Preservation Matters Newsletter

Volume 36, Number 1 Winter 2008

Designing a Contemporary Theatre in an Historic Shell

Architects Mike Pagano and Bill Senecal discuss the Hanover Theatre Project

Photographs from the collections of Worcester Historical Museum, Worcester, MA.

On March 14, the former Poli Palace Theatre will be opening as the Hanover Theatre for the Performing Arts. The new theatre will be an exciting cultural venue for Central Massachusetts and will feature Broadway shows, nationally renowned performers, and family and community events.

The Southbridge Street theatre was constructed in 1904 with a nearly complete restoration by Thomas W. Lamb of NYC in 1926. In 1967, The Redstone Theatre Corporation of Boston purchased the property and remodeled it as the Showcase Cinemas. Major changes were made including creating a new entrance and removing the proscenium wall, upper seating boxes and parts of the ceiling under the balcony. Further, changes were made in 1973 to allow the simultaneous showing of four films. The current project which involves restoration and new construction will return the building as closely as possible to the 1926 theatre. The restoration of the historic façade which had been covered is a key component of the project and was a critical factor in the receipt of state and federal historic tax credits.

Deborah Packard: I want to start by asking how long you have been working on this project and what is your role as architects on the project?

Mike Pagano: It is nearly seven years. The project began with a study to consider the possibility of re-opening the Showcase Cinema Building for a performing arts venue. The scope of work was anticipated to be simply removing the full theater complex, and trying to restore as much as possible of what remained in the building. Ed Madaus and Paul Demoga and actually Carter Hunt at the time were the three who brought this project to the city. They acquired the building from Redstone and come to us to do a study which was a modest five million dollars to re-open the building; It evolved into what it is now, which is as full a restoration and reconstruction as possible.

Deborah: Can you lead us through the steps and the progression of what you have to go through before you started drawing your plans?

Bill: First, it was a study – and actually it was Rob Para (Lamoureux-Pagano architect and PW Board Member) who spent the most time on the study - analyzing the building, the condition of the mechanical systems, the plumbing, electrical wiring, condition of the roof and so forth and determining whether anything could be reused. As the project evolved, Troy Siebels was brought in to be the director of this facility. Troy determined that we needed a deeper stage to be able to put on Broadway plays. That led us in a new direction, and we needed a whole new stage.

Preservationist Leslie Donovan was brought in and she gave us an understanding about historic tax credits.– the criteria and what needed to be preserved. The façade of the 1904 theater, the Franklin Square Theater was the key. However, it had been covered over in the 70s, and no one knew what was behind it. We had an idea there was something there and so we had to take the side down and explore what was left. Would that be sufficient for the state and federal fax credits? The 1904 façade met the criteria - the rest of the exterior building was determined not to be of historical significance. (There was maybe 90x30 feet that we took down that was of no historical significance.) Before construction started, we needed get approval for the building to be placed on the National Register of Historic Places. We also had some challenges because we needed to comply with handicap regulations. In the 1926 section of the building, the floors sloped and we obviously needed some relief from some of the rules and regulations. If it were a brand new building, we would have different criteria. Being an existing building and on the historic register allowed us certain relief in the building code. Once that was put all together, the design started.

Mike: There were a number of landmark events for this project that I think are worth pointing out. The first is Ed Madaus and Paul Demoga had the vision to see a successful performing arts center in Worcester. I don’t know how much they knew about Thomas W. Lamb, if anything. I don’t know how committed they are to historic preservation, but they felt that performance theatre could be great for the city. That, to me, was what really got this whole project started. Of course, there was help from Jim McGovern and others. The second major landmark was when the WBDC (Worcester Business Development Corporation) got involved and brought in Tom Miller from Boston along with Troy Seibols. A meeting that was held, and it basically concluded that in order successful, the performing arts center had to meet today’s requirements for a performing arts theatre. There were certain improvements that are going to have to be done. We couldn’t live with a 28 foot deep stage, and we couldn’t live without a green room and other supporting facilities. At that point, the project took on an entirely different dimension. That is when we started to realize we needed a 40 foot deep stage. We didn’t own the land for the expansion. We needed to talk to Telegram and Gazette. They and many more people came into the mix and it became a community effort. Hanover got involved and a board of trustees was formed. The project took on an entirely different kind of format. Another major event for us was working with the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC). The MHC representatives came to Worcester and got a glimpse of the 1904 façade. It was all covered over, but you could go up into Lowe’s old office and stick your head out the window and see all the terracotta detail. When they saw that everything changed in terms of the historic tax credits, and the significance of the building in terms of its importance to our architectural heritage. That was another huge event for this project. At that point, there was an excitement about what the project could become as a performing arts center, and as a historically significant building. From there, the project began to take on the form that you will see when it opens in March.

Deborah: What is the scope of the project?

Mike: The project is characterized as five different projects. We have the new construction of the lobby; the restoration of the 1904 exterior historic façade; the historic preservation of the 1920’s lobby and promenade; the theatre space; and the construction of the Green Room and new stage. It is a very complex project involving everything from new construction to historic preservation. It is a technically demanding project, and I think ultimately a very successful one.

Deborah: Tell us about the façade you designed to complement the historic façade. I know it was a challenge.

Mike: Right, the Southbridge Street façade basically has two elements. There is the restoration, or actually the reconstruction of the original 1904 façade that remains in place. It had to be partially reconstructed with new materials to recreate what that was like in 1904. The second part was the new lobby area which is now the primary entrance, box office lobby space, reception area, elevators, etc. which was not part of the original theater The original Poli Palace had an entrance from Southbridge Street and also had some store fronts. All that façade will now be the lobby. It was important part of the design work which Bill was responsible for - that new lobby.

Deborah: Bill, what was your vision for the entrance? Was it more contemporary?

Bill: It was actually the second design. What I had originally designed is nothing like what it is designed like now. The first design didn’t pass the standards set by the National Park Service. (To receive state and federal historic tax credits, the design required approval from the National Park Service.) It has been our intent to make the 1904 portion of the building more significant, and not to compete with it by using the same materials. For lack of a better description, my original design was a glass box. The design did not pass and now we have stone columns and so forth. We had the whole project designed, it was bid, it was started, and we were almost at construction. The Park Service came out of the blue and said we are not going to accept this. It was a little confusing to us because this was not part of the tax credit work. We had to stop mid-stream and redesign the front lobby. Once we understood our parameters, we focused on designing as big and open a lobby as possible.

Mike: What is most interesting is if you look at the addition at the back of Mechanics Hall; the National Park Service used to promote just what Bill was talking about, - the juxtaposition of contemporary and historic architecture. One reinforces the other. They have had a change in philosophy about how this should be approached. We were in essence directed, if you want to qualify for the tax credits, the addition must reflect the scale, patterns, etc. of the 1904 façade. In my view, that weakens the overall composition for the very reason that one would appear more contemporary adjacent to a historic façade and one would be reinforced. The historic significance of the old façade would be reinforced by contemporary architecture. What are you going to do? Obviously the historical tax credits were critical to this work so we had to comply.

Deborah: It is an expensive project. What factors that contributed to the overall construction cost?

Mike: First of all, the historic restorations, particularly at this level, were a significant part of the budget. For example, the work that was done to the dome of the auditorium was costly. Sally Bowditch (Bowditch & Marinelli) used a lot of the original leafing, (aluminum and gold leafing) and the painting techniques. We could not use those techniques everywhere because the cost was just so expensive. Our plasters came all the way from Baltimore because they are one of a few firms that are qualified to do this kind of historic plaster work. Another factor that added to the expense is the limited site although the Telegram and Gazette have been very cooperative. You can not say enough good things about what they contributed to this just with agreements, the access to the building and the like. Working on a Main Street increased the costs. Stage construction and equipping a contemporary performing arts stage are very expensive. It is a combination of factors; not a simple, clean building.

Bill: The complex is actually two different buildings. In 1904, it was approximately half of what you see now. In 1926 they added another 70 feet to the building with another construction technique. There are two different constructions and structures, and we are trying to bring in contemporary duct work, plumbing and sprinklers and electrical. We are trying to fit everything in the existing building and not have any of that visible. That is the fun part of doing a project like this because to get that all hidden, and we are talking duct work that is 6 or 7 feet square, it is no small feat.

Mike: I should have mentioned that one of the greatest factors affecting cost was the work that was done in the 60’s and 70’s by Redstone. They destroyed and changed the building structure to support the four movie theaters. They hacked out the old balcony. Right now, we are restoring the front three rows of the balcony because of all that was ruined. They removed many of the original features including the loge boxes. All that had to be rebuilt to put the old historic features back into the structures, at a great cost. But it was critical to the success of the project. So it was not really a matter of historic renovation, but rather reconstruction. And much of that from photographs because we didn’t have the drawings that they used.

Deborah: I toured the theatre recently and was fascinated by the complexity of the replication of the plaster work. How do you go about doing that?

Mike: We spent an awful lot of time looking photographs from the original 20’s construction. Workers in the building would judge that a person’s hand was probably about 8 inches long so the dimension between the top of the guardrail and the loge box rail itself is about 12 inches. A lot of our work went like that. There was evidence. Scars on the masonry where the organ loft was removed. You can still see a scar where the slab was and from that we could do some dimensioning. In some cases, it was like putting together a puzzle in the dark; it was not easy, but there was fortunately some evidence of what the original building was that we relied on. Photographs were of critical importance, and some of the plaster elements and alike above old ceiling were found and, of course, the dome was still there although it had been chopped up.

Deborah: Is it exciting to work on a building that Thomas Lamb worked on? It sounds like you did some research on him.

Mike: Lamb had an international reputation for doing great theaters. He was exclusively Poli’s architect. But even when the architect is not known, when you have a building of historic merit, you feel a responsibility to live up to that original design. With some exceptions, the new lobby aside, you have a responsibility to that original design that should be kept in the forefront of your mind.

Deborah: Did you find anything surprising or amusing?

Bill: Nothing necessarily amusing, but there is always surprises and problems to overcome. You can draw all you can and you can put as much information on a piece of paper, but you have to be at the site. What looks good on paper does not necessarily fit when something is opened up. Those are the surprises that we are constantly finding out that this roof structure might not be strong enough to hold all this new weight. How do we solve that problem? A good example is the toilet facilities. I think the woman’s room had three toilets, and the men had two. We are going to have 2500 people in there and it is 2008. Now we are up to forty fixtures for each.

Mike: There were a lot of surprises along the way, primarily because when we started our work putting together this project and even doing contract documents; we had no access to critical parts of the building. We can’t fly and we don’t have x-ray vision so when the demolition was finally was in an advanced stage, we finally got to see a lot of what we were dealing with. We found things that happened with the structure for example in the 60s and 70s. It created a hell of a lot of additional work for us. We had to scramble to make changes accordingly.

You would think that after six years you would be able to point to one amusing incident or anecdote for you but I can’t think of a single one. It has been a very demanding project from several perspectives. Technically, it has been very demanding. The schedule has been very demanding. And frankly at this point, for us, it is nerve racking the amount of work the contractor has left to do to get this open in time. I saw a full page ad for Stomp, Hairspray and Jesus Christ Superstar with a schedule. At Christmas time, my daughter was in from Seattle. She wanted to see the building. She looked around and she said “you are telling me there is going to be a performance in here in March?’ Maybe that was the one amusing thing for me, I don’t know.

Deborah: Are their other parts of the project that may be of interest to our readers?

Bill: The Green Room is positioned for almost 60 actors. I don’t think there is a show on Broadway that cannot be put on here. That is how it is being built. All items that are associated with a real theater are there. The building will not only be capable of that, but also the lobby and what we call the bridge in the lobby can host events.

Mike: I would like to think that our work will be judged from a perspective not of how well the building was restored, but of how well it accommodated contemporary systems - air conditioning, the electrical service and distribution systems. How well they were concealed. How well they were integrated into this building. We went from a 1000 amp service in the building to a 4000 amp service. There is a sub-station for National Grid. With all of these contemporary improvements, including code improvements, our goal is that the building presents itself as a 1926 Poli Palace. Most people will not notice or even think about that, but we will know.

Deborah: How the building going to end up? Are we going to be excited? Are you excited? Do you have feelings on how it is going to relate with the city?

Mike: I am Worcester guy. I think I had the standard perception of Worcester growing up. At first, I could not wait to go on, expand my horizons. Go to California. I was always pessimistic of the prospects of this city until about 8 or 10 years ago. I could a point a number of changes I saw coming that made me optimistic about the future of this city. This theater is right at the head of that list. I think that to have a high quality performing arts center in Worcester is really going to draw people. I think economically it is going to prove viable. It is going to bring in people after hours and there will be a spin-off in the area. This theater, with the original glass was meant to be a beacon for Franklin Square, and I think it is going to achieve that. I am looking forward to it. It is one more step, along with the capitol improvements in Worcester like the CitySquare Project, as slow as it may be coming forward, the connection with the Mass Pike, the Visitor Center that is coming, on and on and on. It is really a great thing for Worcester. I’m really excited about it. I think it is a can’t miss kind of improvement.

Deborah: I do have a question on my list here whether you think I will be done on time. Do you think I will actually be done to be open on March 14th?

Bill: It will be open and you will not know that the construction is still going on. I am sure it will be presentable and you will not realize what still is to be completed. There is still a lot of work -up in the attic, down in the basement and in the Green Room which the public will not see. I believe it will be presentable in March although we may soon be praying.

Mike: This project has been an inexhaustible source of surprises, but I do agree with Bill. It will open with a certificate of occupancy and be a safe building to enter. It will meet the requirements in the code, but there will still be a lot things behind the scene that will have to be accomplished over some period of time. . Bill and I combine for over 70 years in experience in architecture and construction. He has 60, I have 10. That is from our considered opinion.

Deborah: Congratulations and thank you for taking time to talk with me during this busy period.

Docent Training - Fall 2008

We have a very special opportunity coming up....

Docent training will focus on Worcester’s architecture and history. We explore the development of Worcester from a small agrarian village in the 18th century to the second largest city in New England. Illustrated slide presentations, research techniques, local resources, and a variety of speakers all add up to an exciting new view of the city we thought we knew so well.

The course will be offered for ten consecutive Tuesday evenings from 5:30-7:00 p.m., beginning September 16 through November 18, 2008, at Preservation Worcester headquarters, 10 Cedar Street.

Education Docents involved in a research project. Back row: Marilyn Polito, Hildegard Armstrong, Elizabeth Mullaney, front row: Bob Dascanio, Tammy Butler.

The Docent Training Program has been described as follows:

“I enjoyed the ten information packed, fun filled sessions, held on Tuesdays 5:15-7 PM, plus refreshments!”
“Taking docent training I met like-minded people, curious about the history of Worcester, who are interested in the city and preserving its assets while helping to build the future.”
“There were no pop quizzes and no tests, yet I learned so much that I am totally entertaining at parties with my anecdotes about Worcester’s architecture, culture, and history.”
“You will learn to identify architectural styles and delight in driving your passengers through the city with running commentary on dates of construction and architectural styles at every opportunity.”
“Books, slide shows, and neighborhood tours answered those questions I had for years about buildings in my neighborhood.”
“The docent training program is fun and docents are very cool!”

Contact Lynda Faye, Education Director at 508-754-8760, for more details or to sign up.

Promoting a Better Urban Landscape: Urban Design Committee Update

By Nadia Beard

After reviewing urban design guidelines in other Massachusetts cities and towns, the Urban Design Committee is focusing on how to promote good design principles in Worcester. Presently, the City has no design guidelines or design review process. The physical features of new and renovated structures is solely within the judgment of the property owner or developer. The aesthetics of development and its impact on the character of downtown is not regulated at all. The City has no current framework for requiring developers to meet even minimum design criteria. The effects of this are highly visible in our downtown, with myriad existing buildings that neither complement nor enhance their surrounding historical environment. The Urban Design Committee, working in cooperation with the City's Economic Development Division, is reviewing recommendations to remedy this problem, among them implementing design guidelines and a design review process. The Committee hopes to encourage an improved built environment and, along with it, an improved pedestrian experience. By setting minimum standards for our built environment, we can experience what other cities with design standards have experienced - increased investment and economic activity in our downtown.

Grants Recieved!

Thank you to the following foundations that recently make gifts to Preservation Worcester;

Fletcher Foundation - $5,000 – Provided funds for our “wish list” of essential technology items including 2 laptops, a projector, a laser printer, a scanner ….. We appreciate these essential items that we desperately needed, but couldn’t afford to purchase.

Greater Worcester Community Foundation - $7,500 – Provided funds for operating expenses, a wonderful gift because we can designate them to areas where we need them the most.

Worcester Cultural Council - $1,400 for a program booklet, Before Today: Worcester to complement our third grade All America City Program.