as well—out of a wall pocket, or building risers via portable and configurable platforming systems.

Savvy building teams know retractable systems may have a higher first cost, though they can be operationally easier to manage if labor for building seating platforms is unavailable. The latter platforming types offer significantly lower first costs and much more flexibility for how the room can be configured, but also demand more space for storage—and more people-power to install, says Kraling. “We have this debate on just about every project, and each institution comes to their own decision based on priorities.”

TVS’s Leonard adds that flat-floor, telescoping bleachers are a classic solution for flexibility. Page & Turnbull’s Ogle adds: “Flexible benching/seating options that can be configured for everything from a traditional performance to robotics competitions.”

Leonard says that today’s trending “immersive” shows want the audience closer to feel like a part of the show, which demands exceptional flexibility for the event and experience creativity implied. “We’re seeing how architecture is one of the creative tools to help the performance, like at The Sphere [in Las Vegas], which wears its performance on the outside with customized AV, or the Lindemann Center at the Brown Arts Institute [in Providence, R.I.], where gantries are used to change the geometry of the hall itself,” Leonard says.

For varied performance venues, says Page & Turnbull’s Ogle: “Underfloor HVAC systems can improve acoustics and maximize flexibility overhead.” She adds that while the desire for increased visual and physical connection to the outdoors poses significant challenges from an acoustic and lighting perspective, varied solutions are possible. “The first thing our acoustic consultants recommend is balancing hard and soft surfaces to control reverberation,” says Ogle. “A wall of glass can be very challenging. Luckily there are some truly beautiful solutions that can be deployed when needed and allow for all of the openness that our clients want.”

Plan for Operations: performing arts facilities

For project planning, savvy building teams visualize future expectations and operations. “For schools, put your emphasis on learning opportunities: costume shops, scenery shops, props storage, all those are really important, so don’t compromise in the planning phase,” says VLK’s Nebhut. “You can always add acoustical curtains and clouds later, but you need catwalks and rigging right up front. Even an orchestra pit—if it’s not in the project design from the beginning, you’ll never get it later.”

The types of shows and uses expected will drive decisions, too, says Wilson Butler’s Butler. “For a successful multipurpose space, know the loading-in and -out of the hall: This affects how much crew is required for a show,” he says. “We try to be highly cognizant of how well a back-of-house design works, and how backstage can be managed and operated.” Multipurpose halls, for example, often referred to as roadhouses, should minimize crew calls for reconfiguring the room, which is costly, but also allow for maximizing seating capacity whether for music performances or Broadway shows or pop acts.

Replicating a Broadway performance environment in a typical high school may seem extravagant, yet it’s a positive direction for the future of performing arts, says PBK’s Ross. “Schools want to create facilities that accurately represent what students would see in the industry, should they choose to pursue a career in performing arts,” he notes, pointing to the firm’s recent 1,500-seat, multi-tiered facility for Cypress-Fairbanks (Texas) Independent School District’s new Visual and Performing Arts Center. “Preparing students for the professional world means recreating that world as much as possible.”

For many client groups, however, the mission of funding arts can clash with building team goals, says DLR Group’s Kent. “A trend that continues is one where the organizations are looking to maximize the value of the performing arts facilities with ever-shrinking budgets and competing interests across what are seen as more valuable tracts for the community’s benefit,” he says. “For example, premiums in K-12 or a community college may allocate dollars more in line with STEM disciplines than arts education funding.”

Performing Well: Tunable, Adjustable Space Acoustics Come of Age

Among the most inventive areas of performing arts technology developed in recent years is a new class of novel acoustic solutions for theaters, auditoriums, concert halls, and other performing arts venues. These products include portable acoustical panels, shells, motorized banners, and adjustable overhead and wall units, either hung or otherwise affixed to the interior structure. Their success among budget-conscious end-users such as K-12 schools, colleges, and community theater troupes has inspired their adoption in larger and even professional venues.

The variable panels and automated, motorized systems offer the ability to create a dynamic, tunable space ideal for venues with less staff or varied programmatic needs, or both. With tunable acoustics, end-users can change the reverberation time of a room, for example, or adjust the reflective and diffusion qualities of performance spaces and surfaces.

“These performance spaces should direct sound from the stage to the audience volume, and the adjustable banners and curtains can be used to deaden the room, for example, for amplified music,” says A. Scott Butler, AIA, Founding Director of Wilson Butler Architects. “The orchestra shell is something we can customize, so it has finishes that match the rest of the hall. We also use overhead reflectors that get flown up into the fly tower, as well as acoustic battens.”

According to Mark Holden, Principal of Acoustics for the acoustic and audiovisual design firm Jaffe Holden (which helped pioneer and design a number of adjustable acoustic systems), double-layer fabric banners are effective for absorbing sound and tuning a room to enhance a wide range of performances. “The acoustics of a room are excellent only for a specific program on the stage, which can range from orchestra and band to amplified Broadway shows,” says Holden. “Getting these professional-level systems into high schools is rather extraordinary, and we’re seeing Texas leading the way in high school acoustic systems.”

Adds Buro Happold’s Frank Reder, Associate Principal and U.S. Acoustics Discipline Lead, “Building teams should look into these portable and adjustable acoustical products, such as panels, sheets, motorized banners, and adjustable panels, as well as ceiling panels and clouds and wall-mounted acoustic products. They offer immediate and long-term benefits.”

Portable acoustical panels and motorized acoustic banners are invaluable, especially for budget-conscious projects that need to serve multiple functions, adds Nicole Cuff, PE, LEED AP BD+C, Principal Acoustical Consultant and K-12 Education Market Leader with Acentech. “With adjustable absorption, one space may be used for performance, rehearsal, and lectures more easily than a room with fixed finishes,” she explains. “Facility users tend to prioritize one particular type of performing art and often do not have the budget for another dedicated room to support another specialty.”

Holden stresses this benefit: “To be able to tune theaters acoustically allows the rooms to be used for a multiplicity of functionality,” he says. “The motorized acoustic banners are on the side walls and within the ceiling area. On stage, you’ll have a moveable, tunable orchestra shell, or concert enclosure, which has ceiling clouds and movable walls that create a concert hall-like environment within the stage.

“It’s a very sophisticated set of equipment,” concludes Holden.

1.0 AIA LU

Interior design/Interior architecture

Design Trends

1.0 AIA LU

Acoustical systems

Lighting/Daylighting Products/Systems

Building Materials and Equipment

BD+C

Cultural Facilities

Performing Arts Centers

Contractors

Designers

Designers / Specifiers / Landscape Architects

BD+C University Course

Interior Wall Systems

Performing Arts Centers

Off

Top 65 Cultural Facility Construction Firms for 2023

dbarista — Mon, 06 Nov 2023 22:37:01 +0000

Top 65 Cultural Facility Construction Firms for 2023

dbarista Mon, 11/06/2023 - 16:37

Giants 400

Turner Construction, Clark Group, Whiting-Turner, Gilbane, and Holder Construction top BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest cultural facilities sector general contractors and construction management (CM) firms for 2023, as reported in the 2023 Giants 400 Report. Note: This ranking includes revenue from all cultural building sectors, including concert venues, art galleries, museums, performing arts centers, and public libraries.

BD+C Staff

Performing Arts Centers

Events Facilities

Contractors

Giants 400

Top 65 Cultural Facility Construction Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	Turner Construction	$455,324,972
2	Clark Group	$316,700,000
3	Whiting-Turner Contracting Company, The	$200,033,027
4	Gilbane Building Company	$175,688,000
5	Holder Construction	$108,000,000
6	Skanska USA	$98,850,152
7	Alberici-Flintco	$95,862,298
8	Bancroft Construction	$94,280,589A
9	STO Building Group	$93,000,000
10	McCarthy Holdings	$78,005,363
11	Mortenson	$58,766,000
12	Pepper Construction	$50,218,842
13	PCL Construction Enterprises	$43,081,602
14	Manhattan Construction	$42,361,462
15	Choate Construction	$42,036,238
16	JE Dunn Construction	$35,784,531
17	Shawmut Design and Construction	$35,152,889
18	McCownGordon Construction	$33,745,000
19	LeChase Construction Services	$27,102,228
20	Robins & Morton	$25,125,249
21	AECOM	$23,300,000
22	W.E. O'Neil Construction	$19,504,376
23	Messer Construction	$17,711,291
24	Weitz Company & Affiliates, The	$14,256,697
25	DPR Construction	$13,641,000
26	Hill International	$12,839,966
27	Hagerman Group, The	$12,500,000
28	Lendlease	$12,317,274
29	C.W. Driver Companies	$11,871,497
30	EW Howell Construction Group	$11,752,000
31	McKinstry	$9,500,000
32	Fortis Construction	$9,472,803
33	Kaufman Lynn Construction	$9,184,936
34	Swinerton	$9,004,513
35	Andersen Construction	$8,700,000
36	AFG Group	$8,259,597
37	Nabholz	$7,488,242
38	Balfour Beatty US	$6,999,119
39	Benchmark Construction	$5,909,474
40	Boldt Company, The	$4,893,000
41	Kitchell	$4,858,987
42	Schimenti Construction	$4,200,000
43	Russell Group	$4,000,000
44	TW Constructors	$3,852,000
45	Barton Malow	$3,118,060
46	Skyline Construction	$2,599,659
47	Miron Construction	$2,447,363
48	Level 10 Construction	$2,389,006
49	HITT Contracting	$2,045,773
50	CG Schmidt	$2,042,433
51	AOA	$1,254,095
52	McDonough Bolyard Peck (MBP)	$1,139,572
53	Columbia	$1,100,000
54	Findorff	$944,286
55	Arc Building Partners	$544,821
56	W.M. Jordan Company	$527,119
57	Brasfield & Gorrie	$484,786
58	Cotter Consulting	$457,037
59	Rogers-O'Brien Construction	$434,028
60	VJS Construction Services	$431,317
61	Lease Crutcher Lewis	$403,424
62	CM&B	$393,111
63	Brownstone Construction Group	$340,835
64	Clancy & Theys Construction	$324,508
65	Saunders Construction	$302,600
66	PMA Consultants	$179,259
67	One Day Came	$169,000
68	Batson-Cook Construction	$67,960
69	S/L/A/M Collaborative, The	$28,536
70	Perera Construction	$9,193

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report

Top 60 Cultural Facility Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista — Mon, 06 Nov 2023 22:29:48 +0000

Top 60 Cultural Facility Engineering Firms for 2023

dbarista Mon, 11/06/2023 - 16:29

Giants 400

KPFF, Arup, Thornton Tomasetti, Tetra Tech, and WSP head BD+C's ranking of the nation's largest cultural facilities sector engineering and engineering architecture (EA) firms for 2023, as reported in the 2023 Giants 400 Report. Note: This ranking includes revenue from all cultural building sectors, including concert venues, art galleries, museums, performing arts centers, and public libraries.

BD+C Staff

Performing Arts Centers

Top 60 Cultural Facility Engineering Firms for 2023
	FIRM	2022 REVENUE
1	KPFF Consulting Engineers	$20,733,576
2	Arup	$11,417,387
3	Thornton Tomasetti	$10,128,573
4	Tetra Tech High Performance Buildings Group	$8,114,836
5	WSP	$7,801,148
6	Morrison Hershfield	$6,898,099
7	Alfa Tech Consulting Engineers	$6,240,000
8	Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates	$5,866,000
9	Kohler Ronan	$5,385,471
10	Langan	$5,000,000
--	ME Engineers	$5,000,000
12	TLC Engineering Solutions	$3,718,791
13	IMEG	$3,232,800
14	Dewberry	$2,863,229
15	Walter P Moore	$2,862,402
16	Salas O'Brien	$2,702,174
17	Interface Engineering	$2,371,665
18	AECOM	$2,300,000
19	Schaefer	$1,956,022
20	DeSimone Consulting Engineering	$1,658,295
21	Affiliated Engineers	$1,516,347
22	Newcomb & Boyd	$1,409,133
23	Osborn Engineering	$1,375,000
24	Syska Hennessy Group	$1,283,453
25	Heapy	$1,260,964
26	Jaros, Baum & Bolles	$1,125,450
27	Magnusson Klemencic Associates	$1,118,486
28	AKF	$1,062,892
29	CMTA	$936,148
30	TW Constructors	$920,000
31	Martin/Martin	$838,224
32	Wallace Design Collective	$800,000
33	NV5 Global	$671,914
34	Vanderweil Engineers	$630,900
35	Woolpert	$600,000
36	ISG	$588,106
37	DLZ Corporation	$547,636
38	BKF Engineers	$511,213
39	I.C. Thomasson Associates	$500,000
40	McKinstry	$500,000
--	Dunham Associates	$500,000
42	Henderson Engineers	$481,670
43	JQ Engineering	$467,073
44	Kohrs Lonnemann Heil Engineers (KLH)	$452,598
45	GRAEF	$445,071
46	Mazzetti	$260,000
47	EVstudio	$219,000
48	Highland Associates	$200,000
49	Farnsworth Group	$178,756
50	SSOE	$175,128
51	Teecom	$163,718
52	PRIME AE Group	$130,934
53	BG Buildingworks	$120,000
54	Bennett & Pless	$99,114
55	Davis, Bowen & Friedel	$98,891
56	KCI Technologies	$89,471
57	Bridgers & Paxton Consulting Engineers	$73,781
58	Halff	$71,000
59	PBS Engineers	$65,000
60	raSmith	$52,925
61	KCL Engineering	$48,916
62	PCS Structural Solutions	$39,863
63	French & Parrello Associates	$19,060
64	H.F. Lenz	$15,000
65	Primera Engineers	$7,000
66	JP Harvey Engineering Solutions	$3,500

Source: 2023 Giants 400 Report

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, ENGINEERING FIRMS, AND CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

2023 GIANTS 400 REPORT - TOP AEC FIRMS BY BUILDING SECTOR AND SPECIALTY RANKINGS

Note: All categories below except for 08 and 23 include multiple rankings for the sector: Top Architecture+AE Firms; Top Engineering+EA Firms; and Top Contractors+CM Firms.

07. Data Centers
• Top 30 Data Center Sector Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 60 Data Center Sector Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 50 Data Center Sector Contractors and CM Firms

08. Design-Build Work
• Top 90 Design-Build Construction Firms

13. Government - Military
• Top 40 Military Facility Architecture + AE Firms
• Top 50 Military Facility Engineering + EA Firms
• Top 35 Military Facility Contractors + CM Firms

31. Parking Structures
• Top 60 Parking Structure Architecture and AE Firms
• Top 45 Parking Structure Engineering and EA Firms
• Top 55 Parking Structure Contractors + CM Firms

PAST GIANTS 400 REPORTS

2022 Giants 400 Report
2021 Giants 400 Report
2020 Giants 400 Report
2019 Giants 300 Report
2018 Giants 300 Report
2017 Giants 300 Report