A brisk discussion was going yesterday under a different topic, and the subject moved to the Audio Visual issues in the new Library’s Community Room. That’s where the City Council meetings are held now, as well as P&Z and LCDC. The City gave an additional $100,000 to fund this room, but the technical components were not integrated or designed well. One high-ranking city official told me there was no input requested from the technical staff during the design process. Oops.
April 15, 2008
15 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks, Bill for the clever title!
Comment by mary — April 15, 2008 @ 2:20 pm
…On another note, I know a porch cam exists; so how about a Dan cam which could accompany you during your morning constitutionals? Your snappy commentary will more than offset any video shortcomings; kind of like the riveting city council discussions and the LCDC verbal sparring which ooze from the new room where public meetings are held in the new library. Did anyone, I repeat anyone, look at the design of that room considering the planned usage? I’m sorry I got off on a tangent. I will miss the Gazebo, but I still think
the Dan cam would be fun.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 14, 2008 @ 10:50 pm |Edit This
Comment by mary — April 15, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
doubleseetripleeye,
Someone dropped the ball when the Community Room was built. Clearly they knew the room would be used for live television; that’s why they built the control booth, installed cameras, and prewired for multiple mics. The live audio (what the audience hears) could not be worse except to have no audio reinforcement at all. The speakers are inadequate in placement, number, and quality. That results in spotty audio into the audience and feedback through the sound system. Knowing the room was going to be used for television, they should have used studio lighting and control.
Watch a Council meeting when someone speaks from the floor podium. Movie and television lighting designers are paid good money to design in the ghoulish effects our City has achieved in the Community Room.
It would be easy to blame the architect who should have brought in someone competent to design a room intended to be used as an audio visual studio. The architect may have wanted to do that, but the City or whoever was controlling the purse strings may have nixed it. After all, we do live in the “City of Expedience.” Whoever made the recommendations and decisions that resulted in the disgustingly and avoidably poor lighting and sound in that room deserves to be publicly identified.
Comment by Bill — April 15, 2008 @ 9:22 am |Edit This
Comment by mary — April 15, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Correction, Bill: They did not install cameras. The Channel 19 crew did that. And they had to put the cameras in after the fact and on extensions jutting down from the ceiling. I’m not sure about the audio,
but that might have been added later as well.
I was educated in theater design and the flaws in the room are abundant. Your typical, mediocre architect believes an “auditorium” is merely a box with a riser on one end. In this case, the box has non-acoustical walls reflecting the sound god-knows-where. The “stage” is in its own box and the sound stays inside, plus there is no stage left exit. The stage right exit dumps out into a dead-end corridor, which means should there be a fire the people on stage would have to run through the audience to exit. All in all, it’s a terrible design and a terrible process. The City Council paid $100,000 extra for that room. I assume they can upgrade it and charge us even more for that.
Comment by Dan — April 15, 2008 @ 9:39 am |Edit This
Comment by mary — April 15, 2008 @ 2:28 pm
Dan, who installed the cameras is of less concern to me. The point was they knew when the building was designed that the room was going to be used for A/V. You’re exactly right. The room was not designed properly. Hard parallel surfaces, inadequate lighting and control, etc. I noticed, too, there are no speakers on the stage. The Council and Commissioners seated on the stage are hearing reinforced sound (when they’re able to hear it) from the speakers over the audience. Can you imagine sitting through four-hour P&Z meetings in that room? Arrrrggghhhhhhhh!
Comment by Bill — April 15, 2008 @ 9:58 am |Edit This
Comment by mary — April 15, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
The City government is so hypocritical about education. Both the U of I and WSU have baccalaureate and MFA programs in theater arts. Both programs also support radio and television production education programs. I wonder if it ever occurred to Sandi and the Rubber Stamps to ask the U of I or WSU if they could use the Library Community Room as a practical exercise or design program. Sandi wants to use the Poop Plant as a “laboratory”. Why didn’t they at least try to take advantage of nearby universities to avoid the major flaws in the Community Room? Use projects like this throughout the City as laboratory projects to let students get practical experience. Let them work with the architects, engineers, builders, etc. to create a well-done product.
No, the City would rather fork out tens of thousands of dollars for “consultants”. How hypocritical. How selfish. How antieducation.
Comment by Bill — April 15, 2008 @ 6:02 pm
Isn’t the current price of a DVD of public meetings $30? Maybe they can use some of the profits from this endeavor to improve the public room in the library. Seriously, are you stating that there are no exits other than through the audience for council memebers, planning and zoning commissioners or the LCDC board? Many citizens are passionate about certain issues and our beautiful city. This could create problems if heated discussions break out. I am concerned. I didn’t mean to change the subject to the community room, but when I watch television I have two requirements. I like to be able to see who is speaking and I like to be able to hear what they are saying. Tribal smoke signals would be every bit as clear.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — April 15, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
The light on the podium appears to be a yellow fluorescent under cabinet light that glares at the speaker which is hardly user friendly. Mike Kennedy had to sit in Ron Edinger’s empty seat last night to see the power point presentation. The screen should be located in front of the wall of fame which would enable all square footage in the room to easily view it. This is an example of inexcusably poor interior design. The odd thing is that Dixie Reid of Dixie’s Inside Connection, was on the council when this was approved.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 16, 2008 @ 7:53 am
I again noticed the horrible lighting and sound at the council meeting last night. I figured it would be fixed by now, after all, it’s been in use and these problems have been obvious, for over two months now.
The city council, and anyone at the podium, look like they are from “The Night of the Living Dead”.
Comment by mary — April 16, 2008 @ 8:48 am
Has anyone addressed this issue directly to the council in their presence, on TV, during a council meeting using the 5 minute comment period?
Comment by yabetcha — April 16, 2008 @ 9:00 am
They could easily pipe the overhead signal to the council desks, allowing them to see that same image on their computers. And there are lights in there. They turned one to focus it on the clerk, they could turn another to focus it on the guest speakers and staff. In fact, they could replace the bulbs with something more punchy and the lights would be fine. My guess is that the circuit was probably not built to handle anything other than standard household lighting, which limits the watts to 1800 — not enough for TV.
Comment by Dan — April 16, 2008 @ 9:04 am
This room was completed last fall. They have had months to work on the issue but have yet to complete the task. Knowing this, do not be surprised if it takes another six months to completion.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 17, 2008 @ 7:21 am
Susie,
Yes six months, but you forgot, $60,000 more tax money.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 17, 2008 @ 8:20 am
concerned citizen,
Could you please elaborate on the $60,000 more tax money? Is that money that has specifically been set aside to correct the design mistakes in the Library Community Room? If so, where did that $60K come from? If not, is someone at the Library (or the City) asking for $60K for the library with the intent to divert it to fix the designed-in audio and lighting problems in the Coeur d’Alene Public Library Community Room? Thanks.
Comment by Bill — April 17, 2008 @ 12:25 pm
Bill,
sorry it was just a smart — comment! It will however, cost to fix. That is all I was getting at.
Comment by concerned citizen — April 17, 2008 @ 12:33 pm