好色先生TV

There are perhaps only a few building projects that manage to garner the magical trio of architectural significance, vast sums of public money and national attention  鈥� and for those that do, the attention is more often negative than positive. The expansion of a major airport may be one such scheme, as the endless national self-flagellation over Heathrow鈥檚 third runway proves. A new stadium may be another, as Wembley鈥檚 tortuous and high-profile seven-year overhaul also demonstrates. 

But as the laborious gestation of London鈥檚 Millennium Dome demonstrates, it is big national cultural projects that are uniquely placed to trigger that heady mix of controversy, profligacy and infamy that keeps tabloid headlines agog for years. And of this category of building, new national concert halls probably represent the most trying coterie of all. 

History is littered with examples. Churchill was hostile towards the Festival of Britain that bequeathed London鈥檚 Royal Festival Hall because he deemed it a colossal waste of money in a time of acute post-war austerity. The early difficulties of the Sydney Opera House are now the stuff of folklore, and even today it is still difficult to conceive how exactly a project can open a decade late and be 1,457% over budget. 

And more recently the Philharmonie de Paris and Hamburg鈥檚 Elbphilharmonie have proved that the age-old tradition of controversial concert halls is still going strong by both opening late and costing almost twice and 10 times their original budgets respectively. 

But it is also undeniable that despite these grave difficulties, all these buildings and certainly the former two, have gone on to become towering cultural successes that have evolved into enduring national symbols of what their respective cities and countries represent to a wider global audience. Which is why after years of customary prevarication, London is finally stepping into the fray with brand-new concert hall proposals of its own. 

Last month celebrated US practice Diller Scofidio + Renfro released concept proposals for its 拢288m Centre for Music, a new world-class symphony hall for the capital. Spearheaded by London Symphony Orchestra (LSO) music director Simon Rattle, the new venue is to be built on the current site of the Museum of London, near the LSO鈥檚 present home in the Barbican. Construction will begin once the museum relocates to a new building in nearby Smithfield. 

The proposals envisage a 2,000-seat theatre-in-the-round auditorium 鈥� also know as vineyard style because the seating surrounding the stage rises in serried rows like the sloping terraces of a vineyard 鈥� set above a multi-level foyer with a cafe and bar as well as informal flexible spaces for research and classrooms. The foyer would be linked to surrounding public spaces. Four floors of commercial space would be located above the auditorium, including a 鈥渄estination restaurant and outdoor terrace with views of the city鈥�. Right at the top of the building is planned a smaller, secondary performance and events space that is currently nicknamed 鈥渢he Coda鈥�. 

Proposals are at an early and conceptual stage, so it would be unfair to judge them too harshly now. But they do provide an initial opportunity to predict how the project might fare and explore the challenges and opportunities surrounding the construction of a large-scale public performance venue such as this. 

Here, we鈥檝e assembled three industry experts, one of whom is a member of the Centre for Music (CFM) team and has worked directly on the proposals, to give their view on CFM鈥檚 prospects and identify what it could learn from other similar projects worldwide. 

The acoustician鈥檚 view

Rob Harris, independent consultant

Rob Harris of is one of the world鈥檚 leading auditorium acoustic designers and theatre consultants. He has worked as acoustical engineer on some of the most celebrated concert hall and theatre projects of the last 30 years, including the Bridgewater Hall in Manchester, City Recital Hall in Sydney, recital hall Kings Place in London, Glyndebourne opera house in East Sussex, Oslo opera house, Copenhagen opera house, and the 1990s redevelopment of London鈥檚 Royal Opera House. Harris spent 32 years at Arup鈥檚 acoustical engineering department before becoming an independent consultant in 2015. 

What鈥檚 being proposed here, especially with the commercial floors, is a one-off prototype

Harris is very supportive of the CFM proposals and is particularly encouraged by the new institution鈥檚 ambitious social programme. 鈥淚t would really be a missed opportunity if this project just catered to the elite, so it鈥檚 great that it will accommodate music education facilities as well as leisure elements like the restaurant and music bar overlooking London; these are great concepts. The emphasis on children and teaching in particular seems quite apparent and is a clever way to make the venue less corporate and remote.鈥�

But he does see a number of challenges ahead, the first of which is the amalgamation of performance space with commercial. 鈥淩elying on the commercial floors to help fund the project can be done; it鈥檚 similar to what happened at the Barbican鈥檚 Milton Court nearby, where flats in the Heron Tower helped fund redevelopment of the music conservatory. But on this scale it鈥檚 not ideal and it鈥檚 not going to be easy. It is also important that this feels part of the Barbican experience and that the existing Barbican Hall doesn鈥檛 play second fiddle.鈥�  

Another significant technical challenge Harris predicts is the reliance on the vineyard auditorium layout, where the audience surround the orchestra, as opposed to the more traditional shoebox layout where audience and orchestra face each other from either end. Harris sees acoustic drawbacks in the vineyard model. 

鈥淚n the late 20th century the shoebox was all in vogue; you could see it in places like Birmingham Symphony Hall. But now it鈥檚 very much the vineyard that is fashionable. It does have its advantages: surrounding the orchestra stage on all sides can lead to a greater sense of intimacy and enclosure. It enables some of the audience to see the conductor鈥檚 face too. 

鈥淏ut its drawback is principally that it鈥檚 a back-to-front arrangement where the acoustic balance is wrong, sound is directional, and it means placing a portion of the audience behind where the sound is being directed to. These are some of the drawbacks that are now emerging at the Elbphilharmonie and the Philharmonie de Paris, so in some ways it鈥檚 a shame CFM is being progressed too early to benefit from any changes in thinking these issues could lead to.鈥�  

Harris identifies other risks too. 鈥淭he safer and more conservative option is the shoebox. But nobody wants one concert hall to look like another, so what鈥檚 being proposed here, especially with the commercial floors, is a one-off prototype 鈥� a new typology which is unique to London. That鈥檚 a good thing but it does come with risks, as we鈥檝e seen at Paris and Hamburg. 

鈥淏ut if you look at recent UK projects of this type like Glyndebourne and Kings Place, we鈥檝e done much better at bringing them in on time and on budget. Acoustically, there are also new technical solutions that minimise the risk of an auditorium not working the way it should. Auralisation is the acoustic version of 3D visualisation: you can create a special room where computer modelling allows you to recreate the sound in your anticipated auditorium and compare it with other halls. It鈥檚 a huge step forward.鈥� 

What project does Harris feel CFM can learn from as an exemplar of performance design? 鈥淕lyndebourne. It has just the right balance between architecture, acoustics and theatre 鈥� it looks good, sounds good and performs well without looking like an acoustician鈥檚 warehouse.鈥�