600 person seating. Seems excessive. The new concert hall at Stanford will hold about 800. Does the PALY auditorium really need to be so large?

One of the drivers for seating capacity is the ability to seat an entire class (i.e., Freshman class or Sophomore class, etc.) for presentations, discussions in a "quiet" (non-echo) environment.

No, 600 is NOT excessive. That auditorium should be as big as Spangenberg at Gunn. Menlo Atherton made a terrible mistake in building its new performing arts center with such a small capacity - I hear it is under 500. There should be enough room for one entire class - maybe two. This city needs some venue for events - and rentals could bring in money. Palo Alto's longed-for civic space for a new performing arts center went to soccer fields at the corner of Page Mill and El Camino. If we build it, they and $$$ will come. There could be smaller rooms attached for small meetings. But think 'outside the box' and build it correctly. For once - do it right.

Beats sitting on the lawn or in the amphitheater! That's what we did when I was a student there.

There is never enough for the Palo Alto Schools. It is like a sink hole. There is always another justification. The City overspends and can't manage even the most basic services and the schools want to spend $22 Million that might bring in revenue. Just another justification.

Needing such a large theater is a byproduct of having large schools. If our schools were smaller, the whole graduating class or any other, could fit into a smaller theater. As it is now, when we watch our seniors graduate, we are lucky if we can actually see them. Even with binoculars, it is impossible to see over all the heads in front of you.

I am sure a larger theater would bring in revenue as it could be used for many other community functions.

So much fun for all involved to spend money that they themselves aren't paying from their pockets. Such a thrill to be in on the planning, and maybe get their name engraved on one of the seats too. Bah. Of course it is excessive. Just do another parcel tax ballot and claim it's needed for smaller classes. Shifting money around is the ticket!

Well, we already voted that money... I voted against those bonds even though I still have a child that will go to Paly.

Now that it's been voted, though, we might as well build it.

Otherwise I agree that we spend wayyyy to much in this city on schools and libraries.

Paly Mother states:"Now that it's been voted, though, we might as well build it."

No, No, No. Once you build it you will have to insure it, clean it, heat it etc and that ALL comes out of the education budget.

Please teach our elected officials and our children how to say NO.

Peter:

Well then what do you propose be done with the $378 million in bonds that were voted? As far as I understand, they can only be used to build and upgrade buildings, not for ongoing expenses...

If it possible to cancel the bonds, well then, sure why not. I'll be happy not to pay them. But is it possible?

Paly Mother asks :"Now that it's been voted, though, we might as well build it."

Yes, the bonds can be retired early IF the school district was smart enough to include that provision in the bond terms. If they did not provide for early retirement of the bonds then it is still cheaper not to spend the money, invest it wisely and then repay on schedule. But under no circumstances should the school district build something that they cannot afford to maintain except by taking funds away from EDUCATION.

Don't you people vote? The 2008 school bond measure included a list of school projects and it passed by 78% - an overwhelming vote of support. School bond funds must be spent on buildings, they can't be spent on teachers or city projects.

And Haymarket may be historic, but it is a dump.

the spanedenburg theater is owned by palo alto anyways, and what is building a new theater going to do to help PALY? I'm 99% sure its going to do nothing so theres no point. why dont they focus on just upgrading the engineering/electronic stuff. and work on getting better goddamn bathrooms in both schools.

hey, i think paly are left behind since M-A has one...paly needs to keep up and make a better one...

This is outrageous! We foolishly agree to continuing a tax that didn't deliver what the PAUSD promised (plus an increase) and they want to use it to build a new 22Mil show-piece?

We have millions of dollars of deferred maitenance at our current schools. Let's get energy efficient windows, doors and lights installed, and repair the crumbling playgrounds and hardscape of our CURRENT facilities. Forget new buildings until we have repaired what we already have. Use some common sense, PAUSD!

Oh, here's a thought: PAUSD should use the theaters at Lucie Stern - they are already built and surely can be leased for alot less than building and maintaining a new "performing arts center".

PALY can get constant, multiple uses out of this facility. It is NOT out of line by any means. It is reasonable to build a decent facility with reasonable seating.
Haymarket is completely outmoded and tiny - completely unacceptable. I don't see any possible historic charm with that dump and I think it is an earthquake hazard.

A bond issue is like a line of credit - yes you can use the bond money to build a new auditorium but NO you don't have to use the money. And the money has to be paid back, just like a line of credit.

And the bond issue passed in 2008 - guess what, the world is very different today than it was in 2008!

How much will it cost to operate this new facility each year and where will that money come from - classroom activities?

Right now, at this time? Isn't there any way to fix or rennovate the existing theater, if they have to do something. The old PALY buildings have a lot of charm ... why can't they be fixed? What are they keeping them around for?

I realize that not everyone has the time to read the plans and go through the details. I've read the plans - PAUSD is planning to renovate Haymarket (and the Tower Building as well). Haymarket is currently a dump and that is being kind. It does not have nearly enough seating capacity for any on-campus programs - such as parent nights for each class. There is not enough room to have a full-program music concert - they have to split up the bands on different nights in order to have enough room for the audience and the kids.

Further, the stage at Haymarket is so small that you can't even put the entire band on the platform without building out extensions into the seats. There is no orchestra pit.

BTW - part of the new theater construction is a renovation and upgrade of performing arts classrooms and facilities --- it's not all about the theater. Not mentioned in the paper, but worth knowing.

On another thread I noted that it looks like the architects did a splendid job of integrating the new theater with the original architecture of the campus. It will not stick out like the new M-A center at all.

And remember - there's is no formal setting to hold a class-sized discussion or presentation on campus. Gunn has been fortunate to have the Spangenberg Theater for all those necessary functions. By the way - Spangenberg will also receive a face lift as part of the Gunn projects. Part of what is going on here is the effort to get both HS campuses equal in terms of facilities and capabilities. So that opportunities in academics, arts, athletics, etc. are the same for all PA kids.

All of the building projects were listed and detailed as part of the build up for the bond vote in 2008. No surprises - this is what we voted for.

Gee, I'm so glad the city's not broke. We'll remember that the next time they plead poverty.

And/or will we see another utility increase to make up the shortfall??

Um, Scrooge...you know that the PAUSD and the city are separate entities and budgets, right? Nice try though.

PAUSD didn't plead poverty when the building bond was put up for a vote in 2008. It was purely, "if you want modern and up to date facilities - then this is what we'll build and this is what it is going to cost." The theater was part of the deal (and clearly itemized) when it was put to a vote. Why people don't get that now is simply amazing.

"Gee, I'm so glad the city's not broke. We'll remember that the next time they plead poverty.

And/or will we see another utility increase to make up the shortfall??"

Again, the city and the school district are separate entities.

Dad states:"All of the building projects were listed and detailed as part of the build up for the bond vote in 2008. No surprises - this is what we voted for."

BUT the entire financial world and things like property values and property taxes have changed dramatically since then - why shouldn't the school district reevaluate its priorities? Is this building, the care and maintenance of which will come out of current year tax revenues, more important than having enough teachers?

Once the building is built the costs of operating it will be forever - is it worth it?

I love it! We (the city) give the school district 9 million dollars each year, measure A was just passed and they are going to build a 23 million dollar (it will be more by the time it is built) theater.
Crazy!

Just say no ... now is not a good time.

It is actually a great time to build, construction costs are coming down and the bids for many commercial projects are lower than the original budgets. We will actually get more for our money than we would have otherwise.

Palo Alto, the PAUSD and the community will lose the battle to save performing arts education if together we cannot provide suitable multi-purpose performing arts venues.

Spangenberg Theater was a tribute to Karl Spangenberg (Hewlett & Packard's engineering teacher at Stanford) who, along with his tireless wife Ruth, raised the money to fund the construction after the City of Palo Alto dropped out ('68?) of financing 50% of this Community Theater. Hewlett Packard and the community rose to the challenge and Gunn HS/PAUSD became the caretakers of this "community built" theater. Today Spangenberg & Paly's theaters are falling apart.

Both theaters (once the pride of Palo Alto) show years of deterioration & neglect. The list of upgrades & repairs needed by both Spangenberg and Paly are massive including refurbished seating, sufficient restrooms, handicap stalls, water fountains, basic audio/visual capability, lighting, air conditioning, fire systems, earthquake upgrading.....

Today many local groups and businesses must seek venues outside of Palo Alto. The reality is - Palo Alto's community performing arts capability, for it's citizens, for it's children, for it's visitors is unable to safely meet even a fraction of the need.

For posters who have no interest in music or theater and have no understanding of what these courses of study mean to Palo Alto's students now and for the rest of their lives, no argument in favor of this construction will ever sway you. I understand. For the life of me I can't understand all the money spent on high school and college sports but there you go. People value different things in life.

We applaud the PAUSD and our fellow Palo Altans for recognizing the importance of performing arts education and planning for our future. Palo Alto and it's citizens should be proud of our decision to make our community performing arts venues useable again.

OK-- so the current size of a class at PALY is about 450

Mary-- so your arguement is that the new theater needs to be at least as large as Gunn' s theater-- so if Spangenberg had 300 seats, that is all you would want? Seriously?

Mary-- what is your point?

4Music notes:"Today Spangenberg & Paly's theaters are falling apart.
Both theaters (once the pride of Palo Alto) show years of deterioration & neglect. "

So please explain where the operating funds are going to come from for the new $23 million building if there aren't enough funds to take care of the existing buildings?

I am surprised at the pushback here.
I believe in being very careful with taxpayers' money.
BUT - this is a DIRE need - I have a variety of comments. The issues with Gunn and PALY are different. Some may be unfamiliar with the campuses. There are a lot of students and a lot going on.
As some have posted, Spangenberg has also deteriorated over time. Originally it must have been an excellent venue, of course, and it has had tremendous use in this community. Talk about wear and tear.
But please know that Haymarket @ PALY is TOTALLY decrepit - not up to the most basic standards for music and performing arts or seating groups of parents for administration lectures and events. I remember how horrified I was when I saw it for the first time, some years ago. A tiny dump with zero charm and quake hazards - actually difficult to use in all respects and not up to reasonable standards for one of our high schools, PARTICULARLY considering the amount of money we give this school district.
For one thing, it's time to show respect to music and performing arts programs. It hurts them to have poor venues - makes it hard to function when you have so many students/audience and an unworkable venue like Haymarket. So I fully support this major construction.
From what I have seen over some years, these theaters are constantly used -- with some difficulty in the case of Haymarket -- it's multiple uses. There are school administration needs, parent meetings-- college apps planning meetings for parents of juniors, guest speeches, performances.
I understand Spangenberg, which certainly is a decent-sized venue of 900+ seats, is constantly booked. Those of us who were affiliated with Jordan and PALY music programs sometimes had to drive across town there since it was a halfway decent venue at Gunn with a decent stage and enough audience seating and parking - we considered ourselves lucky on those occasions. This situation is not workable longterm.

Now I understand - your kid has trashed his old car and doesn't take care of it so the solution is to buy him an expensive new car.
Makes perfect sense.

Since Peter has raised the car analogy...

Haymarket is a Ford Model T, built in and for a different era and not suitable for today's driving requirements.

Spangenberger is a solid roadster with high mileage and in need of major overhaul. A new engine, replacement of most working parts and a good paint job will keep it running on the road for the next careful owner.

The kid hasn't trashed either car, but the wear and tear of an average family's use with no major accidents means that the family cars are no longer meeting the family's requirements particularly considering that the family has grown to nearly double in size since they were first acquired.

Anger should not be directed against this PALY theater expenditure. It is absolutely overdue - by decades. It is a reasonable worthwhile plan that will benefit students and the community for years - decades.
It has nothing to do with students trashing anything.
Why is someone from Atherton commenting on PA public schools?
We may be arguing over different points. I agree there are other ways the PA school district can and should reduce their massive budget. The idea that class sizes have to be tiny at the elem level is odd for those of us who were in classes of 30 (but then, this wasn't California, so we actually had discipline....)
PAUSD is a luxury school district compared to many. We pay high taxes. That's why I was so shocked when I saw the PALY Haymarket as I wrote above - inexcusable. I get that "sports rule" in this town - north side anyway.
But I pointed out that a theater is multi-purpose - PALY and Gunn need a theater on a constant basis for many functions and purposes.
BTW, when it comes to having a usable, multi-functional theater/venue - check out Santa Clara's two high schools that have functioning performing arts centers. M-A, Los Altos HS, Saratoga HS all have beautiful, quite new theaters that are well liked and used for wonderful events.

Regarding the question on operational funding-

A "usable" (minimum required capabilities) theater at either Paly or Gunn could be rented as Spangenberg is today. In fact the number of rentals would be much higher because the new or refurbished facilities would be able to serve the needs of local and visiting groups.

Spangenberg alone could support 4 rentals per weekend. Just two rentals per weekend at current rental rates of $1,500 for 4 hours (not even counting all the add-on fees) would bring in $156,000 in one year alone. Plenty to subsidize operating costs. That said, groups won't rent a worn-out facility that won't meet their minimum needs (sound, lights, restrooms, seating and HVAC).

And operational costs would only be marginally higher for a new or refurbished facility because of the addition of air-conditioning. All other energy-related costs would be lower assuming lighting, heating, etc would use current, more efficient technology. Staff costs are the same. Maintenance would be far lower.

It seems like a win for both the students and residents of Palo Alto.

In a way, comparisons can help understand the situation.
They used to rent Spangenberg to show movies - I believe the facilities became too run down.
I know Los Altos public schools used to rent Spangenberg for events (presumably before they got their own facilities sufficiently refurbished). I am referring to the elem and middle school levels. My friends told me huge parent groups came over to see performances -they surely paid a major facility rental fee. I guess they go over to Los Altos HS now.
Author Brian Copeland read/performed at LAHS - I think it's called Eagle Theater - I remember hearing on the radio. Fees were charged. I THINK Brian Copeland was also booked at PALY - I think he had to cancel and may have ended up coming another time?! - but if he went to Haymarket, they could only have accommodated a very small paying audience and in some discomfort all around.