interruption: an unexpected note to my readers

My focus has been pulled inward yet again by cancer. To be brief, I was diagnosed with testicular cancer last year and underwent some brutal treatment to get rid of it. After months of believing that we had succeeded in thwarting the disease, it has returned. This week I will be undergoing a series of tests to determine the status of the cancer, and will be focusing most of my attention and energy on dealing with my health and recovery for an undetermined length of time.

I may be back in a week, a month, I don’t know.

Wish me luck, and if you are interested in knowing more about how cancer affects a life as both a teacher and an unwanted guest go to my cancer blog, The C Word. I would also encourage you to visit the American Cancer Society, the Lance Armstrong Foundation, or Stand Up 2 Cancer and offer your support in any way you can. The number of people that cancer affects in this country alone is staggering. Donate money. Volunteer. Learn.

Thanks for reading.

London’s “Green Theatre” Plan

As I read through London’s recently released plan of action for their theaters, I kept asking myself how the climate (and I don’t mean the weather kind) in London — or Europe in general — allows such things to happen. I know that NYC mayor Bloomberg has taken steps to encourage a greener Broadway, but to my knowledge nothing at the level of London mayor Johnson’s report would happen here in the States. At least not this quickly, this comprehensively…I just don’t see it.

In short, I’m amazed with the document they produced, and the related “Green Theatre Calculator 2008” (download your own excel copy here), which is a great tool for theaters everywhere. Thank you London.

I could go on and on about this report, but instead I’ll hit some highlights, and strongly encourage you to download a copy and study it — especially the “practical actions.”

• 35% of London theater’s carbon emissions come from “front of house” operations, including heating and cooling
• 9% of the emissions are the result of “stage electricals”
• The entire London theater industry has a carbon footprint “roughly equivalent” to the energy use of nearly 9,000 homes
• The report advocates factoring “equipment energy costs” into production budget
• An appendix to the report lists the top actions that theaters can take, including:

1. Switch off stage lights when not in use
2. Reduce energy use in exterior lighting
3. Implement energy management program
4. Minimize travel emissions

Again, this post barely scratches the surface of the report. Read it yourself. If we all manage to implement a fraction of its suggestions, and are inspired by one of its case studies, we will push green theater in America nearer to true sustainability.

Mayor of London releases “Green Theatre” report

Boris Johnson, London’s mayor since May, has just released a comprehensive report on the greening of London theater entitled “Green Theatre: Taking Action on Climate Change.”

Once I have more time to go over the report, I will write more about it. For now, you can see a good news piece on it here and download the full report here.

Walking the talk, part II

Almost a year ago I wrote a post entitled (you guessed it) “Walking the Talk.” In it I explain that I have taken the job as production manager for CTM and how the move has put me in the difficult position of putting into practice my ideas on sustainable theater.

As I’ve said repeatedly, it’s been rough. As the only year-round member of the production team, I regularly hire on new labor on a show by show basis, and act in many ways as the theater’s technical director as well. It’s not easy keeping everything in the production department rolling while pushing greener practices too. But I try.

Yesterday, however, I was a bit shamed by our Producing Artistic Director when she told me in a staff meeting that it would have been a much greener move on my part to track down linoleum remnants for the floor covering we need for our upcoming production, rather than buying about 1100 square feet of it brand new (albeit at a very good price). Yikes. How could such an easy idea have slipped by me without a thought. I even had a phone conversation with a local dealer, telling them who I was, and what the linoleum was for — and failed to simply ask, “do you guys have any remnants or unwanted linoleum (or vinyl) that you’d be willing to donate?”

I’m human, of course, and I often feel like I’m merely treading water as a production manager/technical director of a small theater company, with my hands in so many areas of the organization — but I am disappointed in myself for that one. The good news, of course, is that we now have enough of this versatile material to cover most of the floor in the theater space we perform in most frequently. And it can be reused several times over.

toward a more sustainable theatre

Surprisingly, this blog exists in part due to the Theatre Communications Group. I pitched editor Jim O’Quinn on an article taking an objective look at the supposed greening of theater operations in this country. He and his staff liked the idea, and so I started working on it, contacting theater artists across the country to talk about it, and even asking those I was interviewing for other writing projects what they thought.

Alas, life interfered: I was diagnosed with cancer, and the editors at American Theatre simultaneously (nearly anyway) decided the piece of reportage I turned in was not objective enough. After treatment — and after I’d recovered enough to care again — Jim asked me to write an opinion piece on the subject instead.

So, after more than a year of work and thought, my essay on the importance of sustainability (or eco-friendliness, or environmental responsibility, or whatever you choose to call it) within American theater has finally made it into the pages of the magazine. I hope you read it — and I hope it helps reach more people than this blog ever has.

ride your bike to the theater?

The other night I went out to dinner with my wife and my in-laws. We went to a great Indonesian restaurant not far from our house that we’d never visited before. After a great meal, I noticed a little sticker on the front door: blue and white with a stick figure riding a bike, it read “Bicycle Benefits.” I reached in my back pocket for my notebook to jot it down and look into it, but the notebook was missing. So, I said to my wife, Dawn, “remember bicycle benefits.”

Bicycle Benefits is a basic incentive program, and it works like this: individuals buy stickers, slap them on their helmets, and ride their bikes to participating businesses (restaurants, coffee shops, retail, etc.) and receive discounts. This could be adopted by virtually any business, encouraging people to get out of their cars and onto their bikes — including theaters.

Q & A with Scott Georgeson

Recently, I thought it might be nice to have a sort of guest speaker here on ecoTheater who really knows what they’re talking about. I’ve asked a few people over the last several months if they’d be interested in answering ten specific questions about green theater, and the one person who has really come through and given us all a window into his informed perspective is Scott Georgeson, a theater architect with HGA Architects & Engineers in Milwaukee.

Georgeson first caught my eye a few months ago when I noticed his name cropping up repeatedly in regards to green theater buildings. He co-presented the session “To LEED or not to LEED” at this year’s USITT conference, presented a two part series entitled “On Greening Historic Theatres” for the League of Historic American Theatres Conference (LHAT), and was part of the panel at NATEAC’s entitled “The Greener Theatre.”

The interview below was conducted via email.

——————————————————————————————————————————————

ecoTheater: what kind of work do you do?

Scott Georgeson: I have been fortunate. My first job out of school in the mid 1980’s, was with the architectural firm designing the Milwaukee Repertory Theatre (MRT). This was an unbelievable experience. We spent countless hours working with MRT’s management, technicians, designer and performers to get every theatrical detail right. They were also concerned with audience accessibility before ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) was a regulation and reducing energy use before LEED was standard practice. MRT also pushed us to think beyond the needs of the theatre company. This resulted in saving a landmark building, rejuvenating an area of downtown Milwaukee and building one of the first sections of the river walk. I bring the lessons learned from MRT to all my Arts projects. Since then I have completed programs and designs for over 100 facilities for the performing arts, including one of the first LEED rated theatres in the US. Since the mid 1990’s I have been giving “Green Theatre” presentations to theatre organizations. The theater community’s interest in the “Green Theatre” continues to grow. This year I presented at the League of Historic American Theatres Conference (LHAT), United States Institute for Theatre Technology (USITT), North American Theatre Engineers Architects Conference (NATEAC) and attended the Theatres Trust Conference on Building Sustainable Theatres in London.

eT: what role do you play in the greening of arts organizations?

Being a theater architect, planning and coordinating the engineering of theaters is the expected role. The unexpected role is to develop a green agenda. I open up the conversation to the bigger picture, bringing alternative views, and showing the connections between seemly unconnected issues. The first challenge is to make clear it is easier to be “green” than you think. For example, the Peninsula Players Theatre in Fish Creek, Wisconsin did not start out thinking they wanted to be green, but it seemed a natural fit for them. They are located on a beautiful wooded water front site. Their old theatre had a problem with rain noise and flooding and their ugly, white rubber roof was visible from everywhere. It also developed mold from the high humidity and shade from the surrounding forest. A vegetative roof was the perfect way to control the flooding, provide acoustical density, add life span to the roof material, and it looked great! The mixer of seedums and wild flowers blended perfectly in the surrounding cedar forest. This was a green solution that solved a lot of nagging problems.

Second, you need to think beyond the bricks and mortar and look at the big picture. One of my first presentations on green theatre was to LHAT. An audience member claimed “we can’t be green because we are a historic theatre.” I pointed out there is nothing greener than reusing a building. They are also located in the downtown and could jump start a renewal of the area, saving other buildings and using existing city infrastructure including public transit. The theatre was built before air conditioning, relying on natural ventilation through a floor plenum and roof exhaust vents. This would allow for a displacement air system, which is very efficient and a trend in the HVAC system designs in green theaters. We talked about reusing the theater seats, starting a recycling program, changing out building equipment, etc. He started to understand the bigger picture and concluded they were already on track to be green.

eT: how do you define sustainability?

Sustainability is about conserving resources, having a minimum impact on our surroundings and understanding the long term impact of our actions. Sustainability understands the difference between “needs” and “wants”. Sustainability requires you to look for new ways to become more efficient and save resources everyday.

eT: do you think sustainability is an appropriate term in the arts, or even an acheivable goal — or, should we simply call it “green,” or “eco-friendly,” or “eco-responsible?”

A couple of years ago a web search on “sustainable theatre” would bring up articles on the “financial sustainability” of theater organizations. Today there are more links to “green” articles. I believe both topics are related. Theatres are a business and need to survive in order to present their Art. Reducing and saving resources should be an integral part of every non-profit’s plan, especially when operation money is always short. I do like the term “eco-responsible” – it speaks to a broader thinking.

eT: what role do you think arts organizations can (or should) play in creating sustainable communities?

This is a great follow up to the previous question. My broad view is that arts groups are crucial to our quality of life and add to the livability of our cities. The arts reach across all income levels, education, race and political beliefs. I don’t think it is an accident that cities with great art institutions are the most desirable and rank high in livability. Holding together cities reinforces sustainability by preserving investment in existing infrastructure, reusing resources and creating community. At an organizational level, each arts group should take the lead in promoting sustainability. For example, historically movie theatres in the 1940’s and 50’s were used to sell the idea of air conditioning to the general public. A regular audience is a marketer’s dream and arts groups should continue to take advantage of this to promote sustainability and their own green programs.

eT: what are the major obstacles for arts organizations when they consider taking steps towards greening their operations?

Change is not easy for anyone. But, through simple and clear steps, greening an organization’s operations can save money and improve the working environment. These are the top four reasons I have heard from theatre groups for not being green and an alternative way to look at the issue.

1. We don’t have the time. The show comes first. Time is always critical and may not allow you to change your process. But this shouldn’t stop you from changing your thinking. Time may only permit putting the struck set in the dumpster. A green solution would have the dumpster picked up by a company that recycles wood and the set materials.

2. We don’t have the staff for extra tasks. I just want to focus on the show. There are many things you can do to make work easier and save you money – changing standard light switches to motion detection light switches, for example.

3. We don’t have the money for expensive building systems. Most energy saving devises are inexpensive and simple. Using LED lights in exit signs and fluorescent lamps in support areas will save energy and money over the bulbs life span. (Some studies show savings of over $40 a bulb.)

4. We have always done it this way. Yes we have, and that is what has gotten us into this mess.

eT: How important are green buildings in reversing the adverse effects of global climate change?

Reducing a building’s energy use is VERY important and our best hope at having an immediate impact on reducing our energy consumption and green house gases.

Buildings use 40% of all US energy. Studies show that the energy use of our current building stock can be reduced by 30%. This improvement would reduce the USA’s total energy needs by 13%. That is more than all the energy provided by the renewable energy systems now in use; 7% with out hydro generation. A 30% reduction in your theatre’s energy is not as hard as it sounds.

The example of the Theatre Royal, in Plymouth, England was presented in June at the Theatres Trust Conference “Building Sustainable Theatres”. Simple steps were taken to reduce energy use and reduce CO2 output. These steps include switching incandescent lights to LED’s and fluorescents, adding motion sensors to switch room lights, reprogramming the energy management system and trusting it to work, taking advantage of outside air temperatures for preheating and precooling, installing more efficient fans and pumps and developing ongoing performance monitoring to ensure savings were realized. This program resulted in the Theatre Royal reducing CO2 output by 33% and great savings in fuel costs.

eT: Can theaters go green in a meaningful way without greening their buildings?

Yes. Making changes in an organization’s daily operation has a big impact. For example, my firm, HGA Architects, is always reviewing ways to reduce waste and green our operations. Some of our practices include:

a. Recycling programs for paper, glass, plastics, metals.

b. Setting copiers to print double sided. (Resulting in a reduction of our paper use by 1/3)

c. Direct deposits eliminating paper checks.

d. Promoting staff usage of mass transit and bicycles. (All offices have bike rooms and changing rooms with showers)

e. Eliminating bottled water in favor of filtered tap water.

f. Using biodegradable cups and utensils instead of plastic.

g. Using green cleaning products.

h. Buying energy star equipment

i. Supporting similar minded suppliers for goods and services.

Some interesting programs that non-profit groups have taken on to support sustainability include; becoming a central drop for battery recycling, setting up ongoing fund-raiser recycling programs with local scrap yards, displaying information on global warming and the environment in business lobbies and buying renewable energy from the local utility company. Every little step helps.

eT: what is the most important step the leadership of a theater company can take towards sustainability?

It is critical to set a clear “sustainability” agenda. Establish a committee to examine the theatre’s daily practices. Be willing to look at everything, establish your priorities, have clear bench marks, and keep the long term in mind. Take advantage of the theatre’s community profile and support sustainable activities and organizations. From a building stand point, have an energy audit done. This will provide benchmark information on your building’s mechanical and electrical systems and you can pin point were your energy dollars are going. The results can be surprising. We recently looked at energy use for a theatre and found little difference in the days they had shows and the days they didn’t, highlighting how important it is to reduce a theatre’s daily energy needs. If you are upgrading HVAC systems, zone the HVAC to the use schedule of the theatre, and look into natural ventilation and energy star equipment. Adding natural light in backstage support areas can have a big impact on energy use.It will take time, a change in thinking and some investment, but in the long run you will create a better work environment, saving both money and the planet.

eT: what hopes do you have for the future of theater?

I am hopeful for the theatre arts. We are rediscovering our need for community and human interaction. Studies are proving how important arts education is to the well rounded student.People are moving back into the city to rebuild neighborhoods. Even retailers like Starbucks have recognized the need for our “Third Place.” The new Guthrie is certainly a large scale example of an arts complex trying to become a community living room. On a more intimate scale is the Tricycle Theatre in London that blends into the retail street and reaches into neighborhood with “alley like” lobbies. My hope is that arts complexes of all sizes strive to knit themselves into their surroundings to become the cornerstone of the community.

With regards to the building, every one needs to get past the perception that theatres and buildings for the performing arts can not be “green”. The reality is the typical theatre can be “eco-responsible”. The key to designing, constructing and operating a sustainable theatre is a commitment of the theatre company to question every detail, material, design concept and construction method.The big moves are important to create an efficient arts complex.But if you don’t get the little details, systems and materials right, they will continue to cost you operations money for years to come.

Ultimately, the future of theatre really depends on the writers, designers, technicians, directors and performers creating great theatre and this I know will continue.

Community Partnerships

Something I’ve been thinking about lately — and it seems to keep coming up at staff meetings at CTM, especially when our fantastic development director Christina Martin-Wright brings it up — is how as a company we can extend our reach outward into the community in ways that don’t necessarily have anything to do with theater or art, or directly benefit us in any way. Simply extending ourselves out, offering whatever it is we have, be it space, skill, time, people, or whatever.

One way that I have managed to work this into the company is through our relationship with Working Bikes, a chicago-based non profit that works to divert old bikes from the waste stream by collecting them as donations. What they do with the bikes is incredible: some of them will be sold to raise funds, but most of them are sent to needy people across the globe in order to give working people everywhere a form of transportation other than their feet. The folks at Working Bikes also offer workshops for the recipients of their bikes, teaching them how to maintain and repair the bikes they receive (give a man a fish…).

So, where does CTM come in? Well, it isn’t much, but it has helped Working Bikes continue to expand its reach. I offered our scene shop/storage space as a Madison drop site for the organization, so that they can collect bikes here while minimizing the need to transport bikes to and from Madison (about a three hour drive from Chicago). When I have more bikes than I can handle, I contact Working Bikes, and they come and pick them up.

The relationship that we have developed with Working Bikes supports the idea of sustainability beyond community partnerships too that is very straightforward: helping keep material out of the landfills.

Lindsay Jones responds

Something that frequently gets lost on blogs is the nuance of life — the other side of the story.

When I recently posted a previously unpublished entry entitled Planes, Trains, and Automobiles on the trouble with the abundance of travel in American theater I asked my friend Lindsay Jones to help me understand the issue from the perspective of a theater artist who travels frequently to do his work as a sound designer. In some ways, I left off bits of what he said in the interest of brevity — or, rather, directness. But in the leaving out, I skipped over what Jones feels was an essential part of his point, and I’d like to give him an opportunity to explain it (in full) here.

He wrote the following to me in an email Friday night. I have not edited it, and have removed only the parts addressed personally to me.

It’s weird because I kinda feel like I’ve been placed in this role of the bad guy (which is not your fault), due to my line of work, and I kinda feel like there’s only been one side of the context that I provided, which was that I must travel to do what I do. That’s bad for the environment, and I understand that that was the point of your post, so I kinda let it go.

But, in seeing all these people picking up the discussion, I really feel like they’re missing the other side of what I wrote (and was not printed), which is that I think that a constant infusion of new artists collaborating together is actually very good for the future of theatre. Good art comes from new challenges and new ideas and, many times, that comes from new people and new situations. That happens by artists being in new environments, and, a lot of times, that happens through travel. I understand that your research shows that travel is now bad for the environment. And I totally see your point on cultivating a theatre that is based entirely in the surrounding community would be good for the community as a whole, but I thought that that kind of theatre already existed as “community theatre” (a term that has unfairly gotten a bad rap over the last couple of decades, but the principle and practice of it is still very strong, as far as I know). The type of theatre that I work in is different from that, and if you dislike the idea of outside professionals working in your community, that’s absolutely your prerogative. No one says you can’t make your own theatre your own way. But I do see some great theatre in the stuff that I do, and I believe that these theatres have a place in our cultural offerings. Not always, but quite a bit.

For the people who say that the future of theatre lies entirely in the hands of people who can do many different skills, I have to say that certainly sounds good, but only up to a certain level. I can guarantee that the person who thinks this policy applies to all situations across the board has never worked inside of a larger regional theatre or commercial theatre structure. The assumption that these theatres are just a bunch of dumbasses who never thought about combining people’s job skills in order to save money is simply ludicrous. Trust me, theatres are CONSTANTLY looking for ways to have less people do more work. They have the staffs they have because that is the bare minimum of what they need in order to get the work finished. I’ve seen what kind of hours those people put in, and I sure don’t see anyone in those situations sitting around, waiting for something to do. They all work very hard at the jobs they have. I honestly have no idea how they would consolidate their positions any further.

And, frankly, I’m no exception either. I have to justify my job to people all the time. Everyone has an Ipod now, everyone has a computer, and a whole lot of people think what I do is really a piece of cake or even completely unnecessary altogether. But my job is more than just technical skills, it’s a very specific craft that I have honed in over 500 professional productions now. And that’s the other point that I was trying to make, which is the one thing that I feel I was misrepresented in your comments to your original post. You say that “the implication that talented designers simply do not exist in certain parts of the country is nonsense”, but in fact, I only said that that was a possible reason why I might be hired. That situation has happened, the theatre told me that when they hired me. It hasn’t happened often, which I also mentioned in my email, but it has happened. But the larger point is that they may have talented people who do my job in their region and yet those theatres hire me anyway. Why? Because they hate locals? Because they love spending money? No. Because they believe what I have to offer them and their production is worth bringing me in for. They think that what I can do will make the overall product better. Am I the only one with this skill? No. But by this point in my career, I’m confident in what I have to offer. I feel like it’s worth it, and I work as hard as I possibly can to make it worth it. And while I’m happy to apologize that my air travel is ruining the environment, I won’t apologize for the work that I do. It’s good work, and I’m proud of it.

That being said, I’m not looking to engage in an argument with people who have an axe to grind. I feel extremely fortunate to have the career that I have, and I know that by even writing any of this to you, I run the risk of looking petty or egotistical or elitist. I know that you wanted to have an honest dialogue on this subject, and that’s honestly the reason that I’m sending this to you, because I really do respect your position and hope you’ll see my point of view as well.

On Localism

I had a suscpision that my quoted conversation with my friend Lindsay Jones might cause a bit of a ruckus among this strange online theater community that we have — Lindsay thought so too.

While Scott Walters and friends quibble about (the idea of the) generalist versus (the idea of the) specialist*, I’d like to make sure that the gist of my original post comes through loud and clear: maintaining the current paradigm of the nationally (or internationally) itinerate theater artist is NOT sustainable. And although I used one at the end of the sentence, I’ll spell it out too: Period.

I certainly don’t want to discount Scott’s point. It is, as I’ve noted before, a solid one that I think my own life in the theater bears out. But at the same time, I think it is fruitless to try to dissuade an artist of any kind from focusing on what they have found to be their core talent — for that matter, the thing, the act, that they believe sustains them as a creative person. Can we even attempt to rationalize an artist’s impulses? I don’t think so, but perhaps we can convince some of them — most? — to ply their trades locally, within the region that they want to live, rather than prolonging the notion that they must travel across the country (and the world) to make ends meet.

The thing is, I still believe that keeping things local is more important than dictating how a theater, or a gathering of artists, divides labor. Let them do so as they do now, with one crucial exception: use local talent.

* Original post on Theatre Ideas