MGM Music Hall (née Fenway Theater) | 12 Lansdowne St | Fenway

I did a little searching because I was curious - it seems like the biggest theatre/performing arts venue in the city now is the Wang with 3,500, followed by the Orpheum with 2,700.
Symphony Hall is about the same size as the Orpheum -- and I think that it has much better support facilities than the Orpheum ever since the Cohen Wing was acquired and redeveloped
2,625 people
 
Symphony Hall is about the same size as the Orpheum -- and I think that it has much better support facilities than the Orpheum ever since the Cohen Wing was acquired and redeveloped
2,625 people
I believe the Blue Hills Pavilion is over 5,000 capacity too.
 
I'm glad we're getting this. It provides some hope for post-COVID times.

But damn, sort of a shame the theater interior is so generic... like the most boilerplate components possible in that rendering lol
 
I don't disagree, but I also wouldn't consider a theater's interior to be very important architecturally. You want to draw attention to the stage, not the area around it. And most music events are going to light everything but the stage to be too dark to see anyway.
 
I suppose so. Feels like an excuse though.

There's a rich history of beautiful theaters in the states, and a great example right here in Boston: (BSO)
BSO-Final-2.jpg


The art hasn't been lost either. There's still some beautiful modern spaces being built: (Alliance Theater in Atlanta)
coca-cola-stage-at-the-alliance-theatre-trahan-architects-interiors-atlanta-us_dezeen_2364_col_1.jpg


These are on the extreme end. Just a hint of design would have been okay.
 
But damn, sort of a shame the theater interior is so generic... like the most boilerplate components possible in that rendering lol
Visually, it certainly doesn't compare to the Wang Theater, Opera House, or Symphony Hall. But doesn't the enjoyment most come from elements designed to enhance the production, rather than the aesthetics of the space when the house lights are on? I mean, I don't disagree with your observation, just not sure it matters all that much to how we enjoy the performance in the final analysis.
 
Symphony Hall is about the same size as the Orpheum -- and I think that it has much better support facilities than the Orpheum ever since the Cohen Wing was acquired and redeveloped
2,625 people
CItizen Bank Opera House in that range as well about 2670.
 
I believe the Blue Hills Pavilion is over 5,000 capacity too.
Vivanna -- Yes --but while it has a roof its not an indoor space so the comparison is not really relevant

As an aside -- if you are calling it Blue Hills -- you might as well call it what it is now called Rockland Trust Bank Pavilion

It's probably had more names than any recent structure in Boston
just for the record from the Wikipedia


The Rockland Trust Bank Pavilion is an outdoor amphitheater located in Boston, Massachusetts. The venue originally opened August 1994 near Fan Pier. Due to land rights, the venue closed at the end of its season in 1998 and was relocated to its current location in South Boston, in 1999. The relocated amphitheater opened July 1999 and seats 5,200. The venue's season runs from May until September.

Name rights
  • Harborlights Pavilion was the original name. It was located at the site of the current US District Courthouse at Fan Pier. It was moved a few hundred yards down the street when the courthouse was built.[1]
  • Bank of Boston Pavilion.[2]
  • BankBoston Pavilion. When Bank of Boston and Baybank merged in 1996 to form BankBoston, the pavilion likewise changed its name to the BankBoston Pavilion.[3]
  • FleetBoston Pavilion. In 1999, Live Nation purchased the venue and sold the naming rights to FleetBoston Financial, renaming the venue FleetBoston Pavilion.[4]
  • Bank of America Pavilion. In 2004 FleetBoston merged with Bank of America and the pavilion was then renamed to Bank of America Pavilion.[5]
  • Blue Hills Bank Pavilion. Beginning January 1, 2014, Blue Hills Bank won the naming rights for the venue for a period of just under 10 years.[6]
  • Rockland Trust Bank Pavilion. Beginning February 4, 2019, following Rockland Trust Bank's acquisition of Blue Hills Bank.[7]
 
ok, quick little theater interior design history lesson from someone that does this kind of stuff for a living:

Historically theater interiors were big and grand not just to show wealth or style, but to heighten the senses of the audience before the production began. The idea was that to fully appreciate the opera or symphony or whatever you were seeing you needed your senses acclimated to a higher level of taste by an interior that was intricate and awe inspiring. You would spend the time before the production started visually investigating the way the crystal chandelier refracted light, discovering golden cherubs intertwined with plaster vines, and gazing on ceilings that replicated perfect skies. The belief was that this would make you enjoy the production more than a blank space. They used reds and golds quite often because while lush, beautiful, and rich, once the houselights were turned off the dark reds pulled back and the gold stopped shimmering letting you focus on the stage instead.
1612290627272.png

Palais Garnier, Paris

This notion of "heightening the senses" with the theater's interior transformed slightly with the advent of electric lights and modernism. Awe was no longer achieved through detail and sumptuousness, it was instead conveyed through grand shape, bold gesture, and technical prowess. The chandeliers rising before a show at Lincoln Center's Metropolitan Opera House, the imbedded lights and sweeping curves in Radio City Music Hall, the folding planes of the Sydney opera house interior. These shapes and details were also used to create spaces that imbued awe and wonder into patrons just in new, clean, modern ways, banishing the old stuffy ways modernism was all about getting rid of.
1612290766217.png

Radio City Music Hall, New York

The idea of a "black box" or "flexible stage" theaters came about in the 1920s or so for small, avant-garde theater in Germany. Slowly its ideas of stripping the space bare to allow for the performance to exist on its own bled into the design of larger proscenium style spaces. In my opinion, the peak of this stripping back of detail to let the work speak is the Olivier at the National Theatre. No longer worried about heightening the senses through gold molding or technical prowess, the architects instead tried to heighten the relationship of the audience to the stage. Playing with stage shapes, sightlines, acoustics, and the distance from the Point of Command on stage to each individual audience member. The awe from these spaces was no longer just visual but instead about how the audience members' body and senses related to the performance hall in full.
1612292383401.png

Olivier Theatre, National Theater, London

The renderings of the interior for this MGM Music hall are tragically dull. I can get not wanting the first or second type of design I've listed here, but for a theater that is going to be one of the gems, interims of size, in Boston theaters this is not at all what we should be designing its interior like. The flat proscenium and unadorned walls are saying "we want detail but cant be bothers with actually giving you it". The awe obviously does not come from relationships to the stage. Just looking at the rendering you can see how horrible the side seats will be, and there are people crammed on a flat floor under a low balcony that will be unable to see large parts of the stage. I think what thy are doing is trying to make the space as transformable as possible but by trying to make it ok for hosting a bunch of various things you are not giving it the opportunity to be great any any one. Give me something to look at before the show starts or a way to connect with the act on the stage beyond them just yelling "How's Boston doing tonight!" I'd suggest some interesting acoustic baffling, a better design for that proscenium, an intricate main curtain, or a grand central lighting fixture/speaker array. Something that can give the room a sense of place and something to talk about while waiting for the band to start.

TL;DR We design theater interiors nicely so that you feel connected to the performance. MGM Music hall is not doing that.
EDIT: grammar
 
Last edited:
ok, quick little theater interior design history lesson from someone that does this kind of stuff for a living:

Historically theater interiors were big and grand not just to show wealth or style, but to heighten the senses of the audience before the production began. The idea was that to full appreciate the opera or symphony or whatever you were seeing you needed your senses acclimated to a higher level of taste by an interior that intricate and awe inspiring. You would spend the time before the production started visually investigating the way the crystal chandelier refracted light and discovering golden cherubs intertwined with plaster vines and ceiling that replicated perfect skies. The belief was that this would make you enjoy the production more than a blank space. They used reds and golds quite often because while lush, beautiful, and rich, once the houselights were turned off the dark reds pulled back and the gold stopped shimmering letting you focus on the stage instead.
View attachment 10081
Palais Garnier, Paris

This notion of "heightening the senses" with the theater's interior transformed slightly with the advent of electric lights and modernism. Awe was no longer achieved through detail and sumptuousness, it was instead conveyed through grand shape, bold gesture, and technical prowess. The chandeliers rising before a show at Lincoln Center's Metropolitan Opera House, the imbedded lights and sweeping curves in Radio City Music Hall, The folding planes of the Sydney opera house interior. These shapes and details were also used to create spaces that imbued awe and wonder into patrons just in new, clean, modern ways, banishing the old stuffy ways modernism was all about getting rid of.
View attachment 10082
Radio City Music Hall, New York

The idea of a "black box" or "flexible stage" theaters came about in the 1920s or so for small, avant-garde theater in Germany. Slowly its ideas of stripping the space bare to allow for the performance to exist on its own bled into the design of larger proscenium style spaces. In my opinion, the peak of this stripping back of detail to let the work speak is the Olivier at the National Theatre. No longer worried about heightening the senses through gold molding or technical prowess, the architects instead tried to heighten the relationship of the audience to the stage. Playing with stage shapes, sightlines, acoustics, and the distance from the Point of Command on stage to each individual audience member. The awe from these spaces was no longer just visual but instead about how the audience members' body and senses related to the performance hall in full.
View attachment 10084
Olivier Theatre, National Theater, London

The renderings of the interior for this MGM Music hall are tragically dull. I can get not wanting the first or second type of design I've listed here, but for a theater that is going to be one of the gems interims of size in Boston theaters this is not at all what we should be designing its interior like. The flat proscenium and unadorned walls are saying "we want detail but cant be bothers with actually giving you it". The awe obviously does not come from relationships to the stage, as just looking at the rendering you can see how horrible the side seats will be near the stage and the people crammed on a flat floor under a low balcony that will be unable to see large parts of the stage. I think what thy are doing is trying to make the space as transformable as possible but by trying to make it ok for hosting a bunch of various things you are not giving it the opportunity to be great any any one. Give me something to look at before the show starts or a way to connect with the act on the stage beyond them just yelling "How's Boston doing tonight!" I'd suggest some interesting acoustic baffling, a better design for that proscenium, an intricate main curtain, or a grand central lighting fixture/speaker array. Something that can give the room a sense of place and something to talk about while waiting for the band to start.

TL;DR We design theater interiors nicely so that you feel connected to the performance. MGM Music hall is not doing that.

Amazing post. I love the wealth of knowledge we have here at aB.
 
I echo George's kudos to @found5dollar 's post. Is there a chance we're not seeing the finalized interior design yet? I could imagine a design process where the constraints are fleshed out first and an interior/theater design specialist has further work to do?
 
I echo George's kudos to @found5dollar 's post. Is there a chance we're not seeing the finalized interior design yet? I could imagine a design process where the constraints are fleshed out first and an interior/theater design specialist has further work to do?
Thank you for the kind words about my post!
If they are releasing images of the interior and raising steel onsite I am pretty sure that there is no other large work to be done design-wise. There may be some superficial changes but what we are seeing is like what we are getting.
 
I thought I remember reading that MGM backed out of this project? Did I imagine that?
 
Yea no link was ever provided and no announcement ever hit the internet in the ensuing days, so it was just a rumor that was never corroborated.
 

I know some of you are complaining about this theater's overall lack of beauty, but one thing this theater seems to have (I think) is the ability to move the seats in the concourse area. There are a lot of touring acts that are better with no assigned seats and open dancing/moshing in the front, while the old fogies like me sit in the balcony.
 
Going back a page, MGM was only a name sponsor, so seeing as the construction loan has been pulled, even if they did pull their name from the project, it didn't have much of an impact on the current financial operations/construction progress.
 
Going back a page, MGM was only a name sponsor, so seeing as the construction loan has been pulled, even if they did pull their name from the project, it didn't have much of an impact on the current financial operations/construction progress.

But the tweet shared by kingofsheeba still has the MGM name on it. Could be that bldup is out of the loop, but...
 

Back
Top