pf_02708 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I I I ,I. I I I I I I I I ,I. I I I I .. Stripping out the partial mid-level ceiling and the movable acoustic elements might save money, but would severely reduce the flexibility of the Worship Center. It would also require that the roof height be increased by roughly an additional 10 feet. We have considered several Worship Center roof shapes. For example, we analyzed putting more of the required volume in a large !ttower" or "cupola" at the center of the structure, or shifting that volume to the far east side of the Worship Center above the chancel area. Both shapes were rejected. Acoustically, they produced "hot" and !tdeadu spots around the room. They were much taller than even the proposed roof peak. They were also too expensive to construct. From the exterior, the former appeared distracting and the latter appeared visually unbalanced. Centering the upper volume, as it is laid out in RLC's schematic design, is the acoustically correct distribution of the required building volume. We have also reviewed the proposed roof angle, and conclude that reducing the angle does not provide sufficient volume, It also creates other acoustical problems relating to "hot" and "dead" spots. In our opinion, the nominal forty-foot building height RLC proposes is the absolute minimum necessary to provide appropriate acoustical properties for this church Worship Center. Requiring further reduction in height will result in tremendous degradation of the acoustics for church music. We have worked on many Church projects in the past that, for similar reasons, required height variances. In our experience, because height is essential to the success of a Church building's function, we do not know of any Church building that has been denied a reasonable height variance. Sincerely, ACOUSTIC DIMENSIONS D7i! J/- David W. Kahn Principal Consultant ~ cc: John Justus, HGA Roseville Lutheran Church - 3 - October 21, 1994