A New Shell for the Bowl Delayed Until at Least ’04

Last summer, representatives of Hollywood Bowl and its main tenant, the Los Angeles Philharmonic Assn., grudgingly acknowledged that an ongoing legal battle with local preservationists would delay plans to replace the 73-year-old trademark white orchestra shell with an acoustically superior shell. The new and improved Bowl, they said, would be forced to postpone its opening from July 2002 to July 2003.

Make that 2004--at least.

The latest move in the shell game took place on Thursday, when both sides argued their case in the state Court of Appeal. But regardless of the appellate court ruling--a decision from the justices could take up to 90 days--delays caused by the legal process mean it’s already too late to ramp up to begin construction on the new orchestra shell in time for the 2003 Bowl season.

“There’s a long lead time in ordering of items, and there is off-site construction required--and then you have to take down the old shell,” said Patricia Mitchell, chief executive officer of the Los Angeles Philharmonic Assn. “There wouldn’t be time to get all that done before the 2003 season.” Mitchell said that construction would have to begin right after the Bowl summer season ends in late September for a new shell to be in place for 2003.

Architect Craig Hodgetts, whose Culver City firm Hodgetts & Fung Design Associates designed the new shell, agreed. The new structure will require 482 tons of steel. And, as was the case last year, the steel would have to be ordered now--preferably several months ago--to begin construction after the Bowl season. Such a step will not be taken while the matter remains tied up in the courts.

“Bringing something back is always an effort,” Hodgetts said. “There’s certain time and energy that has to go into getting it back up to speed.”

In April 2001, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a request by preservationist Robert Nudelman, president of Hollywood Heritage, and another preservationist group, Friends of the Santa Monica Mountains Parks and Seashore, to halt construction on the shell. The plaintiffs filed an appeal.

Arguments presented in court Thursday were a virtual reprise of last year’s conflict. Attorneys representing Los Angeles County, which owns the Bowl, and the Philharmonic maintained that the white shell is deteriorating, is too small and does not provide proper orchestral acoustics, leaving orchestra members unable to hear each other. A full orchestra cannot fit under the dome, they argued, leaving players and their expensive instruments vulnerable to sun and rain.

Officials have said they exhausted all possible options for preserving the existing shell before reaching the conclusion that the structure had to be scrapped.

Meanwhile, Lawrence Teeter, attorney for Nudelman and the others, argued that replacing the old shell rather than figuring out a way to renovate it is like “preserving the Statue of Liberty by destroying it and putting up new statue with a torch and a book.” He argued that history can be preserved and acoustics improved at the same time, if the builders adopt what the preservationists call their “maximum shell conservation alternative,” which calls for adding two more outer “rings” to the Bowl shell.

Teeter also reiterated a scenario repeatedly denied by the Philharmonic and Los Angeles County: that the parties want to create a bigger shell not to serve the orchestra, but to expand the Bowl’s capability to present rock concerts and other pop events.

The Philharmonic’s Mitchell said delays could possibly drive up shell construction costs. “There is an assumed escalation in cost, and now it will have been delayed for two full years,” she said. “On the other hand, when we put it back out to bid to the subcontractors in an economic and construction climate that is different, we might get some relief from that escalation. You don’t know until you do it.”

Shell construction will be paid for with $18 million in county funding approved by voters specifically for that use and for making other stage improvements. Mitchell said the Philharmonic remains confident that the funds will be sufficient to cover construction costs, even with possible increases due to delays.

Helen Parker, the attorney representing Los Angeles County, said during court arguments that Bowl watchers should take note that the current troubled state of Los Angeles County finances should not affect plans to go forward with the project. “The voters approved the funds,” she said. “We can’t use it for our health or probation systems, much as we might like to.”

After the appellate court rules on the matter, the dissatisfied party has the option of seeking a California Supreme Court review of the matter. James Arnone, attorney for the Philharmonic, calls it “inconceivable” that the appellate court will rule in favor of Nudelman and the other plaintiffs. But, he said, if that happens, the Philharmonic will accept the decision rather than attempting to take the matter to the higher court.

Teeter, however, says he and his clients are unwilling to accept a ruling that calls for destruction of the shell. “We are going to the Supreme Court, without fail,” he said.