New Home for Dance In Chicago

[Amy Reusch]

On the plus side, the seats are comfortable, and a steep rake, especially in the balconies, makes for superb sightlines, particularly for dance.

from Chicago Tribune's article Not the Same Old Song and Dance

Any Ballet Alert people go?

I've always hated steep rakes when it's meant that everyone but the front row looks down on the stage... corps patterns best visible from the balcony not withstanding, I've usually found looking down on dancers saps the energy out of the performance.

How is the new house? Is the stage raised enough that most of the orchestra doesn't look down on the dancers?

I was always shocked that sitting in the front row of the Athenaeaum Theater's balcony [where the major Chicago dance festival "Dance Chicago" is presented], offers a lousy view, with sightlines blocked by the balcony railing.

[Nanatchka]

Hang on. I will check it out for you later this week....!

[G]

For those in the group not familiar with our new performing arts venue, the following link has some history.

Joan W. and Irving B. Harris Theater for Music and Dance

It's not mentioned in this article, but I though it was interesting...The city of Chicago donated (I think I remember reading it was a 99 year lease at $1.00 per year) the property that the new theater is "in" in return for exclusive use of the facility for 3 months every summer. The city says they want to plan more upscale events to coincide with summer outdoor festivals like Gospelfest, Jazzfest, Bluesfest, etc, but it is also speculated that it will be home to many blacktie political galas as well.

G

[Amy Reusch]

For some reason, I had been under the impression that the theater was being built by the City... and was worried it was going to be run like the Arie Crowne... Or was that the earlier plan that was scrapped? It is on the pier, isn't it? It must be a union house, no? That will put it out of range of most of Chicago's dance companies, I would think... with the exception of those companies that have already been managing the Chicago Theater's costs... What is that, Hubbard Street, the occasional Ballet Chicago run... Does River North play Chicago Theater? How about Muntu? Is Giordano still a player, or is it still hampered by Giordano's less than inspired daughter?

[Treefrog]

Amy, the new theater is not on Navy Pier. It is at the north end of Grant Park (or Millenium Park, as the northwestern part has been renamed), just east of Michigan Ave.

I don't know where/if River North performs downtown. I saw them last spring at the North Shore Center for the Performing Arts, in Skokie.

[G]

For some reason, I had been under the impression that the theater was being built by the City...

More info at

Music and Dance Theater Chicago, Inc. website

G

[Jack Reed]

Amy, I agree. Looking down on the stage from the disinterested point of view of a bird or God or something takes away a lot, although some altitude compensates me if I'm farther back than I like. At the other extreme, can't you be too low, too, so you can't see the stage floor and aren't so aware who's near or far in the space? So when I went to see Merce's programs in the Harris in November I bought a lower-balcony seat for the first night and an orchestra seat for the second. Overall, I have mixed feelings about the new theatre:

In the third row of the center section of the balcony, I had a good view, but in the center section of the orchestra, right behind the cross aisle, of all places, I was partially blocked, as it happened, by someone sitting, not in one of the regular theatre seats, but in an office chair placed where a few seats in the last row of the front-center section had been omitted near the right-center aisle, presumably to accomodate wheel chairs. So I plan to avoid the vicinity of Orchestra S 116 in the future! But in general I think sight lines are adequate.

All the sound was amplified but none of it was orchestral music, my favorite test of sound systems, but I can still report that the system in the Harris is pretty good, not getting congested when loud, and not having such a strong character of its own that you get tired of listening to it. There are speakers all around, in the contemporary manner, so the apparent source can move at the presenters' whim.

What counts about a theatre is whether you can comfortably see and hear in the place, but otherwise the painted concrete everywhere struck me as stale and cheap-looking. I don't know whether it costs such a lot more to mix attractive materials into concrete and let it show, or just give it a clear coating, but to this unrepentant modernist, that can give a fresh, rich effect. I wish it had been done in the Harris Theatre.

Of course I'll be back to the Harris and enjoy my times there, but when I think of some of the mid-size theatres Chicago has destroyed - the old Goodman Theatre, where Merce settled in for a week many years ago, and so did I - and the Garrick, the work of Adler & Sullivan, no less - I get a little disappointed; bitter, even. The Harris is little compensation, I'm afraid.

(Will Easterners recognise Adler's name? Charles Tuthill, the architect of that marvelous auditorium which identifies itself as The Andrew Carnegie Music Hall and stands with some dignity at Seventh Avenue and 57th Street in New York, always credited Dankmar Adler as acoustical consultant. In Chicago, of course, Adler & Sullivan's theatres were his own work.)

[Mel Johnson]

Amy, I agree.  Looking down on the stage from the disinterested point of view of a bird or God or something takes away a lot, although some altitude compensates me if I'm farther back than I like.  At the other extreme, can't you be too low, too, so you can't see the stage floor and aren't so aware who's near or far in the space? 

(Will Easterners recognise Adler's name?  Charles Tuthill, the architect of that marvelous auditorium which identifies itself as The Andrew Carnegie Music Hall and stands with some dignity at Seventh Avenue and 57th Street in New York, always credited Dankmar Adler as acoustical consultant.  In Chicago, of course, Adler & Sullivan's theatres were his own work.)

Yes, indeed, one can be too low down to see dancers fairly. Both the NY City Center and the NYS Theater had zones where the dancers' feet were lost, which zones were finally lost in the 1970s, when the floors in both houses were raised and re-angled.

And easterners will certainly know of Louis Sullivan, whose broad expanses of unified building material over the front facades of buildings lent his name to a whole school of architecture!

[Amy Reusch]

Thanks Jack, I was curious. (And Nanatchka, you promised!) I guess one can be sat too low, but it seems so rare that I thought a new theater built for dance wouldn't have that problem. Unfortunately, locally, that's exactly what I had to deal with last time I paid to see dance... Tharps' company at Jorgensen on University of Connecticut's campus. The University tends to present more interesting groups than Hartford's Bushnell (whose managers seem to see it basically as Broadway road house not much interested in "fine art" as far as I can tell), but the theater is pretty awful. If you sit anywhere in the front half of the orchestra (Jorgensen seating plan) you can't see the dancers feet below their shins! Remarkable! And I believe there is no fly space, which is a bit of a problem for some shows. Some of the touring ballet companies have not been able to use their sets. But I'm off topic.

At least, Jack, there is another space now for dance in Chicago. There seemed to be so few when I was working there in the mid 90s. Columbia hadn't built it's new theater yet. Is the Dance Chicago festival at all threatened by this new space? I always want to believe that the only competition to be afraid of is when people do bad work, inspiring audiences to stay home rather than go out.

[Nanatchka]

Amy, I agree. Looking down on the stage from the disinterested point of view of a bird or God or something takes away a lot, although some altitude compensates me if I'm farther back than I like. At the other extreme, can't you be too low, too, so you can't see the stage floor and aren't so aware who's near or far in the space? So when I went to see Merce's programs in the Harris in November I bought a lower-balcony seat for the first night and an orchestra seat for the second. Overall, I have mixed feelings about the new theatre....

Okay, we know about the theater now, BUT WHAT DID YOU THINK OF THE MERCE??? I was there too, and I found the only strange aspect of the theater the long, boarding an airplane type entrances, and the whole weird deal of being three stories underground. I was seated very close, and the view was terrific. The accoustics are hard to judge given the music, but the vocal part was very easily heard, but also amplified. (Cunningham and David Vaughan read John Cage's stories as the "music" for one of the pieces, How to Pass Fall Kick and Run.)

[Treefrog]

I've been to the Harris Center twice now in the last few weeks, so I'm weighing in with an opinion. The first time was to see Hubbard Street, the second for River North. I'm glad that we have a theater dedicated mostly to dance, and showcasing many different forms (Muntu Dance Theater is also on the spring bill).

The front part of the orchestra is pretty normally raked. Beginning with Row S, the rake steepens into something more like stadium seating. Personally, I don't mind trading the downward look for being a little closer to the stage. We were in row V, and something in the double alphabet towards the back, and for these two performances I had no quibbles. In the back there are some narrow columns that did not block our sightline, but might have if we were further back or a little more towards the center.

Both performances had recorded music, and I thought the sound system worked well. Acoustics appear to be pretty decent, in the sense that when there was no music one could clearly hear the sounds the dancers make. At one point during the intermission we heard an intermittent thump; I thought it might be the doors, my husband thought it was the HVAC system. I didn't notice it during the performance, though.

As others have noted, this theater is at its best when the lights are down and the performance is in full swing. It is decidedly sterile and workaday in the lobby areas. Not being up on modern design, I can't tell if it is somebody's idea of industrial chic, or simply cheap. The atmosphere does ruin the experience a bit for me, especially compared to the period opulence of the city's other nearby theaters: the Oriental, the Palace, and the Auditorium, for example.

I do give the theater high marks for having 42 stalls in the women's bathroom.