City of Dallas...City of Dallas Asian American Cultural Center AACC 0. Executive Summary 2 Report...

City of DallasAsian American Cultural Center AACC

Master Plan Study

March 30, 2010

City of DallasAsian American Cultural Center AACCTable of Contents

Executive Summary

Guiding StatementAcknowledgementsReport Summary

Process OverviewDemographicsPublic ParticipationProgram of RequirementsU ili i & Fi i l A l i

0.10.10.2

Utilization & Financial Analysis Case Studies

Section 1 -- Process Overview

Background and HistoryGoals for the FacilityScope of Work

1.11.11 1Scope of Work

ScheduleReview and Approvals by the City Project Team

Section 2 – Demographics

Existing Population and Demographic FactorsT l P l i b R

1.11.11.11.2

2.1Total Population by RaceAsian Population by Ethnic GroupAsian Population Density by Zip CodePopulation by AgeEnrollment for AsiansPopulation by Educational AttainmentAsian Population by Origin of BirthPopulation by Household Income DistributionPopulation by Household Income DistributionAsian Population by Occupation

Historic Trends in Population and Demographic CharacteristicsAsian Population Growth 1990 - 2007Asian Population Income Distribution 1990 - 2007Asian Population by Origin of Birth 2000 – 2007

Summary and Implications

S i 3 P bli P i i i

2.9

2.11

Section 3 -- Public Participation

Qualitative Analysis: ProcessDevelopment of Master List Steering Committee Selection Town Hall Meetings Focus Groups / Community Work SessionsArts Advisory Group

3.1

Arts Advisory Group Interviews

Quantitative Analysis: Graphic and Tabular Data Summary of ParticipationList of Participants and Attendees

3.4

i

City of DallasAsian American Cultural Center AACCTable of Contents

Section 4 -- Program of Requirements

Functional Relationship DiagramProgram of RequirementsBuilding Massing ImagesHypothetical Site PlansBuilding and Site Selection Criteria

Guiding StatementSite Goals from Community Focus GroupsSi L i C i i

4.14.24.34.64.7

Site Location CriteriaProgram Site RecommendationsLocation Pursuit ApproachAcquisition Efforts

Site Selection Checklist

Section 5 – Utilization and Financial Analysis

4.9

MethodologyIndicators of Demand from Public Participation ProcessRecommended Physical ProgramEstimated Operating BudgetEarned Income Projections

Earned Income and Possible UtilizationOperating AssumptionsP ibl P i & U ili i

5.15.25.35.35.5

Possible Programming & UtilizationFundraising Approaches and Next StepsConstruction Cost AssumptionsConstruction Cost

Section 6 -- Case Studies

Overview of Selected Case Studies

5.75.95.11

6 1Overview of Selected Case StudiesAsian Pacific Cultural Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota [Proposed] Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center/ SOMArts Cultural Center,

San Francisco, CaliforniaChinese Culture Center, San Francisco, California Oakland Asian Cultural Center, Oakland, CaliforniaWing Luke Asian Museum, Seattle, WashingtonCharles W. Eisemann Center, Richardson, TexasD i C f h A B ld C l d

6.16.26.5

6.86.116.136.176 26Dairy Center for the Arts, Boulder, Colorado

Fort Worth Community Arts Center, Fort Worth, TexasThe Irving Arts Center, Irving, TexasLatino Cultural Center, Dallas, TexasSammons Center for the Performing Arts, Dallas, TexasSummary of Key Lessons Learned and Implications

6.266.316.386.466.526.58

ii


Executive Summary


0.

Executive Summary

1

Guiding Statement

“The Dallas Asian American Cultural Center Master Plan was developed with the underlying vision of a facility that will serve as a regional arts center that offers a variety of arts programs that celebrate and promote all Asian Cultures. The center will serve as a gathering place for North Texas’ Asian communities to celebrate their artistic heritage and for the community at-large to learn and be inspired by the multiple artistic expressions of Asian and Asian America Cultures. The center will also serve as an integral component of the City of Dallas’ cultural facilities infrastructure, joining our other facilities such as the Latino Cultural Center and the South Dallas Cultural Center, to provide performance and exhibition space for the benefit of the public."

Acknowledgements

The Dallas Asian American Cultural Center Master Plan Study Report is a publication of the City of Dallas, led by the Office of Cultural Affairs and the Public Works and Transportation Department.

The City of Dallas would like to thank the following individuals for their contribution to this project:• Mary K. Suhm, City Manager• Forest E. Turner, Assistant City Manager• Jill A. Jordan, P.E. , Assistant City Manager• Maria Muñoz-Blanco, Director, Office of Cultural Affairs• Greg MacPherson, Coordinator, Office of Cultural Affairs• Ricardo Galceran, P. E. , Director, Public Works and Transportation• Errick Thompson, P. E. , Assistant Director, Public Works and Transportation• David Treviño, A.I.A., Sr. Program Manager, Facilities Planning and Construction Division,

Public Works and Transportation• Robert Van Buren, A.I.A., Project Manager, Facilities Planning and Construction Division,

Public Works and Transportation

In addition, the City of Dallas would like to thank the following organizations and individuals for their contributions to this project:

• Asian American Cultural Center Steering Committee• Arts Advisory Group • All the individuals who participated in the many Town Hall meetings and Focus Groups

This report, and the analytical work to develop the concepts for the Asian American Cultural Center, was prepared by:

• Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum (HOK)• Sustainable Places, Sustainable Organizations• Economics Research Associates (ERA)• McAfee3 Architects• Project Cost Resources• MS Dallas Reprographics

For more information about the Dallas Asian American Cultural Center project, please visit the Office of Cultural Affairs website:

http://www.dallasculture.org/


0.

Executive Summary

2

Report Summary

Section 1 -- Process OverviewThe purpose of this Master Plan Study, funded through the City of Dallas 2006 Bond Program, was to develop a Cultural Needs Assessment, Program of Requirements, and Site Selection Criteria for an Asian American Cultural Center in the City of Dallas.

The vision for the Center is to serve as a regional arts center that offers a variety of arts programsthat celebrate and promote all Asian Cultures. The center will serve as a gathering place to showcase Asian artistic heritage and will be an integral component of the City of Dallas’ cultural facilities which provide performance and exhibition space for the benefit of the public.

The Master Plan has three major components:• A Cultural Needs Assessment to create a clear picture of current arts and cultural activities

within the Asian American Community in Dallas,• A building Program of Requirements which defines the required spaces in size and function

to meet the cultural needs as identified in the needs assessment phase, and• Site Selection Criteria for evaluation of candidate sites, including land and possibly

buildings.

Section 2 – DemographicsA demographic analysis summarized the characteristics of the Asian American population in the City of Dallas and in the Dallas-Ft. Worth-Arlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). It reviewed population and census data on recent history, current status, and future trends. Several patterns were understood:

• Over 300,000 people in the MSA have Asian heritage; approximately 5 % of the total population,

• 30,000 people of Asian heritage live in the City of Dallas,• The Asian population is very diverse; the largest populations are Indian, Vietnamese,

Chinese, and Korean,• The areas with the highest Asian geographic density are suburban cities North of Dallas and

in the Mid-Cities – Plano, Richardson, Carrollton, Coppell, Arlington and Irving, • Asian Americans have higher-than-average educational attainment, income levels, and

percentage of young professionals, all of which correlate highly with attendance at cultural facilities, and

• The Asian population has grown at over 7% per year over the past decade.

Section 3 -- Public ParticipationAn integral part of the development of the Master Plan was extensive participation by the community, especially representatives of the Asian population. Two major committees provided leadership: the Asian American Cultural Center Steering Committee and the Arts Advisory Group. More than 30 meetings were held to engage the public and understand their needs and requirements: meetings of both committees, Town Hall meetings and Focus Groups, and individual interviews and discussions.

Highlights of the extent of the public outreach are:• Over 350 individuals and organizations contacted,• Approximately 160 different people contributed to the process, and• Almost 300 participants have attended the various meetings.


0.

Executive Summary

3

Important conclusions from the Public Participation process were that a future Asian American Cultural Center should:

• Be centrally located and easily accessible to both the Asian community and the general public,

• Accommodate at least 500 persons,• Provide a theater for performances,• Provide gallery space for art exhibits,• Provide classroom space for different educational curricula, and• Provide physical flexibility to allow a variety of cultural events, in different settings, with

different programs.

Section 4 -- Program of RequirementsThe Program of Requirements was developed through several iterations of analysis, including all the above variables for programs and events, organization and staffing, and operating and capital budget requirements.

The building would be approximately 44,000 gross square feet, and major elements include:• A 500 seat theater, with sloped floor and fixed seating, and full stage / back stage /

projection / support spaces,• Lobby and Cultural Events flexible area,• 2 Exhibit Galleries,• 2 Studio / Rehearsal spaces,• 3 Multi-purpose Classrooms, and • Office and Operations support spaces.

The required site would be approximately 10 acres, and would include:• Entrance Plaza / Courtyard,• Interior Courtyard,• Outdoor Performance Area,• 300 parking spaces for autos and buses, and• 35% open space and landscaped areas.

Parking is the primary determinant of the acreage requirement, which could be reduced if the site selected is in close proximity to mass transit.

General concepts have been developed to indicate how the building spatial elements could be combined. The purpose of this exercise in the Master Planning stage is to support the feasibility test of accommodating the programs and events within the estimated budget and a possible site. It is not intended to demonstrate an actual design of a building on a specific site.


0.

Executive Summary

4

Building Massing Diagram -- Dallas Asian American Cultural Center

Finally, a set of Site Selection Criteria are included in the document to support the next steps in searching for a possible site. We recommend an initial step of surveying 15 to 20 candidate sites by a real estate professional, followed by a narrowing of the list to realistic, feasible possibilities. In the second step, a site selection decision-making team would visit those 5 to 10 feasible sites and prioritize the options based on physical and financial feasibility of success. The final decision on a site would be made by the project leadership group and appropriate public officials.

Section 5 – Utilization & Financial AnalysisThe Financial Feasibility Analysis addresses operating costs, earned income potential, and utilization. Factors which contribute to the financial operation include: programs, size and types of spaces, and community and organization characteristics.

The Study indicated a significant demand for the types of programs and events which a Dallas Asian American Cultural Center could house. Actual program demand will depend on the final solution and types of spaces provided at the facility. This demand drives the number, types and sizes of the spaces included in the Program of Requirements.

Key spaces to generating revenue include: theater, lobby / cultural events area, exhibit areas / galleries, studios / workshops, classrooms, and a conference room. The total anticipated building area required for these spaces and support is approximately 44,000 gross square feet.

The estimated Operating Budget to support these programs is approximately $1 million annually, and includes salaries, building utilities and maintenance costs, programs and marketing. The estimate anticipates that $250,000 could be generated in Earned Income from events, rentals and memberships. This results in a balance of $750,000 in Required Contributed Income from sponsorship, grants, donations, or public funding.


0.

Executive Summary

5

The estimated Capital Budget, based on construction analysis for this project and comparison with the City's historical experience on the Latino Cultural Center, is approximately $500 per gross square foot. This is based on new construction in 2010 dollars, with a 15% design contingency. It does not include cost escalation to the time when construction would actually start, contingency for site and construction, design fees or other soft costs. These could be an additional 15%, or an additional $75 per gross square foot.

Based on a 44,000 gross square foot facility, the Capital Budget could range from $22 to $26 million, not including land acquisition.

For the Capital Budget for land acquisition and preparation, the City of Dallas' policy is 75% maximum Public contribution and 25% minimum Private sector contribution. When a site is selected, a separate capital budget and percentage allocation will be required.

For design and construction, the City's policy for funding is 60% maximum Public contribution and 40% minimum Private sector contribution. Specific levels of City funding would be determined at a later time and would be defined by an agreement with the private fundraising entity and the City.

For both the Operating and Capital fundraising requirements, optional approaches include:• A City-owned and operated facility,• A City-owned facility operated through a management agreement with a to-be-

organized,501(c)(3), not-for-profit community organization, and• A community-owned and –operated facility.

In all cases, the private sector must provide leadership and be actively involved in the execution of a well-planned and organized fundraising campaign.

Section 6 – Case StudiesAn important part of the Master Plan Study was to understand the state-of-the-art at other Asian cultural centers around the country, as well as the types of cultural programs and facilities available at other cultural centers in the Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex. Eleven major facilities were analyzed and summarized in this document, in addition to review of many other facilities for benchmarking and best practices. The analysis included study of the programs, history, attendance, operations, financial performance and income generation.

Highlights of the lessons-learned from the Case Studies include:

Programs• A center should accommodate a wide range of events, performances, exhibits, classes,

workshops, and festivals,• Some centers serve a particular market niche rather than having a broad market appeal,• Resident performing groups, art collections, and educational curricula must be carefully

considered for their unique requirements, and• Programs, exhibits and events locally produced or generated by a center are strong

contributors to fundraising.


0.

Executive Summary

6

Fundraising• Operating and capital fundraising budgets must be clearly defined at the outset,• A large number of diverse and separate contribution sources encourages fundraising,• The capital campaign should include the creation of an endowment for operations,• Synergy among various programs and events is key to the financial success of the whole

center, and• Rental income can significantly supplement the ongoing operations of a center.

Management• Public and private community leadership and cooperation is a must,• Management structure, operations, and policies are determinants of programs' success, and• Hiring knowledgeable and experienced staff is critical.

Facilities• Site selection is critical,• Physical flexibility is needed within the spaces to hold different types of events, sometimes

simultaneously,• Ground floor spaces with street access are preferred; multiple levels may be a constraint,• Reuse and adaptation of existing buildings has an opportunity for cost savings, but may

pose limitations on programs, and• Options for expansion and growth must be considered initially to avoid long-term

obsolescence.


Process Overview Section 1


1.

Process Overview

Background and History

For many years, the Asian American community has discussed for an Asian American Cultural Center in the city of Dallas. In November 2006, Dallas voters approved a Bond Program that included funds for an Asian Cultural Center Master Plan Study. The purpose of this study was to develop a cultural needs assessment and master plan for an Asian American Cultural Center in the Dallas area.

Goals for the Facility

The vision for the Asian American Cultural Center as set forth by the City of Dallas is a facility that will serve as a regional arts center that offers a variety of arts programs that celebrate and promote all Asian and Asian American Cultures. The center will serve as a gathering place for North Texas’ Asian communities to celebrate their artistic heritage and for the community at-large to learn and be inspired by the multiple artistic expressions of Asian Cultures. The center will also serve as an integral component of the City of Dallas’ cultural facilities infrastructure, joining our other facilities such as the Latino Cultural Center and the South Dallas Cultural Center, to provide performance and exhibition space for the benefit of the public.

Scope of Work

The Scope of Work for the Master Plan project consisted of the development of a broad Development Plan to craft a master plan and program to guide in the City’s effort to develop an Asian American Cultural Center within the City of Dallas proper. There were three major phases:

• A Cultural Needs Assessment to create a clear picture of current arts and cultural activities within the Asian American Community in Dallas,

• A building Program of Requirements to identify the required space in size and function to meet the cultural needs as identified in the need assessment phase, and

• Development of Site Selection criteria to evaluate candidate sites. which included definition of prototypical site selection parameters that correspond to the spatial needs requirements.

During these three phases, the Project Team facilitated community engagement and leadership ,with guidance by the City of Dallas. The Team identified leaders in the Asian community to engage for participation in various community outreach, which included establishing and meeting with a Steering Committee, Focus Groups, and participation in Town Hall Meetings.

Schedule

The goal for the project schedule was to determine a rough order of magnitude cost for a proposed facility prior to the next City of Dallas Bond cycle. The Master Plan Study project was initiated in January of 2009.

Review and Approvals by the City

The project team worked closely with Office of Cultural Affairs (OCA) and City of Dallas Department of Public Works & Transportation (PWT) on all aspects of the project. An initial meeting was held with City staff in January 2009 at which a schedule and strategies were approved. Periodic meetings were held in person and by conference call during which the schedule and strategies were refined based on City staff guidance. City staff reviewed and approved the lists of participants proposed by the project team, and reviewed and commented on all drafts of documents.

1


1.

Process Overview

Project Team:

Office of Cultural AffairsRole: “Client department” responsible for all City cultural facilities and oversight of the City’s cultural systemKey staff: Maria Muñoz-Blanco, Director of Cultural Affairs; Kristina Elizondo, Cultural Programs Manager, (through August 2009) , Greg Macpherson, Cultural Programs Coordinator

Public Works & Transportation DepartmentRole: Oversees capital projects for the City of Dallas and is in charge of Contract managementKey staff: Robert Van Buren, Project Manager, Errick Thompson, Assistant Director, David Treviño, Sr. Program Manager

HOK Role: Primary consultant responsible for delivering: Program of Requirements, Feasibility Analysis, Site Criteria and Master Plan StudyKey Staff: Nestor Infanzon, Principal In Charge; Andie Moeder, Programming Lead; Tim Barry, Feasibility Study; Isilay Civan, Programming and Research; Mark Bowers, Site Planning; Farzine Hakimi, Site Planning, Lars Erickson, Site Planning

Sustainable Places, Sustainable OrganizationsRole: Public communications and Community InvolvementKey Staff: Catherine Horsey, Public Relations Consultant

Economic Research AssociatesRole: Responsible for demographic and funding studies Key Staff: William Lee, Principal In Charge; Linda Cheu, Project Manager

McAfee 3 ArchitectsRole: Assist with Site Criteria and Master PlanKey Staff: Charyl McAfee-Duncan

Project Cost ResourcesRole: Construction BudgetingKey Staff: Belinda Williams

MS Dallas ReproductionsRole: Printing and DocumentationKey Staff: David Schroeder

2


Demographics Section 2


2.

Demographics

Demographics of Asian and Pacific Islander Population

In this section, ERA summarizes research related to the demographics of the Asian and Pacific Islander (API) population in the Dallas region, including population and population growth, ethnic composition, key demographics such as age, gender, education, income, and occupation, and geographic distribution of the population. We first review the existing characteristics of the population and then follow with an examination of changes in the past 10 years. We conclude with a map showing an overlay of the DART system with the geographic distribution of the API population.

Existing Population and Demographic Factors

Below we have summarized key findings related to the current size and demographics of the Dallas API population.

Population Trends: Size, Growth, Composition & Geographic DistributionThe size of the API population was over 32,000 in Dallas and nearly 290,000 in the MSA in 2007. Approximately 10 percent of the total API population in the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) is within Dallas city limits (see Table 1). The API population comprised 2.6 percent of the Dallas population and 4.8 percent of the Dallas MSA in 2007 (see Figure 1).

Table 1: Total Population by Race, 2007

Number % Number %

White alone 699,800 56.4% 4,265,800 71.3%

Black or African American alone 287,700 23.2% 864,200 14.5%

Some other race alone 199,400 16.1% 577,400 9.7%

Asian alone 32,300 2.6% 289,900 4.8%

Two or more races 14,100 1.1% 112,500 1.9%

American Indian and Alaska Native alone 6,100 0.5% 29,800 0.5%

Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone 700 0.1% 5,000 0.1%

Total 1,240,044 100% 5,979,200 100%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

Dallas MSA

1


2.

Demographics

Dallas10%

MSA 90%

2

Dallas1% Dallas

Total MSA% MSA

TotalAsian Indian 6,958 24% 86,427 30%Vietnamese 6,689 23% 68,144 24%Chinese 5,620 19% 43,452 15%Korean 2,712 9% 24,178 8%Filipino 2,019 7% 19,119 7%Thai 1,101 4% 4,833 2%Laotian 942 3% 5,125 2%Cambodian 846 3% 4,833 2%Japanese 798 3% 6,296 2%Other Asian 713 2% 7,440 3%

Other Asian, not specified 509 2% 2,868 1%Pakistani 443 1% 10,900 4%Taiwanese 257 1% 2,284 1%Bangladeshi 132 0% 1,997 1%Sri Lankan 59 0% 819 0%Indonesian 56 0% 1,047 0%Malaysian 10 0% 1,521 1%Hmong 0 0% 852 0%

Total 29,607 100% 289,851 100%

Note: Slight variation in data due to 1 year and 3 year estimates for Dallas API Population

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

1: Dallas reflects 3-year survey data, 2007 N/A

API alone, 2.6%

Total, 100%

API alone, 4.8%

Total, 100%

Figure 1: Proportion of MSA Asian Population in Dallas

Figure 3: Proportion of Dallas Population that is Asian

Figure 2: Proportion of MSA Population that is Asian

The largest API ethnic groups in both Dallas and the broader MSA are Asian Indian (24 and 30 percent), Vietnamese (23 and 24 percent), Chinese (19 and 15 percent), and Korean (9 and 8 percent). The remaining 34 percent in Dallas and 31 percent in the MSA include Filipino, Thai, Laotian, Cambodian, Japanese, and other Asian ethnic groups (see Table 2).

Table 2: API Population by Ethnic Group, 2007


2.

Demographics

Figure 4: Dallas Asian Population Breakout

Figure 5: MSA Asian Population Breakout

3

Asian Indian, 24%

Vietnamese, 23%

Chinese, 19%

Korean, 9%

Filipino, 7%

Thai, 4%

Laotian, 3%

Cambodian, 3%

Japanese, 3%Other API, 6%

Asian Indian, 30%

Vietnamese, 24%Chinese, 15%

Korean, 8%

Other API, 8%

Filipino, 7%

Pakistani, 4%

Japanese, 2%

Laotian, 2% Thai, 2%Cambodian, 2%


2.

Demographics

The API population is somewhat dispersed throughout the MSA. Overall, there are 10 zip codes in the MSA in which the API population is more than 10 percent of the population (see Table 3).

Table 3: 2008 MSA API Population Density (> 10%) by Zip Code, 2008

Demographics: Age, Gender & EducationThe Dallas API population has a significantly lower percentage of people under 18 years of age compared to the overall Dallas population. The percentage under 18 years of age in the API population is also slightly lower in the MSA. This indicates a lower percentage of API families in Dallas compared to the general population. There is a corresponding increased percentage of people between 25 to 44 years of age (particularly in the 25 to 34 range) in both Dallas and the MSA, which as further occupation data will show, suggests a substantial young professional demographic (see Table 4).

Zip CityTotal

PopulationAsian

Population % Asian 75082 Richardson 20,400 4,900 24%75024 Plano 31,100 7,100 23%75063 Irving 30,400 6,500 21%75025 Plano 55,900 11,600 21%75252 Dallas 24,100 4,600 19%75081 Richardson 34,600 6,100 18%76155 Fort Worth 2,600 500 19%75039 Irving 6,700 1,100 16%75038 Irving 27,600 4,600 17%75044 Garland 40,600 6,500 16%75010 Carrollton 20,200 3,200 16%75093 Plano 54,200 8,600 16%75007 Carrollton 57,400 9,100 16%75042 Garland 38,900 5,700 15%76014 Arlington 33,500 4,400 13%75094 Plano 15,200 1,900 13%75075 Plano 38,200 4,700 12%75019 Coppell 39,600 4,700 12%75023 Plano 49,200 5,800 12%75243 Dallas 60,100 6,900 11%76018 Arlington 27,600 3,200 12%75006 Carrollton 49,000 5,100 10%75287 Dallas 50,100 5,000 10%76039 Euless 32,900 3,300 10%Source: ESRI, ERA

4


2.

Demographics

Table 4: Population by Age, 2007

In Dallas, the API population comprises about 2 percent of the total school enrollment, while in the MSA, the API population is 5 percent of total enrollment (see Table 5). These statistics, combined with the demographic data related to age, indicate that there are fewer API families with children than in the general population, and API families have a tendency to live in the suburbs at greater rates than the general population.

Table 5: Enrollment for API Population, 2007

Dallas MSAAsian Population Enrollment 7,199 87,160

Total Population Enrollment 305,344 1,664,852

% Asian 2% 5%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

Dallas MSAEnrolled in nursery school, kindergarten 791 11,196Enrolled in grade 1 to grade 8 2,324 32,002Enrolled in grade 9 to grade 12 667 13,948Enrolled in college or graduate school 3,417 30,014

Total Enrolled in School 7,199 87,160Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

5

API Total API Total

Under 5 years 7% 9% 9% 8%

5 to 17 years 13% 18% 18% 20%

18 to 24 years 9% 10% 8% 9%

25 to 34 years 25% 18% 20% 16%

35 to 44 years 19% 16% 20% 16%

45 to 54 years 13% 13% 13% 14%

55 to 64 years 8% 8% 8% 9%

65 to 74 years 5% 4% 4% 5%

75 years and over 2% 4% 2% 4%

Median Age 34.3 31.9 33.5 33.3Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American

Dallas MSA


2.

Demographics

Asian Population

Total Population

Asian Population

Total Population

Less than 9th grade 4% 15% 5% 9%9th to 12th grade, no diploma 7% 15% 6% 10%High school graduate (includes equivalency) 20% 22% 17% 24%Some college, no degree 5% 16% 11% 21%Associate's degree 4% 5% 6% 6%Bachelor's degree 30% 18% 31% 21%Graduate degree 30% 9% 24% 9%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

Dallas MSA

6

50%50%

49%

51%

45%

47%

49%

51%

53%

Male Female Male Female

Dallas MSA

In Dallas and the MSA, a slightly higher percentage of the population is female than male, although the population is roughly split evenly between female and male (see Figure 6). The breakdown by gender is fairly proportional to that of the general Dallas and MSA population.

Figure 6: Asian Gender by Market Area

Education levels are significantly higher for the API population in both regions, with the percentage of individuals receiving a Bachelor or Graduate degree more than double that of the entire population. Sixty percent of the API population in Dallas and 55 percent in the MSA have a Bachelor or Graduate degree, compared to 27 and 30 percent for the population as a whole (see Table 6).

Table 6: Population (+25 years) by Educational Attainment, 2007

The majority of the Dallas API population is foreign born, with 77 percent in Dallas and 70 percent in the MSA born outside the United States. Approximately 80 percent of the U.S. born Dallas API population and close to 70 percent of the U.S. born API population in the MSA were born in Texas (see Table 7).


2.

Demographics

Table 7: API Population by Origin of Birth, 2007

The average household size for the API population is 2.47 in Dallas and smaller than the overall population (2.65 persons). In the MSA, however the average household size for the API population is 3.14 and higher than the general population average household size of 2.84 persons.

Income and OccupationIncome levels in the Asian population are higher than the population as a whole in both markets, with fewer households in low income categories than the total population and more households in high income categories as compared to the total population. The median household income for the API community in Dallas is $51,000, compared to approximately $41,000 for the general population. In the MSA, the API average income level is $65,000 compared to $55,000 for the population at large (see Table 8).

Table 8: Population by Household Income Distribution, 2007

Per capita income for the API population in Dallas is also higher than the average for the entire population at $35,000 compared to $26,000. However, for the MSA, the per capita income is almost the same, at $27,300 for the APIs and $27,600 overall. This is likely due to higher household sizes in the API population outside of Dallas.

Dallas MSABorn in Texas 18.0% 20.5%Born in other states in the United States 4.4% 8.1%Native; born outside the United States 0.3% 1.7%Foreign born 77.2% 69.7%

Total 32,300 289,900Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

7

API Total API Total

Less than $10,000 10% 9% 6% 6%

$10,000 to $14,999 4% 6% 2% 4%

$15,000 to $24,999 6% 14% 10% 10%

$25,000 to $34,999 11% 13% 8% 11%

$35,000 to $49,999 18% 16% 12% 15%

$50,000 to $74,999 13% 16% 20% 19%

$75,000 to $99,999 12% 9% 15% 13%

$100,000 to $149,999 18% 8% 16% 13%

$150,000 to $199,999 2% 3% 6% 5%

$200,000 or more 6% 5% 6% 5%

Median $51,000 $40,986 $65,000 $54,730Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

Dallas MSA


2.

Demographics

The greatest percentage of Asians in both Dallas and the MSA work in the management/professional sector (52 and 51 percent respectively), computer/mathematical, business/management, architecture/engineering, or healthcare fields (Table 9). This is significantly higher than the overall population, of which 30 percent in Dallas and 35 percent in the MSA work in this sector.

Table 9: Population by Occupation, 2007

Figure 7: Dallas: API Population in Management, Professional, and Related Occupations by Category

Management except farmers and farm managers, 12%

Farmers and farm managers, 0%

Business and financial operations , 13%

Computer and mathematical , 22%

Architecture and engineering , 10%

Life, physical, and social science , 4%

Community and social services , 3%

Legal , 2%

Education, training, and library , 11%

Arts, design, entertainment, sports,

and media , 4%

Healthcare practitioner and technical , 19%

8

API Population

Total Population

API Population

Total Population

Management, professional, and related occupations 51.4% 30.0% 50.7% 35.2%

Service occupations 18.4% 18.2% 12.4% 14.6%

Sales and office occupations 15.6% 23.5% 22.3% 26.8%

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations 0.2% 0.1% 0.0% 0.1%Construction, extraction, maintenance, and repair occupations 2.4% 14.4% 2.9% 11.0%

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations 12.0% 13.7% 11.6% 12.3%Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 American Community Survey

Dallas MSA


2.

Demographics

Management except farmers and farm managers, 19%

Farmers and farm managers, 0%

Business and financial operations , 13%

Computer and mathematical , 26%

Architecture and engineering , 11%

Life, physical, and social science , 3%

Community and social services , 1%

Legal , 1%

Education, training, and library , 7%

Arts, design, entertainment, sports,

and media , 3%

Healthcare practitioner and technical , 16%

1990 2000 2007 CAGR

DallasTotal population 1,006,877 1,188,580 1,240,044 1.2%Asian population 21,952 32,118 32,263 2.3%% Asian population 2.2% 2.7% 2.6%

MSATotal population 3,885,415 5,221,801 6,144,489 2.7%Asian population 97,578 195,480 289,851 6.6%% Asian population 2.5% 3.7% 4.7%Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 8: MSA: API Population in Management, Professional, and Related Occupations by Category

Historic Trends in Population and Demographic Characteristics

ERA also reviewed historic trends for a number of the population and demographic factors discussed above, including population growth, density, geographic distribution, income trends, and percent born outside the United States.

Historic Population Growth and DensityFrom 1990 to 2008 the API population in Dallas grew at an average annual rate of 2.3 percent, from 22,000 to 32,000. In contrast the API population in the MSA has doubled in size, growing at an average rate of 6.6 percent during the same time period, from 98,000 in1990 to 290,000 in 2007 (see Table 10). Over the same years, growth in the total population has been much slower at 1.2 percent in Dallas and 2.7 percent in the MSA. The density of the API population in Dallas remained relatively stable from 1990 to 2007 at 2.2 to 2.6 percent. Density of the API in the MSA has nearly doubled over this time from 2.5 percent to nearly 5 percent.

Table 10: API Population Growth, 1990-2007

9


2.

Demographics

10

Income TrendsIncome levels for APIs in Dallas and in the MSA have increased substantially from 1990 to 2007, outpacing the income growth of the general population overall. API households with income over $100,000 increased from 14 to 26 percent in Dallas and from 19 to 28 percent in the MSA, compared to a modest increase from 12 to 17 percent in Dallas and a strong gain from 16 to 34 percent in the MSA for the general population. API households with income under $25,000 declined from 27 to 20 percent in Dallas and from 21 to 18 percent in the MSA. The median household income for the API population in Dallas increased from $43,926 to $51,000 and in the MSA increased from $53,744 to $64,659. (see Table 11).

Table 11: Household Income Distribution, 1999-2007

1999 2007 % Change 1999 2007 % Change

DallasLess than $10,000 11% 10% -0.3% 11% 9% -1.3%$10,000 to $14,999 4% 4% -0.2% 6% 6% 0.1%$15,000 to $24,999 12% 6% -6.5% 15% 14% -0.4%$25,000 to $34,999 11% 11% -0.5% 15% 13% -1.6%$35,000 to $49,999 17% 18% 0.5% 17% 16% -1.3%$50,000 to $74,999 21% 13% -7.3% 16% 16% -0.5%$75,000 to $99,999 11% 12% 0.9% 8% 9% 0.7%$100,000 to $149,999 8% 18% 9.9% 7% 8% 1.7%$150,000 to $199,999 2% 2% -0.6% 2% 3% 0.8%$200,000 or more 2% 6% 3.9% 4% 5% 1.8%

Median $43,926 $51,000 14% $37,628 $40,986 8%

MSALess than $10,000 8% 6% -2.4% 7% 8% 1.1%$10,000 to $14,999 4% 2% -1.7% 5% 6% 1.5%$15,000 to $24,999 9% 10% 0.5% 11% 15% 4.2%$25,000 to $34,999 10% 8% -1.5% 13% 16% 3.0%$35,000 to $49,999 15% 12% -3.3% 17% 22% 5.4%$50,000 to $74,999 23% 20% -3.2% 20% 27% 6.9%$75,000 to $99,999 13% 15% 1.9% 12% 19% 7.1%$100,000 to $149,999 12% 16% 4.2% 10% 20% 10.1%$150,000 to $199,999 4% 6% 2.3% 3% 7% 4.1%$200,000 or more 3% 6% 3.2% 3% 7% 4.1%

Median $53,744 $64,659 17% $47,418 $54,730 13%Source: U.S. Census Bureau

API Population Total Population


2.

Demographics

11

Foreign BornBetween 1990 and 2007, there was slight decrease in the number of foreign born API individuals in both Dallas and the MSA, combined with modest increases in the number of persons born in Texas (see Table 12).

Table 12: API population by Origin of Birth, 2000-2007

Geographic DistributionAs shown in the following figures, the API population in 1990 was centralized in the cities with the highest API densities today - Grand Prairie, Carrollton, Plano, and Richardson. However, over the past two decades, the API population has expanded beyond these communities to outlying areas to the west and north of Dallas.

We have included an overlay of the DART system with the Dallas API population in all of the maps shown. As shown, the region’s API population is served by this public transit system, especially high density communities in Plano and Garland near the end of the Red and Blue Rail Lines. The future extension of the system to the DFW Airport and north will also serve higher density API communities living in Irving and Carrolton.

Summary and Implications

The Dallas region Asian and Pacific Islander population has grown significantly over the past 10 years, at a rate that is almost double that of the general population. Key characteristics are as follows:

• The API population in the Dallas region has grown rapidly at a rate of nearly 7 percent annually over the past 10 years. It now accounts for close to 5 percent of the total population.

• Approximately 70 percent of the regional API population is foreign born. However, for the segment of the population born in the United States, the vast majority were born in the Dallas area.

2000 2007 % Change

DallasBorn in Texas 14.9% 18.0% 3.1%Born in other states in the United States 5.9% 4.4% -1.4%Native; born outside the United States 0.8% 0.3% -0.4%Foreign born 78.5% 77.2% -1.2%

MSABorn in Texas 17.9% 20.5% 2.7%Born in other states in the United States 6.6% 8.1% 1.5%Native; born outside the United States 0.8% 1.7% 0.9%Foreign born 74.7% 69.7% -5.0%Source: U.S. Census Bureau


2.

Demographics

12

• Attendance at cultural facilities nationwide is typically correlated positively with income and education levels. As such, the demographics of the Dallas API population are very favorable for the development of a cultural center, with income and education levels significantly higher than that of the average for Dallas overall.

• The age, occupation, and school enrollment data for the API community in Dallas indicates that while there are families, particularly outside of the Dallas city limits, there is also a significant young professional demographic, particularly relative to the average for the region. This has implications regarding programming and marketing for the cultural center.

• The vast majority of the Asian population in the region is located in cities outside of Dallas (90 percent), although the density of the API community in the north and west parts of Dallas has increased over the past 10 years. This suggests that for a cultural center located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Dallas, marketing efforts will need to expand the reach and focus on the communities outside of Dallas as well in order to be successful.

• The Dallas API community is very diverse, with no one clear ethnic group accounting for a majority of the population. This presents both opportunities to attract broad and diverse audiences and programming and for collaboration, but also may have challenges in establishing a cultural center that is well-accepted by various ethnic groups.


2.

Demographics

13

Figure 9: Dallas-Fort Worth MSA and City of Dallas Boundaries


2.

Demographics

14

Figure 10: Asian Population by Zip Code for MSA and City of Dallas, 1990

Figure 11: Asian Population by Zip Code for MSA and City of Dallas, 2008


2.

Demographics

15

Figure 12: Asian Population by Zip Code for City of Dallas, 1990

Figure 13: Asian Population by Zip Code for City of Dallas, 2008


2.

Demographics

16

Figure 14: Asian Population Density (Percentage) by Zip Code for MSA, 1990

Figure 15: Asian Population Density (Percentage) by Zip Code for MSA, 2008


2.

Demographics

17

Figure 16: Asian Population Density (Percentage) by Zip Code for City of Dallas, 1990

Figure 17: Asian Population Density (Percentage) by Zip Code for City of Dallas, 2008


Public Participation Section 3


3.

Public Participation

Qualitative Analysis: Process

Development of Master ListThe goal of the public participation process was to involve a broad cross-section of the community, with representation proportionate to the demographics of the community.

The initial strategy involved developing a master list of individuals and Asian/Asian-oriented community groups. The Project Team met with Office of Cultural Affairs staff, representatives of the Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of Commerce, Crow Collection of Asian Art staff, and individuals from each of the major ethnic groups to solicit names of community leaders and Steering Committee prospects. The Team looked at board lists from Asian organizations and researched the Dallas Morning News archives for recurring names of community leaders. Names were added to the master list throughout the project. The master list was used to create the Steering Committee and the Focus Groups, and for general outreach on the project.

Steering CommitteeThe goal of the Steering Committee selection process was to develop a Steering Committee that would provide representation of individuals with countries of background proportionate to the Asian population of the North Texas area. To encourage participation in group discussions, it was determined that the Committee should ideally have 20 to 30 members with balanced representation from Asian civic and community organizations, to complement the Arts Advisory Group. The list was reviewed by the City leadership, staff of the Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of Commerce, Asian community leaders, and the Office of Cultural Affairs

Members:

Galileo Jumaoas -Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of CommerceEsau Liu -Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of CommerceTailim Song -City of Dallas Cultural Affairs CommissionSam Yang -City of Dallas Cultural Affairs CommissionRocky Vaz -City of Dallas Intergovernmental AffairsDevarati Rastogi -URS CorpKaren Gren Johnson -Jones DayPhillip Shinoda -CommunityChong Choe -Korean American Coalition-DFW ChapterSamar Bashir -Asian Contractors AssociationLt Paul Thai -Dallas Police DepartmentWilson Chu -Haynes Boone David Gu -Meridian Office Systems

Linda Kao -SMU Cox School of BusinessEsther Wu -Crow CollectionZahara Alarahkia -Dallas Asian American Bar AssociationEmelita de la Rosa -Certified Public AccountantPolly Flanigan -Dallas Police DepartmentJennifer Nguyen -DFW Asian American Citizens CouncilThien Thai -State Farm InsuranceThanh Cung -Dallas Police DepartmentHari (Harry) Iyer -Greater Dallas Indo-American Chamber of CommerceAnant Jain -Texas Federation of Asian American ChambersDaeho Hwang -DRI & AssociatesHanhee Lee -CommunitySunhee Hong -Dentist

1


3.


The Steering Committee’s function, as presented in their initial meeting, was to be a liaison to the community for educating others about the process, to gather feedback from the community and counsel the project team, to help maximize participation of the community in the process, and to raise awareness of the project in the community.

Four Steering Committee meetings were held in 2009: April 23, May 14, August 3, and August 27. Progress reports were presented by the Project Team for the Committee’s review and feedback at each meeting, including information derived from Town Hall and Focus Group meetings. Several Steering Committee members also attended one or more Town Hall and Focus Group meetings.

Town Hall MeetingsThe purpose of Town Hall meetings was to provide an opportunity for members of the public to learn about the project and to provide input to the process. To publicize the meetings and the project, the following marketing and communication methods were utilized:

• Printing and distribution of 10,000 postcards at libraries, recreation centers, and restaurants

• Webpage with project details hosted at www.dallasculture.org• Press releases distributed to 218 mainstream media outlets and 22 targeted Asian media

outlets• Email communications to Steering Committee members, a list of interested citizens, arts

organizations• Personal communication with Steering committee members and other community leaders• Networking at Asian community events

Six Town Hall meetings were held in 2009 in locations throughout the city (north, northwest, central and southern sectors):

• May 30th (Timberglen Recreation Center and Bachman Lake Branch Library)• August 4th (Latino Cultural Center)• September 26th (Bachman Lake Branch Library and Timberglen Recreation Center)• September 28th (Hampton-Illinois Branch Library)

At these meetings, the status of the process was covered and participants were asked to participate in visioning exercises as part of the cultural needs assessment. Community input was recorded.

Focus GroupsThe purpose of the Focus Groups was to provide an opportunity for smaller groups to work within their own affinity group to provide input on cultural needs and their vision for the cultural center. Lists of 15-20 individuals from each of seven different areas of background were developed, using the master list and input from the Steering Committee and other community leaders. Again, the affinity groups were developed so as to provide representation proportionate to Dallas/North Texas demographics. The groups were India, Vietnam, China, Korea, the Philippines, Southeast Asia, and a group for countries with smaller populations in the Dallas area.

Each Focus Group met twice: the first meeting was held at the offices of the Greater Dallas Asian American Chamber of Commerce June 18-19, 2009, and the second at Richland College July 10-11, 2009. This format provided the opportunity for the team to assimilate information provided at the first meeting and present it back to the affinity groups for feedback at the second meeting. Invitees were free to bring other interested individuals.

2

http://www.dallasculture.org/�


3.


Arts Advisory GroupAn Arts Advisory Group was also established, the purpose of which was to advise the project team on the needs of the Dallas Asian and Asian American arts and cultural groups and their audiences. Cultural Affairs developed the list of individuals, which included Asian arts/cultural organizations supported by that office. The group met on July 9 and August 27, 2009, at the Latino Cultural Center.

InterviewsIn about 20 cases where individuals desired input into the process but were not participants in any of the group sessions, informal interviews were conducted, in person or by email.

3


3.


4

Quantitative Analysis: Process

SummaryParticipation from the Asian Community included the following:

• 158 Individual Participants• 290 Participant Attendances (some of the 158 Individual attended more than one meeting)• 172 Individuals contacted, but did not participate• 20 Additional organizations contacted, but did not participate as organizations• 350 Total contacts

Contacted but did not participate,

172

Contacted andparticipated, 158

Participation

Arts Advisory Group

4%

Focus Group53%

Other4%

Steering Committee

17%

Town Hall22%

Type of Participation


3.


5


4

12

1

2

1

1

35

7

2

3

2

2

17

9

1

24

31

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Vietnam

Unknown

Thailand/Laos

Thailand

Singapore

Philippines/Pacific Isl

Philippines

Pan-Asian

Pakistan

Nepal

Malaysia

Laos

Korea

Japan

Indonesia

India

China

Cambodia

Bangladesh

Participation by Affinity (persons)


3.


6


8

15

4

11

2

3

43

17

3

3

4

3

35

13

5

39

70

9

3

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Vietnam

Unknown

Thailand/Laos

Thailand

Singapore


Philippines

Pan-Asian

Pakistan

Nepal

Malaysia

Laos

Korea

Japan

Indonesia

India

China

Cambodia

Bangladesh

Attendance by Affinity (persons)


3.


7


3%

5%

1%

4%

1%

1%

15%

6%

1%

1%

1%

1%

12%

4%

2%

13%

24%

3%

1%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Vietnam

Unknown

Thailand/Laos

Thailand

Singapore


Philippines

Pan-Asian

Pakistan

Nepal

Malaysia

Laos

Korea

Japan

Indonesia

India

China

Cambodia

Bangladesh

Attendance by Affinity (%)


3.


8

3%

5%

1%

4%

1%

1%

15%

6%

1%

1%

1%

1%

12%

4%

2%

13%

24%

3%

1%

23%

2%

0%

4%

0%

0%

0%

7%

0%

1%

2%

0%

0%

3%

9%

3%

0%

24%

19%

3%

0%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

Vietnam

Unknown

Thailand/Laos

Thailand

Sri Lanka

Singapore


Philippines

Pan-Asian

Pakistan

Other Asian

Nepal

Malaysia

Laos

Korea

Japan

Indonesia

India

China

Cambodia

Bangladesh

Attendance vs. Dallas Population (%)% of Dallas Population % of Attendance



Program of Requirements Section 4


4.

Program of Requirements

1

Functional Relationship Diagram

The image below represent the functional relationships between the various spaces listed on the Program of Requirements. The blocks are a graphically proportional in size as they relate to each other. This purpose of this illustration is to identify space types that should be located close to each other in the final solution due to functional and operational synergies.

Office Space

Public Entrance& Courtyard

Building Support

ExhibitSpace

EducationalSpace

Lobby(possible 2 story

volume)

Theatre(2 story volume)

Theatre Support


4.


2

The following chart represents the holistic needs for the various spaces included in the Asian American Cultural Center. This needs assessment was based on input from the City of Dallas, community feedback about cultural events , and the case studies. The built spatial needs total approximately 44,000 Gross Square Feet (GSF). The estimated area for the site is 9.7 acres, but this requirement could be reduced depending on the specific site selected. Reductions could result from smaller setbacks and easements, or fewer parking spaces if the site is in close proximity to public transportation.

Space type

Capacity (ppl)

Area per person Area Quantity

Net Square

Feet

Grossing Factor

Gross Square

FeetAcres

Theatre (2 story volume) 7,700 0.5 15,400 Auditorium Seating for 500 500 10 5000 1 5,000 Auditorium Stage N/A N/A 2250 1 2,250 Orchestra Pit 25 18 450 1 450

Theatre support area 3,120 0.7 4,457 House Mix N/A N/A 200 1 200 Lighting Control Rm N/A N/A 200 1 200 Audio Amp Room N/A N/A 200 1 200 Follow spot Room N/A N/A 200 1 200 Dimmer Room N/A N/A 200 1 200 Stage Storage / prop area N/A N/A 350 1 350 Star Dressing Room (1 - 2 ppl) N/A N/A 150 2 300 Chorus Dressing Room (6 ppl) N/A N/A 300 2 600 Green Room N/A N/A 200 1 200 Wardrobe Work Rm (incl. laundry) N/A N/A 250 1 250 Carpentry / Tool Room N/A N/A 120 1 120 Theatre Storage Support (AV, lighting) N/A N/A 300 1 300

Lobby / Cultural Events Area 5,500 0.7 7,857 Lobby / Cultural Events Area (possible 2 story volume) N/A N/A 4500 1 4,500 Box Office 2 50 100 1 100 Coat Check N/A N/A 100 1 100 Additional Rest Rooms N/A N/A 400 2 800

Exhibit Area 4,000 0.7 5,714 Gallery N/A N/A 2000 2 4,000

Building Support 2,170 0.7 3,100 Building Storage N/A N/A 500 1 500 Interior Dock staging N/A N/A 800 1 800 Computer Server room N/A N/A 120 1 120 Catering Kitchen N/A N/A 750 1 750

Operational Office Space 1,148 0.65 1,766 Staff Offices 1 120 120 2 240 Staff Workstations 1 48 48 6 288 Business Center (copy, fax, printer) N/A N/A 120 1 120 Conference room 20 25 500 1 500

Educational Spaces 3,900 0.7 5,571 Studio Space N/A N/A 1200 2 2,400 Classrooms 20 25 500 3 1,500

Build Out Requirements 27,538 43,866 1.0 Total Built Area Requirement (minus stackable space)Parking*:299 Surface Parking (100%) 299 111,981 2.6

Structured Parking (0%) - - Impervious Cover Subtotal 155,847 3.6 Courtyards, Public Exterior Spaces 25,000 Non-Developable Area (setbacks, easements, etc.)** max. 35% 239,765

Total Requirements 420,612 9.7

* Parking is based on City of Dallas Zoning requirments, and could be reduced if lot is by mass transit line** Non-Developable area could be reduced based on zoning for specific lot. Undermined at this time.


4.

Building Massing Images

The diagram below illustrates the spatial representations of the functional relationship diagrams and program of requirements. They are intended to show 3-dimensional relationships between the 9.7 acre site, the proposed building mass and the site dimensions with appropriate setbacks.

Program Mass Diagram


3


4.


4


The Project Team evaluated what type of planning parameters could work well for the Asian American Cultural Center. The diagram below reflects two different models – a corner lot treatment and a mid block treatment. The diagrams also show traffic circulation and green space locations.

Mid-Block Treatment


4.


5


The Project Team evaluated what type of planning parameters could work well for the Asian American Cultural Center. The diagram below reflects two different models – a corner lot treatment and a mid block treatment. The diagrams also show traffic circulation and green space locations.

Corner Treatment


4.

Hypothetical Site Plan

This site plan illustrates how the functional relationship diagram, Program of Requirements and spatial mass diagrams can culminate into a site adapted plan on a 9.7 acre hypothetical site. It is not intended to show preference to any particular site or to influence design of the building or the site.


6


4.

Building and Site Selection Criteria

It is critical to approach the site selection process for the new Asian American Cultural Center very carefully. The ultimate success of any cultural facility will be determined to a large degree by where it is located. Along with the establishment of a leadership group to move the project forward and raise funds, one of the most important of all of the decisions that the stakeholders in the project will make, perhaps the single most important decision, will be the selection of the site.

This section of the Master Plan report serves as an example of an approach which has been successfully applied on other projects. The final Criteria and Checklist will be guided by the project leadership and site decision-making groups. Some Criteria in this template may not be applicable, while others may be added.

Guiding Statement

“The Dallas Asian American Cultural Center Master Plan was developed with the underlying vision of a facility that will serve as a regional arts center that offers a variety of arts programs that celebrate and promote all Asian Cultures. The center will serve as a gathering place for North Texas’ Asian communities to celebrate their artistic heritage and for the community at-large to learn and be inspired by the multiple artistic expressions of Asian and Asian America Cultures. The center will also serve as an integral component of the City of Dallas’ cultural facilities infrastructure, joining our other facilities such as the Latino Cultural Center and the South Dallas Cultural Center, to provide performance and exhibition space for the benefit of the public.”

Site Goals from Community Focus Groups• Convenient for the Asian Community -- central location for auto and transit access• A variety of small cultural centers grouped into one facility• Safe location at night or during the day• Supported by various Asian community groups• Not Downtown, therefore not adjacent to existing Arts District• Not at Fair Park, therefore not adjacent to existing Museum District

Site Location Criteria• Close proximity to the largest Asian population within the City of Dallas Boundaries• Location and physical design which promotes Asian Culture• Easy pedestrian access• Easy roadway access by users and buses• Large enough parking area to accommodate 300 auto s, and 1-3 tour buses at one time.• Adjacent to local transit system; Rail would be ideal, but sites should have at least two bus

routes within in a ¼ mile of the facility.

Program Site Recommendations• Approximately 10 acres, net 9.7 acre site• Corner or Mid-block site• Good width to length ratio :1:2 or 1:3 in proportion (street frontage to depth)• 44,000 sq.ft. Building• Ability to expand facility• Open area or green space for outdoor activities• Good vehicle & pedestrian access• Close to schools, community, businesses, hospitals, and office/retail


7


4.

We recommend a two-step process; Step One, a person with experience in land, building or real-estate will visit 15 to 20 sites and complete the Checklist. This person will be familiar with the Program of Requirements and site concept diagrams. In Step Two the 15-20 sites would be reduced to 5-10 feasible sites and the site decision-making groups would visit and evaluate the feasible sites.

Location Pursuit Approach• Identify 15-20 possible sites that meet the site criteria• Determine Ownership; City of Dallas or private ownership• Obtain site appraised value, site survey, and environmental assessment report• If existing buildings, obtain building plans• If not a vacant piece of property, determine if the site will require building demolition, or

businesses or residences to be relocated.• If it’s an existing structure, will the proposed facility accommodate the building program

functions, parking, outdoor functions, etc…

Acquisition Efforts• Consider sponsored site visits with the site decision-making group to one Asian Cultural

Center outside of the Metroplex, or another facility in similar size and scale within the Metroplex.

• Consider Outreach programs for Site/Center integration into the Community.• Consider meeting/discussion with all affected property owners• Sites to be reviewed finally by City of Dallas Staff, Office of Cultural Affairs, the Public

Works and Transportation Department and the private sector leadership group assembled to lead the fundraising effort.

Following this document is a Site Selection Checklist. The sections listed are crucial to focusing on the site location issues, based on the fact that the location should reinforce the most extensive use of the Cultural Center. This checklist should be taken to each site to evaluate whether or not the site meets the criteria. The sites in the final analysis should be rank highest or most points, to lowest or the least amount of points. If several of the sites are ranked equally high, or nearly so, in all of the above criteria, only then should site related costs serve as a tiebreaker to finalize the selection process.


8


4.


9

Location:__________________________________ Person Completing:______________________Street Address:_____________________________ Total Score:_____________________________Site Contact: _______________________________ City Service Center Region:________________Phone No.:_________________________________ City Council District:______________________Gross Site Area:_____________________________ Estimate Value:__________________________Date viewed:________________________________ Weather conditions:______________________

Yes No1 Availability: (checkmark only)

Owned by the City of Dallas

On the market, for sale

Title clearance

Demolition or renovation of buildings

Potential Relocation of residents

Potential Problem2 Safety: (These factors must be avoided. Put a checkmark if any of the items listed below are observed during site visit. )

Adjacent to or near roadways with a high volume of traffic

Within 1,500 feet of railroad tracks

Within two miles of an airport runway

Close to high-voltage power lines

Close to high decibel noise sources

In a dam inundation area or 100- year flood plain

*Note: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment must be conducted for the selected site.

OK Potential Problem3 Location : General or vacant land

Safe walking areas. A sense of night-time safety

Compatible with current and probable future zoning regulations

Close to libraries, parks, museums, and other community services

Close to office and retail services

Favorable orientation to wind and natural light

Currently other functions located on the site

Adjacent land use: schools, churches, medical facilities, etc..

General Conditions of the Site: (paving, fencing, utilities, layout)

Is a site plan or survey available

Contaminants/toxics in the soil or groundwater, such as from landfills, dumps, chemical plants, refineries, fuel tanks, gas drilling, or agricultural use of pesticides or fertilizer, etc.*

Social hazards in the neighborhood, such as high incidence of crime and drug or alcohol abuse

Close to high-pressure lines, for example natural gas, gasoline sewer or water lines

For 'OK', write a score on a scale of 1 to 3. with 1 being the lowest and 3 being the highest. If 'Potential Problem' is checked, please write what has been observed as a problem in the comments at the end of the

Conveniently located for the Asian Community

Asian American Cultural Center Site Selection ChecklistMcAfee3 Architects

City of Dallas Office of Cultural Affairs, and Public Works and Transportation Department


4.


10

Location:__________________________________ Person Completing:_________________________

OK Potential Problem4 Environment

Free from sources of noise that may impede the program activities

Free from air, water and soil pollution

Free from smoke, dust, odors, and pesticide spray

Provides aesthetic views from and of the site

Compatible with the outdoor cultural program

Passive Energy utilization opportunities

Ability to meet LEED Silver rating as required by the City of Dallas

5 Soils

Proximity to faults or fault traces

Stable subsurface and bearing capacity

Percolation for septic system and drainage

Adequate water table level

Existing land fill is reasonably well compacted

Note: A geological hazard report must be conducted to determine soil and seismic conditions.

6 Topography

Existing Grades: Steep

Rock ledges or outcroppings

Surface and subsurface drainage

Level area for exterior performance area

Trees and landscaping

7 Size and Shape

Length-to-width ratio does not exceed 2:1

Potential for expansion for future needs

8 Accessibility

Ease of entrance and exit from site

Natural obstacles such as grades or gullies

Freeway access for autos and buses

Routing patterns to neighborhood pedestrian or bicycle networks

Easily reachable by emergency response vehicles


Obstacles such as crossings on major streets and intersections, narrow or winding streets, heavy traffic patterns

Minimum net 9.7 acreage



4.


11


OK Potential Problem9 Public Services

Fire and police protection, including fire lanes

Available public transportation: Bus or Shuttle

Available public transportation: Rail

Trash and garbage disposal

10 Utilities

Availability of water, electricity, gas, sewer

Feasibility of bringing utilities to site at reasonable cost

Restrictions on right of way

11 Public Acceptance

Asian signage integration

Public acceptance of the proposed site

Receptivity of city or community leaders

Zoned for prime agriculture or industrial use

Negative environmental impact report

Coordination of proposed facility with future community plans

Community outreach program for Site/Center integration into the community

12 Existing Building: (complete only if site is not vacant)

Sq.ftg. of the Building:___________________________

Age of the Building:___________________________

Currently other function or uses located on the site

General Conditions of the Building

Identify areas that need improvements

Are there existing functions that need to be expanded?

Are building plans available?

Will the estimated square footage of each function fit within the building?

Adjacent land to expand services or programs

Security, A safe location at night or during the day

Ability to meet LEED Silver rating as required by the City of Dallas

Current parking available on the site. Will it accommodate Employees, Visitors, Buses, Cultural Center Service Vehicles and vans, etc…




4.


12


Potential Problem13 Cost: (Put checkmark if any of the items listed below are observed during site visit, and note comments below. )

Visible Toxic cleanup or Environmental mitigation

Cost for maintenance (eg. Steep topography, heavy vegetation)

14 Commen( eg.. Identify areas that have potential problems, need improvements, present risks, etc.)

Thank you for completing this survey and supporting the development of the Dallas Asian American Cultural Center!

Costs for site preparation including, but not limited to, drainage, parking, driveways, removal of existing buildings, and grading

Costs for purchase of property, severance damages, relocation of residents and businesses, and legal fees




Utilization and Financial Analysis Section 5


5.

Utilization and Financial Analysis

Financial Feasibility Analysis

At this point in the planning process, there is a need to more fully understand key financial and operating characteristics for the proposed Asian American Cultural Center. However, it is still fairly early in the planning process, with several key factors still to be determined, including governance, operating model, participation structure, rental rates, site location, and specific facility design. All of these factors play an important role in ultimately determining facility utilization.

Methodology

In order to address the City’s need for estimates related to likely operating costs, earned income potential, and utilization, we developed a methodology based upon several factors. These factors include: information about the proposed facility that is known, such as general size and types of spaces; characteristics of the Asian Pacific Islander community and cultural / arts organizations in Dallas; data collected from the specific case studies within the context of this report; and our judgment based on years of experience analyzing cultural facilities. Specific tasks completed as part of this methodology include:

• Reviewed information from the public participation process and analyzed data on API cultural arts organizations receiving City funding.

• Worked with the HOK team to develop physical planning parameters for the overall building and specific spaces within the facility.

• Developed a reasonable operating budget based upon the experience of comparable facilities, industry standards on a per square foot basis, adjustment for the Dallas context, and specific characteristics of the proposed Asian American Cultural Center.

• Estimated the range of earned income that can be generated to help support facility costs, based upon the experience of cultural centers we studied, heavily weighted towards the case studies in Dallas.

• Established a series of assumptions and recommendations related to issues such as governance, operating structure, pricing, etc. that we believe may maximize the potential for the facility to generate both earned and contributed income.

• Based upon these assumptions, created a reasonable scenario for utilization for the facility by outside groups and for programming produced by the facility, and estimated associated income streams for each of these items.

• It is important to note that the actual programs that are ultimately held at the Center will in large part depend upon a number of decisions still to be made, as well as the interests of the actual leadership and management of the facility and the community. However, it is still possible to project a program of activities, with some examples, that reflect the general level of programming and operations that are likely for this facility, given the City’s guidelines, physical parameters, and local Asian American community needs.

1


5.

Indicators of Demand from Public Participation Process

As described previously in Section III, a public participation process was conducted as part of this study that solicited input on need for facilities. In the following table, we have summarized the data collected when groups were asked about how often they thought they could use various types of spaces.

Table 39: Summary of Potential Community Usage Identified during Community Input Process

Data gathered regarding usage that is collected as part of a community needs process is typically higher than actual usage, due to a number of constraining factors, such as:

• The fee structure that is ultimately put in place;• Impact of competitive facilities;• Availability of prime (i.e. weekend) dates;• Physical design constraints (e.g. auditorium is too big, too small, etc.);• Duplication, where more than one individual or organization are considering the same event

when they develop their numbers; and • The tendency for groups to overstate their growth and plans for the future.

Therefore, the numbers collected as part of a needs process are typically discounted. However, even if the usage numbers indicated above are discounted by half, it is still clear that there is significant demand for a variety of spaces within the framework of an Asian American Cultural Center. Our review of the organizational grant data provided by the City of Dallas and background information collected as part of the public process also indicates that there are likely to be a large number of different user groups rather than a few large groups that serve as resident companies or anchor tenants.

2

Type of Space# of Event

Days

Auditorium Usage1 419

Pre-function / Gallery Area 360

Multipurpose Room 1,260

Classrooms 6,430

Resource Room 470

Conference Room 1,820

Outdoor Spaces 1241 Auditorium usage includes expression of need for capacity between 350 to 1,000 seats.

Source: HOK Public Participation Process.



5.

Recommended Physical Program

Based upon the above analysis, combined with guidance from the City of Dallas related to the purpose and context of City-owned cultural centers, the HOK team developed a preliminary physical space program for the facility. This is presented in more detail in the following section, but key spaces are shown below in order to provide a basis for operating costs and utilization.

Table 40: Preliminary Summary of Recommended Programmable Spaces in Proposed Dallas Asian American Cultural Center

These spaces, when combined with other building support, storage, back of house, office and administrative, and circulation spaces require a building area of close to 44,000 square feet.

Estimated Operating Budget

As the next step in our analysis, we estimated a likely operating budget for the facility, given the overall square footage and types of spaces. The operating budget was based on several considerations and assumptions, described below:

• We assume that there will be nothing so unique in the design of the facility that would prevent the usage of general industry standards for operating costs per gross square foot and percentages of total cost for cultural facilities;

• We considered the location in Dallas when developing the total operating cost;• The operating budget assumes that the cultural center is not just a rental facility for outside

cultural arts groups, but also has an array of programming that is produced and presented by the center itself. This tends to increase costs but also enhances revenue generation and fundraising opportunities.

• We also developed this budget with the realities of the current economic environment in mind, assuming that the facility will need to be operated fairly efficiently.

Programmable Spaces Number Units

Theatre 500 seats

Lobby / Cultural Events Area 4,500 square feet

Exhibit Areas / Galleries 4,000 square feet

Studios /workshops 2 spaces

Classrooms 3 rooms

Conference room 1 room

3



5.

The preliminary operating budget estimate is shown in the table below.

Table 41: Preliminary Estimated Operating Budget for Dallas Asian American Cultural Center

As indicated, we have developed a budget of approximately $1 million, or $23 per gross square foot, of which, approximately 50 percent is dedicated towards staff costs. The cost per square foot is close to that of the 2008-09 Latino Cultural Center budget, although this year’s budget was lower than in previous years, when the operating budget per square foot was closer to $27. However, there may also be some economies of scale with a slightly larger facility that is still within the same order of magnitude of programming and functions.

The operating budget assumes a staffing level of between 8 to 10 employees, primarily full-time with a few part-time. Key positions would typically include a director, marketing coordinator, development director, building facilities manager, programming director, rental coordinator, and a few additional staff to assist with programming, building upkeep, and marketing and/or development.

Finally, it is important to note that the operating budget presented above is for planning purposes only, and is not meant to serve as a detailed business plan or for accounting purposes. Rather, it indicates the general level of budget that will be required to run the proposed cultural center, with approximate allocations to categories. When actually operating, the leadership and/or management of the facility would have a tremendous impact on the actual expenditures, which would in part be driven by programming priorities, policies, and opportunities.

Category Amount Notes

Salaries and benefits $500,000 50% of operating budget

Supplies and services $50,000 5% of operating budget

Building maintenance / janitorial $154,000 $3.50 per SF, in addition to staff

Utilities $132,000 $3 per SF

Programming $120,000 In addition to staff

Marketing $50,000 5% of budget, in addition to staff

Total Operating Budget $1,006,000 Stabilized operating year

Operating Budget per Gross SF $23

Reasonable Earned Income Target $250,000 25% of operating costs

Required Contributed Income $750,000

Posssible sources could include: City, State, foundations, corporate sponsorship or grants, individual contributions, fundraisers

4



5.

Earned Income Projection

We have also indicated a “target” level of earned income of 25 percent of $250,000, which we believe to be achievable based upon the research we have conducted, comparable organizations, and the demographics of the Asian America community in Dallas. The remaining $750,000 will require contributed income, which could include a mix of public (City and State) funding, foundation grants, corporate contributions, individual donations, and fundraisers. While we have not studied this issue, given the demographics of the Asian American community in Dallas, we also believe that this level of contributed income is within reason, assuming that there is community support for the facility.

Earned Income and Possible UtilizationThere are numerous utilization patterns that could result in earned income of $250,000 for the Asian American Cultural Center, and these again are highly dependent upon factors such as ability to hold simultaneous events, membership and participation structure, rental fee and pricing policies, and operating policies.

However, in order to provide a framework for thinking about likely utilization levels and resulting income streams, we have developed a hypothetical scenario of rentals by cultural arts organizations and in-house programming with associated income streams.

Operating AssumptionsThere are certain operating and governance assumptions which we have made for purposes of analysis. While it is our belief that most of these assumptions will maximize the potential for earned and contributed income that is in addition to any City subsidy, there are many ways to structure this facility to be successful. Key assumptions are as follows:

• We based our model on a non-profit management structure, where a 501(c)3 organization is created to operate the Center through some type of agreement or lease with the City of Dallas. It is our opinion that this type of structure allows for the greatest flexibility in staffing, programming, and income generation. The challenge will be to ensure that the governance structure allows for active participation and leadership from the diverse ethnic groups within the Asian American community. The City would likely still retain some involvement in the cultural center.

• The case studies clearly indicated how important it is for cultural centers to produce and present their own events and programming and not just serve as a facility for outside groups. We have assumed that the Asian American Cultural Center will have a robust mix of its own programming, although the amount could vary by year depending on usage level from other cultural arts organizations in the Asian American community.

• We have also assumed some type of participation structure, which for now we have called membership. Given that this facility is being built to meet the needs of a diverse community with numerous organizations, a tiered membership structure that allows for varying levels of participation and benefits that are clearly identified could be useful.

• Finally, we also assume that the ultimate design of the facility does not create any fundamental operating problems and is flexible in nature, and that the site that is selected will not deter attendance from either the Asian American or greater Dallas community.

5



5.

Possible Programming and UtilizationWe believe that there is a wide variety of programming possible for the Asian American Cultural Center. There are numerous cultural and arts organization within the community who have many activities and programs that would be well-suited for the new cultural center, and the availability of particular spaces may inspire additional programming. In addition, the center itself can organize activities. Examples of programming can include:

• Music, dance, theatre, and other cultural activities (e.g. Chinese acrobatics, Asian American comedians, martial arts performances, etc.);

• Classes in areas such as visual arts, music, dance, and children’s cultural education;• Exhibits focusing on art or culture of Asia or Asian America with associated events such as

artist demonstrations and lectures; and• A variety of other activities such as film festivals, book signings, speaker panels on current

Asian / Asian American topics, cultural festivals, and more. Ultimately, the exact mix of programming will be up to the facility leadership and management and the community.

In the following table, we developed a mix of programming that can be used to demonstrate the earned income target could be met.

Table 42: Potential Utilization and Programming with Associated Earned Income

Specific assumptions related to each category are as follows:• Artistic and cultural rentals – We assumed a total of 400 rental days, which could include

theatre usage for performances, rehearsals, lectures, or films, rental of the entire facility for festivals, or rental of small spaces such as classrooms and studios. We assumed an average rental fee of $250 per rental, which is relatively low and includes a mix of subsidized rents for members, non-discounted rents, and some free usage that may be provided for certain levels of members.

• In-house programming – We modeled a mix of exhibits, performances, classes, and other activities. For exhibits, we assumed three exhibits per year, with two income generating events per exhibit (free admission to the exhibits), an average of 100 people per event and an average ticket price of $10. We also projected a “signature series” performing arts program, with one program per month for a total of 12 performances. A similar type of analysis was conducted for classes. The total revenue generated through in-house programming was projected at $80,000.

Type of Programming Revenue Assumptions

Artistic & cultural rentals $100,000 400 rental days, $250 on average per rental.

In-House Programming

Exhibits $6,000 3 exhibits / year, 2 revenue events per exhibit, avg. $10 per person, 50-150 people

Performances $54,000 12 performances per year, 300 average attendance, $10-$20 avg. ticket

Classes $10,000 4 classes in 3 sessions per year, 12 students per class, $80 per class session

Other $10,000 Mix of income producing events: workshops, festivals, concessions, retail, etc.

Membership $30,000 Mix of corporate, non-profit / arts user, and indivdiual members

Outside rentals $48,000 1 per month, $4,000 per rental

Total $258,000

6



5.

• Membership – We assume a membership structure that includes corporate or business sponsors, tiered to differentiate small businesses from large corporations, non-profit membership that includes a variety of benefits, and individual membership that carries discounted pricing and priority access to events, for total membership income of $30,000.

• Outside rentals – Finally, we included a very limited number of outside rentals, averaging one per month. We envision that these would tend to be from corporate members and would only occur if they did not conflict with other cultural or arts events and if the rental rate was high enough to justify it. This could be an important source of earned income for this facility, as it is for many other cultural centers we studied.

Using this level of utilization and mix of programming, the earned income totals close to $260,000. As stated previously, this mix is not intended to be any type of detailed projection or recommendation for the Asian American Cultural Center. Rather, its purpose it to provide a framework for understanding how, given reasonable levels of activities and programming, earned income within range of similar cultural centers can be achieved.

Fundraising Approaches and Next Steps

The City of Dallas’s Cultural Facilities Financing Policy requires that the community participate in fundraising for new cultural facilities that will be built and owned by the City, as follows:Pre-Construction Costs (site acquisition, clearance)

• 75% Public Maximum• 25% Private Sector Minimum

Design & Construction (preparation of architectural plans and specifications, construction of building and parking, site improvements for access and landscaping, furniture and fixtures)

• 60% Public Maximum• 40% Private Sector Minimum

The following is presented as possible fundraising approaches and next steps for the community, not necessarily as a road map, since the community should proceed as it sees fit.

The first step is for the Asian community to determine its core leadership for the project, which could initially be an informal group. The leadership should meet directly with City leadership, to ensure a close working relationship as the project proceeds. The two parties must determine the relationship and structure that will best serve the project and ensure its future success.

Possible options are:• A City-owned and operated facility• A City-owned facility operated through a management agreement with a to-be-organized,

501(c)(3), not-for-profit community organization• A community-owned and –operated facility

If the center will be a City-owned facility, plans must be made to include funding for land acquisition and construction in a future bond issue and the community should assist in facilitating passage of that bond issue.

In any of the above scenarios, the community must raise some level of private funding for building design, site acquisition, construction costs, and initial operating, which will require incorporation of a non-profit group.

7



5.

Coincident with incorporation of the nonprofit, a board of trustees for the center should be chosen. This group traditionally represents a mix of influence, resources and nonprofit board experience. That board will oversee development of business plan, hiring of consultants, and the capital campaign.

The group may choose to hire staff to ensure appropriate and timely administration of the effort. A five-year business plan should be developed that would further develop data from this master plan and include capital and operational needs.

Many capital campaigns commission a formal feasibility study, to document the community’s commitment to the project, identify donor prospects and help the group establish a reasonable fundraising goal, including an endowment for the center.

Most capital campaigns are managed by fundraising counsel, guided by a campaign steering committee of well-connected community members who are willing both to contribute and to ask others to contribute. Fundraising counsel generally prepares a case statement and other campaign materials, develops a recommended timeline, donor pyramid and recognition strategies, and trains the steering committee.

8



5.

ASSUMPTIONS

DemolitionNo site demolition or remediation has been included.

EarthworkWe have include excavation (2') and select backfill (3') for the building slab.

EnvironmentalStorm Water Pollution Prevention is included.On site retention/detention for storm water is not required.

Landscape/HardscapeCost for the non developed areas include xeriscape/indigenouse plant material. Plaza area cost include: Pavers with concrete base, landscaping, security and landscape lighting. An allowance has been included for 5,000 square feet of covered shade structures.Allowances have been included for: Water Feature Site Signage Landscaping Site Screening

UtilitiesThe utility allowance includes: Water, fire, sanitary, storm, electrical and communications. We have assumed that the utilities will be in close proximity to the site.We have not included any off-site infrastructure cost and have assumed utilities are available at the site.We have not included any utility fees.

PavementsPavement cost are based on 5" concrete with curbs and islands.

Site DevelopmentAn allowance has been included for site furnishings and included: trash cans, benches, bike racks.

GeneralAn all new facility has been priced located in the Dallas area.No escalation has been included and estimate is based on 2010 costs.Mark-ups are included for the general contractor and are based on a completive bid environment.Cost are for new construction only and do not include site acquisition or any other soft cost.No cost are included for renovation of facilities.Cost to achieve a LEED Silver certifications have been included.A design contingency of 15% has been used for the estimate due to the conceptual nature.We have not included a construction contingency for unknown site or unknown building requirements.

Construction Cost Assumptions

A Construction Cost Budget was developed to provide input for the Capital Cost component of the Financial Analysis. The following is an outline of what assumptions and qualifications are included and are not included in the rough order of magnitude construction cost.


9


5.

ASSUMPTIONS

GeneralAn all new facility has been priced located in the Dallas area.No escalation has been included and estimate is based on 2010 costs.Mark-ups are included for the general contractor and are based on a completive bid environment.Cost are for new construction only and do not include site acquisition or any other soft cost.No cost are included for renovation of facilities.Cost to achieve a LEED Silver certifications have been included.A design contingency of 15% has been used for the estimate due to the conceptual nature.We have not included a construction contingency for unknown site or unknown building requirements.

Substructure/SuperstructureSince the site and soil conditions have not been determined we have assumed drill piers and no extremesoil conditions.A slab on grade has been priced.Tiered construction for theatre seating was assumed to be on grade and not built-up.The structural system is steel and cost have been included catwalks, rigging, pipe grids and other supportingsteel.The roofing has been assumed as metal deck with concrete fill.

Exterior Closure/RoofingCost for the curtain wall are for typical curtain wall systems and do not include structural glazing.The exterior wall was assumed to be precast and stucco with 6" Stud back-up.The roof has been assumed to be a flat roof system.

Interior Build-OutCost are included in the numbers for acoustical requirements by area.Wood sprung floors have been included for the stage and studios.The cost reflect typical materials used in this type of facility.

Equipment and FurnishingCost have been included for theater seats and theater equipment.No allowances have been made for movable equipment or furnishings.

Conveying SystemsA projection room lift has been included.No passenger elevators have been included.

Mechanical/Electrical/Plumbing and Fire ProtectionThe cost for mechanical, electrical and plumbing have been developed using recent cost for a relevantfacility.The sprinkler system cost include sprinkling the entire facility and both over and under stage protection.


10


5.

Construction Cost

The following is a rough order of magnitude Capital Cost budget to build out the facility. While it is expected that an Asian American Cultural Center will have a unique feel and fit out, the project team used the level of finish out of the Latino Cultural Center as a baseline to determine what the City of Dallas would expect as a typical level of investment in a facility. The following estimate is based on the size outlined in the Program of Requirements, and level of finishes similar to the Latino Cultural Center. The estimate anticipates a cost of $22 Million, excluding site acquisition costs if it would be build out in 2010. The estimate does not take into consideration escalation for future pricing.

Description Quantity Unit Extension Total $SF

Overhead

General Conditions - See Mark-Ups ls -$ -$

Subtotal -$ -$

Sitework

Demolition Site Demolition Site not Determined -$ -$

Earthwork Excavate and Backfill Excavation 2' 3,400 cy 6.00$ 20,400$ Backfill Select 6,077 cy 12.00$ 72,924$ Fine Grade 180,846 sf 0.15$ 27,127$ Haul Off 3,740 cy 5.00$ 18,700$ Termite Control 45,000 sf 0.35$ 15,750$

EnvironmentalStorm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000$

Landscape/Hardscape

Non Developed 239,765 sf 0.50$ 119,883$ Plaza Area 25,000 Paving 25,000 sf 20.00$ 500,000$ Landscaping 25,000 sf 6.00$ 150,000$ Lighting 25,000 sf 4.00$ 100,000$ Shade Structures and Support 5,000 sf 50.00$ 250,000$ Water Feature 1 ls 100,000.00$ 100,000$ Site Signage 1 ls 75,000.00$ 75,000$ Landscaping/Irrigation on Site and Parking Islands 1 ls 100,000.00$ 100,000$ Allow for Screen Wall Dock/Equipment 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000$

Utilities

Allow - Water/Fire/Sanitary/Storm/Elec/Comm 1 ls 350,000.00$ 350,000$

Pavements Parking/Curbs/Islands 111,981 sf 5.50$ 615,896$


11


5.


Site DevelopmentMiscellaneous Site Furniture and Planters 1 ls 20,000.00$ 20,000$

Subtotal Construction 2,575,679$

General Contractor Fee/General Conditions/Bond 12.00% 309,081$ Subtotal 2,884,760$

Contingency 15.00% 432,714$ Subtotal 3,317,474$

Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction T imeframe - Not Included 0.00% -$

TOTAL 3,317,474$ 75.63$ Substructure/Superstructure

Foundations 43,865 sf 6.00$ 263,190$ Slab on Grade 43,865 sf 6.50$ 285,123$

Add for T iered Construction 5,000 sf 25.00$ 125,000$ Add for Stage Framing 2,250 sf 15.00$ 33,750$

Dock 1 ls 10,000.00$ 10,000$

Structural Steel 350 ton 3,250.00$ 1,137,500$ Metal Roof Deck/Concrete 43,865 sf 7.00$ 307,055$ Misc Steel/Rigging/Pipe Grid 10 tons 3,250.00$ 32,500$ Catwalk and Rails 1 ls 150,000.00$ 150,000$ Miscellaneous Metals 43,865 sf 0.50$ 21,933$ Ornamental Metals 43,865 sf 1.00$ 43,865$ Equipment Pads 1 ls 5,000.00$ 5,000$ Moisture Protection 43,865 sf 0.50$ 21,933$

Subtotal 2,436,848$ 55.55$

Exterior Closure 40,000 above grade

Curtain Wall 20,000 sf 65.00$ 1,300,000$ Precast/Stucco/Backup 20,000 sf 45.00$ 900,000$ Insulation/Weather Proofing @ Exterior 20,000 sf 2.50$ 50,000$ Miscellaneous Exterior - Support/Screen 20,000 sf 5.00$ 100,000$ Door/Frame/Hardware - Automatic Glass Entry 4 pr 12,000.00$ 48,000$ Door/Frame/Hardware - Hollow Metal - Allow 4 ea 1,200.00$ 4,800$ Overhead Doors - Allow 2 ea 3,000.00$ 6,000$

Subtotal 2,408,800$ 54.91$


12


5.


Roofing

Roofing/Insulations/Flashing 46,865 sf 12.00$ 562,380$ Soffits- Allow 3,000 sf 15.00$ 45,000$ Miscellaneous Caulking and Sealants 43,643 sf 0.50$ 21,822$

Subtotal 629,202$ 14.34$

BUILD OUT

Theatre (2 story volume) Auditorium Seating for 500 5,000 sf 190.00$ 950,000$ Auditorium Stage 2,250 sf 65.00$ 146,250$ Orchestra Pit 450 sf 80.00$ 36,000$ Net to Gross Additional Area 7,700 sf 55.00$ 423,500$

15,400 Theatre Support Area

House Mix 200 sf 60.00$ 12,000$ Lighting Control Rm 200 sf 65.00$ 13,000$ Audio Amp Room 200 sf 40.00$ 8,000$ Follow spot Room 200 sf 65.00$ 13,000$ Dimmer Room 200 sf 40.00$ 8,000$ Stage Storage / prop area 350 sf 40.00$ 14,000$ Star Dressing Room (1 - 2 ppl) 300 sf 75.00$ 22,500$ Chorus Dressing Room (6 ppl) 600 sf 70.00$ 42,000$ Green Room 200 sf 55.00$ 11,000$ Wardrobe Work Rm (incl. laundry) 250 sf 45.00$ 11,250$ Carpentry / Tool Room 120 sf 40.00$ 4,800$ Theatre Storage Support (AV, lighting) 300 sf 35.00$ 10,500$ Net to Gross Additional Area 1,337 sf 25.00$ 33,425$

4,457 Lobby / Cultural Events Area

Lobby / Cultural Events Area (2 story volume) 4,500 sf 110.00$ 495,000$ Box Office 100 sf 45.00$ 4,500$ Coat Check 100 sf 35.00$ 3,500$ Additional Rest Rooms 800 sf 115.00$ 92,000$ Net to Gross Additional Area 2,357 sf 45.00$ 106,065$

7,857


13


5.


Exhibit Area Gallery 4,000 sf 120.00$ 480,000$ Net to Gross Additional Area 1,714 sf 50.00$ 85,700$

5,714

Building Support Building Storage 500 sf 30.00$ 15,000$ Interior Dock staging 800 sf 30.00$ 24,000$ Computer Server room 120 sf 35.00$ 4,200$ Catering Kitchen 750 sf 95.00$ 71,250$ Net to Gross Additional Area 930 sf 25.00$ 23,250$

3,100 Operational Office Space

Staff Offices 240 sf 40.00$ 9,600$ Staff Workstations 288 sf 15.00$ 4,320$ Business Center (copy, fax, printer) 120 sf 60.00$ 7,200$ Board Room 500 sf 85.00$ 42,500$ Net to Gross Additional Area 618 sf 25.00$ 15,450$

1,766 Educational Spaces

Studio Space 2,400 sf 60.00$ 144,000$ Classrooms 1,500 sf 55.00$ 82,500$ Net to Gross Additional Area 1,671 sf 30.00$ 50,130$

5,571 Total Gross Square Footage 43,865 3,519,390$ 80.23$

Equipment and Furnishing

Theatre Seating - Main Hall 500 ea 250.00$ 125,000$ Dock Equipment 1 ea 10,000.00$ 10,000$ Equipment - Theatrical 19,857 sf 75.50$ 1,499,204$

Subtotal 1,634,204$ 37.26

Conveying Systems

Conveying - Lift 1 ea 40,000.00$ 40,000.00$

Subtotal 40,000$ 0.91


14


5.


Plumbing/Fire Protection

Plumbing 43,865 sf 7.00$ 307,055$ Fire Protection - Over/Under Stages 43,865 sf 4.00$ 175,460$

Subtotal 482,515$ 11.00

HVAC

HVAC 43,865 sf 44.00$ 1,930,060$

Subtotal 1,930,060$ 44.00

Electrical

Electrical 43,865 sf 32.00$ 1,403,680$ Subtotal 1,403,680$ 32.00

Subtotal Construction 14,484,698$

General Contractor Fee/General Conditions/Bond 12.00% 1,738,164$ Subtotal 16,222,861$

Programmer's Estimating Contingency 15.00% 2,433,429$ Subtotal 18,656,290$ 425.31$

Escalation to Mid-Point of Construction T imeframe - Not Included 0.00% -$

TOTAL BUILDING 18,656,290$ 425.31$

TOTAL SITEWORK 3,317,474$ 75.63$

TOTAL SITE AND BUILDING 21,973,765$ 500.94$


15


Case Studies Section 6


6.1

Case Studies

Overview of Selected Case Studies

In this section, we detail characteristics of selected cultural facilities, both within the region and throughout the nation. The case studies listed below were selected jointly by representatives of the City of Dallas and the HOK/ERA team.

• Asian Pacific Cultural Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota [Proposed]• Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center/ SOMArts Cultural Center, San Francisco, California• Chinese Culture Center, San Francisco, California• Oakland Asian Cultural Center, Oakland, California• Wing Luke Asian Museum, Seattle, Washington• Charles W. Eisemann Center, Richardson, Texas• Dairy Center for the Arts, Boulder, Colorado• Fort Worth Community Arts Center, Fort Worth, Texas• The Irving Arts Center, Irving, Texas• Latino Cultural Center, Dallas, Texas• Sammons Center for the Performing Arts, Dallas, Texas

We obtained the following information, which is detailed below:• Development history, including a review of how the facility was developed, key players, time

frame, and any major issues that were raised as part of the process;• Physical characteristics of the facility, such as overall gross size, exhibit area, type of

performing arts space and number of seats, workshops, classrooms, and any other support spaces;

• Management and operating structure;• Resident groups or membership structure along with corresponding privileges and

responsibilities, if applicable;• Facility usage and attendance;• Rental rates and pricing structure;• Financial characteristics, including overall operating budget, key cost categories, mix of

earned and contributed income, and major sources of income by category; and• Key challenges and lessons learned.


6.

[Proposed] Asian Pacific Cultural Center, Saint Paul, Minnesota

Development History (to date)The idea for an Asian Pacific Cultural Center in Minnesota was conceived of in 1998, and in the fall of 2000, a 501(c)3 organization was formed. The APCC will be located on the old Excelsior Brewery site, which is located near a large concentration of Asian residents, spans 33 acres, and includes more than 54 buildings. The brewery opened in the mid 1800s, and the site is in what is now the central historic district of Saint Paul.

The goals of APCC are to:• “ Educate all Minnesotans, and provide opportunities to further understanding of Asian

Pacific communities and their cultures;• Contribute to Minnesota’s economy by providing opportunities and resources for Minnesota

to further engage the global business community; and• Provide space for Asian Pacific community organizations offering art, culture, film, music,

dance, cuisine, and language studies.”

Sources and uses of capital funding to date are shown below:

2

Case Studies


6.

Sources and uses of capital funding to date are shown below:

Table 34: Projected Sources and Uses of Capital Funding at the APCC (to date)

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityCurrent plans for the facility call for the following elements:

• A two story building of approximately 45,000 square feet• A 5,000 square foot banquet hall that accommodates up to 500 people• A 256-seat theater designed for performing arts and cinema• Exhibit and gallery Space• A retail/gift shop• 9 classrooms• 2 conference rooms• 14 offices for non-profit cultural organizations• A library/resource center

SOURCES AMOUNTState of Minnesota $7,750,000City of St. Paul $1,750,000Other Government Sources $750,000Tax Credits $1,250,000Private Fundraising $6,500,000

TOTAL $18,000,000

USES AMOUNTProfessional Services (includes Architect, Owner’s Representative, Fundraising, Administration, Special Testing, Commissioning, Marketing Collateral, etc.)

$2,241,000

Site Acquisition $1,068,000Construction $12,408,000Furnishings and Equipment $362,000Artwork (State requirement) $100,000Contingency & Inflation $1,821,000

TOTAL: $18,000,000Source: APCC website

3

Case Studies


6.

Management and OperationsIt is expected that the facility will be owned and operated by the Asian Pacific Cultural Center 510(c)3. With capital support from the City, the State, and federal tax credits, the APCC is expected to be a hub for all Minnesotans who want to learn about Asian Cultures.

Key strategic partnerships in place include:• AdopSource• Asian Pages• Center for Hmong Arts and Talent (CHAT)• Indonesian Performing Arts Association of Minnesota – Sumunar (IPAAM)• Korean Quarterly• Metropolitan Economic Development Agency (MEDA)• Minnesota Council of Nonprofits• Mu Performing Arts• Pangea World Theater• Professional Hmong Womens Association (PHWA)• Shinparam Drum Group• Southeast Asian Refugee Community Home (SEARCH)• State Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans (CAPM)• Twin Cities Chinese Dance Theater• Vietnam Arts Association• Vietnamese Minnesotans Association

Lessons LearnedSince the APCC is not yet built, lessons related to facility operations are not available. The development experience, however, of the APCC does offer some lessons. In 2009, the State of Minnesota rescinded their original commitment for funding for the facility, which created a ripple effect as other private foundation sources and tax credits were tied to this funding. There are two lessons to learn from this experience. First, it is important to have diverse and separate funding sources, for both capital and operating cost. Second, the process of developing a cultural center can be lengthy and requires a continued commitment from strong community proponents for the project tot ultimately succeed. In the case of APCC, they do have this commitment and will likely be ultimately successful.

4

Case Studies


6.

Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center/ SOMArts Cultural Center, San Francisco, California

Development HistoryThe Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center (APICC) is an organization that was founded in 1996 with representatives of five non-profit performing arts groups (Asian American Dance Performances, First Voice, Asian ImprovaRts, the Asian American Theater Company and Kearny Street Workshop), who all wanted to promote the arts and cultural organizations of San Francisco’s Asian and Pacific Islander community. The APICC is most well known for its annual United States of Asian America Festival, which attracts over 4,500 participants over six weeks. The festival includes about 20 programs, all focused on artistic production from the local API community.

The APICC does not operate a permanent physical facility. It is a private non-profit organization supported as one of San Francisco’s “virtual” cultural centers with funds from the California Arts Council, Consortium of Cultural Centers, Grants for the Arts/San Francisco Hotel Tax Fund, San Francisco Arts Commission, Zellerbach Family Fund, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, WA Gerbode Foundation, as well as by individual contributors. The APICC is housed in and has a close relationship with the SOMArts Cultural Center, another City-run facility. Opening receptions and shows part of the annual festival are held at SOMArts. Due to the close relationship and the fact that SOMArts is a model of a City-run cultural center that includes the APICC, we have included a case study on this facility.

SOMArts was established as a non-profit organization in 1979, born out of the Neighborhood Arts Movement, an initiative to foster City support for community artists and arts organizations. Today, SOMArts is located in a City-owned building at Brannan and 8th Street. It operates on a year to year lease agreement with the City and an annual grant agreement established by the legislature in the late 1990s. It also serves as a fiscal sposnor for less established groups in the area. The City has considerable oversight through extensive reporting requirements to ensure the Center is achieving its mission to foster cultural vibrancy.

The mission of SOMArts Cultural Center is to promote and nurture art on the community level and foster an appreciation of and respect for all cultures. SOMArts’ Technical Services Program offers stage, sound, lighting and consultation for major street fairs and festivals in San Francisco.

5

Case Studies


6.

Physical Characteristics of the FacilitySOMArts is 17,000 square feet in total. Amenities available include:

• The Bay Gallery is approximately 3,200 square feet (108'x 30') with over 4000' feet of wall space plus additional movable walls that can be configured for different exhibitions or events. The Bay Gallery walls are painted white to accommodate most exhibitions, but alterations are allowed at the renter’s expense. Rental of the Bay Gallery includes use of the lobby and kitchen.

• The theater is ideal for performances and other events that require a stage and stage lighting. "House" dimensions are 54' x 35'. House walls are painted black to create a black box venue within our larger venue. Stage lighting and theatrical soft goods are available on a pipe grid over the stage. A movable tech booth is available for a FOH tech operating position for stage managers and lighting/sound operators. Seating includes 48 raked theater seats. Additional seating includes padded (non-folding) chairs. Sound reinforcement, additional lighting to supplement the house rep plot and soft goods can be rented to supplement the included equipment. Rental of the Theater includes use of the lobby and kitchen.

• Patio- grounds outside the building which can also be utilized for additional space to accommodate vendors, fairs, activities or outdoor movies.

• Dance Studio 18’ x 40’ (720 ft sq) dance and rehearsal studio has recently refinished hardwood floor, full-length mirrors and colorful murals.

Figure 21: Layout of SOMArts Cultural Center

Resident OrganizationsSOMArts is an umbrella organization that partners with a mix of grantee residents and tenants including the Asian Pacific Islander Cultural Center, ArtSpan, Chrysalis Printmaking Studio, and Sixth Street Photography Workshop. Tenant organizations pay rent to SOMArts for access to the facilities, some of these are “cottage industries” which survive solely on earned income. Other groups can be sponsored with affordable space rentals. In the last year, the facility has undertaken an initiative to generate more of its own programming with three exhibitions per year.

6

Case Studies


6.

Facility Usage and AttendanceSOMArts has just started tracking utilization data. Management indicated there are more than 300 events in the center annually.

Rental RatesThe Bay Gallery standard rental rate is $750 for events and $300 per day for exhibits. Theatre events are $750. The patio, which is only available as an added amenity to a Bay Gallery or Theatre rental, is $375. Rental fees for all three are $1,500. Events scheduled past midnight have additional fees. There are also various fees for sound and lighting packages and production assistance.

Financial CharacteristicsThe total operating budget for SOMArts is just less than $1 million. Approximately 50 to 60 percent of the operating budget is spent on personnel. The Center raises approximately 30 percent of its budget with earned income and provided services. The largest Bay Gallery is the most important revenue generator, which is prized for wide flexibility. Earned revenue from rentals is approximately 40 percent of total earned income, with the remainder largely from contracted services and performance fees. The Center also receives approximately 60 percent of total funding from the City, primarily from the San Francisco Arts Commission’s Community Arts and Education Program with funding from The Hotel Tax Fund. The remainder is contributed income from individuals and foundations. The Center has six to eight full-time equivalent employees, four of whom are full-time.

Key Challenges and Lessons Learned• As City funding has declined and become less certain, the Center has prioritized diversifying

income sources. Previous City support for building maintenance, utilities, and staff responsible for extensive reporting requirements has declined over the years.

• SOMArts has found it more difficult to fundraise without an institutional identity. They are currently addressing how to balance their mission as a supporting umbrella organization with in-house programming initiatives.

• It is important for cultural centers, even those that have active programming through other cultural organizations, to produce and present their own programming in order to establish an identity and attract both earned and contributed funding.

• Clarifying mission up-front in the project development project is critical.• It is best to negotiate the level of partnership, including reporting requirements and funding

expectations, between a proposed center and the City up front. • It is essential to provide a clear structure for the involvement of community cultural

organizations, with benefits and responsibilities (both financial through rent or membership) and privileges (such as priority booking, discounted rental space, free usage days, etc.) transparent to the entire community.

7

Case Studies


6.

Chinese Culture Center, San Francisco, California

Development HistoryThe Chinese Culture Center (CCC) was established in 1965 when a developer proposed a new hotel development between San Francisco’s Chinatown and the Financial District. To prevent the hotel from overshadowing the community, the City negotiated that one floor of the hotel be designated City property and set aside as the Chinese Culture Center. A bridge provides direct access to the third floor of the Hilton Hotel to Portsmouth Square, the center of Chinatown. The Center underwent a major renovation in 2005 as part of a larger Hilton Hotel renovation.

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityThe Cultural Center has 20,000 gross square feet, which includes an auditorium (4,464 square feet, 500 banquet, 350 banquet reception capacity), a gallery (3,000 square feet), two classrooms, the Wells Fargo Community Room (26 person capacity), administrative offices, and a small kitchen. The CCC also operates a Gallery Shop with a selection of Chinese-themed merchandise, including art pieces, antiques, jewelry, ceramics, books and souvenirs.

8

Case Studies


6.

Management and Operating StructureThe facility is owned by the City and County of San Francisco and managed by the Chinese Culture Foundation, a non-profit, 501(c)3 organization. The Center offers and hosts a variety of educational and cultural programs. These range from lectures, workshops, and classes to art exhibitions, dance and musical performances, and cultural exchanges. Their mission is to enable members of the Chinese American community and the general public alike to gain a deeper knowledge of historical as well as contemporary Chinese and Chinese American culture.

Programming for the gallery is organized in-house with four to five exhibitions annually. Major exhibitions of historical significance have included Chinese of America: 1786-1980 (a documentary exhibition on the history of Chinese Americans); Chinese Women of America—A Pictorial History (an exhibition accompanied by a catalogue published in conjunction with the University of Washington Press); Stories From China’s Past: Han Dynasty Pictorial Tomb Reliefs and Archaeological Objects from Sichuan Province, People’s Republic of China, which toured to eight U.S. cities in 1987-88; Symbol and Adornment: Traditional Costumes and Jewelry from China’s Minorities, (in collaboration with the Cultural Palace Museum of Nationalities, Beijing, China); and Shiwan Ceramics: Beauty, Color, and Passion. More recently, the center has featured exhibitions on Chinese contemporary art.

The Center also donates facilities and in-kind support for the Chinatown Community Arts Program of the San Francisco Art Commission, sponsoring events in conjunction with various cultural organizations and community groups including Chinese Cultural Productions, Chinese Folk Dance Association, and the Guzheng Society of San Francisco. The Center is an active member of the Chinese Community Program of the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, a support group that assists the Museum in its community outreach.

Research internships in genealogical studies are also offered through the “In Search of Roots” program, which provides young Chinese Americans with a year-long program researching their Chinese American family history, culminating with a trip to China to visit their ancestral village, a symposium, and exhibition.

For the past three years, the Center has offered a series of concerts featuring youth orchestras from the San Francisco Bay Area. Renowned musicians, such as violinist Cho-liang Lin and pianist Dennis Lee, are invited to talk about their experiences and interact with the audience.

Heritage Walk docents from the Center, have introduced San Francisco Chinatown and its history to many out-of-town visitors and school-age children; tours are fully subscribed, especially during weekdays by school-age children from throughout the Bay Area.

Classes at the CCC include courses on Mandarin language, Chinese culture, brush painting and calligraphy, traditional Chen Taijiquan, youth Wei-chi, paper cutting, Guzheng, and Chinese chess.

9

Case Studies


6.

Facility Usage and AttendancePerformances and programs held in the auditorium are split between outside renters and in-house offerings. All commercial bookings of the facility are handled through the Hilton Hotel (with revenue following), and only non-profit and community related organizations are able to rent space through the Culture Center. Including the year-round exhibitions program in the gallery (4 to 5 exhibitions), the Center hosted a total of 130 programs in 2009, which includes its own programming as well as outside community cultural rentals.

To apply for discounted space from the CCC, interested parties must submit a proposal with the following information:

1. Name of the organization2. 501(c)(3) status3. Are you a CCC non-profit member?4. Event name5. Detailed description of the event including:

A. Expected attendeesB. Set-up requirement (Seating arrangement, Projector, Microphone & ScreenC. Target date & Time and durationD. Admission fee

6. Is this an Asian Community specific event?7. Will you be able to pay for the rental fee plus cleaning deposit when booking it?

Rental RatesRent for the CCC auditorium is $1,500 for non-profit organizations for the first four hours and $2,000 for community related (but for-profit) organizations. The multi-purpose community room is $500/four hours and the classrooms are $400/four hours. Some programs are co-sponsored by the Chinese Culture Center and therefore able to receive lower rate and/or subsidized rental fees in exchange for publicity and marketing opportunities, although the requirements for this have been made much more stringent in recent years.

Financial CharacteristicsThe Center’s total operating budget is $600,000, with 50 percent spent on personnel. Occupancy, rent, utilities and maintenance account for 2 percent of the operating budget. Approximately 65 percent of the operating budget is covered by contributed income from gifts, grants, and membership fees. The remaining 35 percent is earned through programs and services. The auditorium is the most important space for earned revenue. There are six FTE employees, four of whom are full-time.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedMajor lessons learned by the Chinese Culture Center experience are:

• Site is important to the success of a facility. The Center’s location in a prime site in Chinatown has been a key factor to its success.

• Flexible spaces are very important.• It is critical to establish clear policies related to facility rentals and usage and be consistent

in the enforcement of these policies.• A mix of both Chinese and Chinese American programming has been important to address

the diverse backgrounds of the Chinese community in the Bay Area.• Children’s cultural programming has been very successful and could be an opportunity area

for other facilities, particularly given the importance of education in Chinese culture.

10

Case Studies


6.

Oakland Asian Cultural Center, Oakland, California

Development HistoryThe Oakland Asian Cultural Center (OACC) was founded in 1984 by a coalition of community members who wanted a place for Asian and Pacific Islander arts and cultural organizations in Oakland’s Chinatown. Since moving into its current facility in 1996, the Center has become a resource for all of the San Francisco East Bay, offering a range of cultural programs that includes performances, workshops, festivals, classes, and exhibitions. The OACC mission is to build vibrant communities through Asian and Pacific Islander American arts and culture programs that foster intergenerational and cross-cultural dialogue, cultural identity, collaborations, and social justice.

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityThe OACC is part of a larger multi-purposedevelopment that includes a library, retail, and housing (one-third affordable), which the developer, who was from Hong Kong, was required to preserve. The 15,000 square foot OACC facility includes:

• Auditorium (325 seating theatre, 220 banquet) - fixed stage with adjacent dressing rooms.

• Full-scale kitchen (3,000 square feet) - available for events and culinary classes.

• Conference rooms- five furnished spaces with various flexibility and audio-visual amenities; capacity ranges from 20 classroom style to 30 theatre style.

• Dance Studio- small stage, full wall mirror with excellent acoustics for classes and rehearsals.

• Exhibition space- convertedhallway for rotating exhibitions related to the API community.

11

Case Studies


6.

Management and Operating StructureThe Center is a private non-profit organization operating a City of Oakland owned facility. Programming participants and rentals are primarily from people/businesses/and groups within the Chinatown community and City of Oakland as well as others from the East Bay area. There are no resident companies who use the facility full-time, but there are a number of long-standing relationships with artists who teach classes in partnership with the OACC and at the facility.

Facility Usage and AttendanceIn a typical week there are roughly 35 classes held, with a total of 35 different class offerings course year. The facility has an open rental policy for all events which are income generating or at least cost neutral. Staff estimated there are roughly 200-300 events per year. Events at the facility also include a range of outside rentals for weddings and private parties (approximately 12 percent of total rentals).

Rental RatesRental pricing is as follows:

• The auditorium costs $1,100 four hours/ $1,650 eight hours.• Conference rooms fees range from $165 for four hours to $880 for eight hours, depending

on the amount of space used. • The dance studio is rented at $45 per hour.• The kitchen is priced at $330 for four hours/ or $550 for eight hours.

Non-profits receive a discounted rate.

Financial CharacteristicsThe OACC annual operating budget is $425,000. Currently the Center receives an annual subsidy of $80,000 from the City, but the management staff expects most of that to disappear in the next year or two. Earned income from rentals accounts for 30 percent of total operating expenses, and the income from class offerings an additional 10 percent. The most important space for income generation is the auditorium, where flexibility has been very important. The remainder of the budget is covered by grants and fundraising efforts. There are 8 staff members (1 full-time and 7 part-time) which includes an executive director, event manager, facilities manager, programs director, and development director.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedBased on experience at the OACC, staff offered the follow observations as advice:

• Direct street access is more desirable than a second floor location.• Location adjacent to a Chinese restaurant has been useful for catering purposes. • Flexible event space is crucial. • Representing and planning programming for a diverse Asian community is a challenge, but

they have had success with community advisory boards who participate in planning programs and exhibitions (modeled after the Wing Luke Museum).

12

Case Studies


6.

Wing Luke Asian Museum, Seattle, Washington

Development HistoryThe Wing Luke Asian Museum is located in Seattle’s Chinatown/International District, south of downtown. It is named in honor of the late Seattle City Council member Wing Luke, who was the first Asian American elected to public office in the Pacific Northwest. The museum was his vision and first organized in a storefront space in 1967, shortly after his death. The museum opened in its current location in 2008 in the renovated 1910 East Kong Yick Building after 10 years of planning and community outreach. The total capital campaign of $23 million was raised largely from private sources, with one-third from various government sources.

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityIn total, the Wing Luke has 60,000 gross square feet with 40,000 dedicated to public use:

• Safeco Insurance Foundation Special Exhibition Gallery—multimedia capabilities with rotating exhibitions.

• The Paul G. Allen Family Foundation Central Gallery—focuses on the Asian Pacific American story with the permanent exhibit, Honoring Our Journey.

• The George Tsutakawa Art Gallery—showcases the talents of Asian Pacific American artists, past and current.

• The Uwajiimaya & Moriguchi Family KidPLACE—children’s gallery with sensory exhibitions to explore and discover Asian Pacific American heritage.

• Frank Fujii Youth Space—exhibitions from youths associated with the WLAM YouthCAN and TeensWAY programs.

• East and West Lightwells—showcase historic building, feature art installations from artists Susie Kozawa and Erin Shie Palmer.

• The Vera & Joey Ing Marketplace—specialty retail.• Historic spaces including the former Gee How Oak Tin Association room, the Freeman SRO

Hotel, a Canton Alley family apartment and Yick Fung Mercantile. • Wing Luke Asian Museum Board of Trustees Community Hall (1,715 square feet, 121 person

capacity seated)—adjacent kitchen with refrigerator, electric stove/oven, microwave, sink, and dishwasher, flexible seating options, wireless internet access, a sound system, LCD projector and screen (9’ high x 12’ wide), computer hook up, microphones, and podium. The space includes art installations from local NW artists, Ron Ho and Stewart Wong which depicts “Our Heritage, Our Journey, Our Dreams”.

13

Case Studies

6.


6.

• The Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation Welcome Hall (1,630 square feet, 44 person capacity seated)—links the community hall and theatre. Art work from local artists Saya Moriyasu, Susie Jungune Lee, Diem Chau and Cheryll Leo-Gwin honoring donors.

• Tateuchi Story Theatre (1,150 square feet, 65 fixed seats)—appropriate for lectures, presentations, seminars, and films with its high ceilings and acoustically treated walls. The historic Nippon Kan Theatre Screen from the early 1900’s serves as the back drop for this space. Equipment includes a sound system, controlled lighting, LCD projector with viewing screen (7’ high x 13’ wide), DVD/CD, and capability to hook to a computer for power point presentations. Other amenities include use of a podium, microphones, and studio director chairs. Food and drink are prohibited.

• Microsoft Board and Community Conference Room (515 square feet, 38 capacity seated)—ideal for meetings, presentations, and luncheons. Equipment includes a projector and screen, speaker system, DVD/CD, wireless internet access, computer and conference call hook ups, and eraser board. A built in cabinet and kitchen sink can be used to set up luncheons.

• Ping and Ruby Chow and Family Gathering Space and Learning Studio (380 square feet, 22 capacity seated)—intimate open air setting with small tables. It looks out towards the Historic Balcony facing King Street and Ping’s Chinese Opera costume along with the original “Eight Immortals” wood carving from Ruby Chow’s Restaurant on Seattle’s First Hill are on display. The room has a built in projector and screen, sound system and DVD/CD which can be used for meetings, lectures and films. The open-air space is located between the first and second stories and has limited privacy.

14

Case Studies


6.

Management and Operating StructureThe museum is a Smithsonian Affiliation organization with a mission to educate the public about the contributions, history, and issues facing Asian Pacific Islander American communities. The private non-profit museum organization owns and operates the facility.

The Wing Luke Asian Museum has become a national model for community-based exhibition processes and oral history gathering projects. In 1995, the Museum received the Institute for Museum and Library Services (IMLS) National Award for Museum Service on the strength of its cutting edge work in fostering broad-based participation in the development of exhibitions and programs. Each year the museum accepts exhibit proposals and brings together community members to the exhibition development process, integrating oral history gathering and a range of multimedia techniques into its displays. These public advisory groups also develop public programs, of which there are approximately 60 per year. What community groups are selected to perform and participate in producing public programs is dependent on the community advisory groups who will offer organizational support and production stipends if possible. Public programs are range of activities including family art days, artist talks, lectures/panel discussions, film showings, book readings, and dance performances.

In addition to the exhibitions and public programs, the museum operates a facility use program for earned income. The museum sees this as more program related than a standard event rental program as rental attendees have the opportunity to experience the museum. The events policy stipulates that events must not disrupt or conflict with the primary use of the building as a public pan-Asian Pacific American history and art museum whose mission is to engage Asian Pacific Americans and others in the art, history and culture of Asian Pacific. Interested parties must submit applications to arrange rentals, which are reviewed on a case by case basis. Users include other non-profit organizations, private families, and governmental organizations. If performing arts are held at the facility, it is typically part of the public program process.

Rental Rates

Table 33: Wing Luke Asian Museum Event Space Fees (2010)

Event SpacesSquare

FeetCapacity (seated)

General Rate

Hour Minimum

Microsoft Board & Community Conference Room 515 38 $200 2

Ping & Ruby Chow & Family Gathering Space & Learning Studio 380 22 $80 2

Wing Luke Asian Museum Board of Trustees Community Hall 1,715 121 $525 3

The Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation Welcome Hall 1,630 44 $300 3

Tateuchi Story Theatre 1,150 65 $300 3

First Floor (Welcome and Community Hall, Special Exhibitions Gallery, and Theatre)

6,295 337 $1,125 3

Entire Facility 13,000 500 $2,560 4

Source: Wing Luke Asian Museum

15

Case Studies


6.

Financial CharacteristicsThe museum’s total operating budget is $2 million, with approximately $1 million allocated for staffing expenses. There are no specifics for programming budgets, as they are largely tied to individual exhibitions and vary from year to year. Earned income accounts for approximately 25 percent of the total operating budget. The largest source of earned income revenue is admissions and tours. The space rental program is a small portion of total earned income with a target of $50,000 in 2009. This program has only been in operation for one year and the management hopes it will continue to grow. There are 26 FTE staff members. It is likely that the budget will expand over time to allow the organization to more actively utilize the new expanded space it now occupied.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedThe Wing Luke Museum, while functioning in some ways as cultural center, still operates very much in a traditional museum structure with admission fees and a collection that must be maintained and stored. However, they have a strong community engagement process, and there are still interesting lessons to be learned through their experience:

• The museum’s community collaboration-based approach to exhibitions and programming was also applied to developing the overall site plan and building recommendations. Community input was critical to building the program, which was needed before construction began on the building.

• The museum selected a strong project team (including contractors, architects, etc) that understood the museum’s philosophical approach and outreach process.

• Planning for the expansion of a facility should include strategies for increasing staff and operating costs, and not just a capital campaign.

16

Case Studies


6.

Charles W. Eisemann Center, Richardson, Texas

Development HistoryThe 117,000 square foot Charles W. Eisemann Center opened in September 2002 after about 15 years of research and planning. The land was donated, at a value of $1.2 million, by Margaret Hunt Hill in honor of her late husband, Albert Galatyn Hill, and the largest performance theatre was named in recognition of this donation. The Hill family owned a large stake within the 27-acre Galatyn Park Corporation where the Eisemann Center and the Galatyn Urban Park Center, a complex of a 336-room luxury hotel, a two-acre plaza, two office buildings, and parking garages, were built. The total cost of the building was $48 million. Another $55 million parking garage connecting to the new DART station was also added as part of the Center. In addition to a $2 million donation from the Eisemann family and the land donated by the Hill family, approximately $3.8 million was raised through a private fundraising effort, and the remaining financing came from the City of Richardson’s Hotel Tax Fund and a public/private bond issuance used to fund the hotel.

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityThe 117,000 square foot facility is comprised of the1,563-seat Margaret and Al Hill Performance Hall, which includes a 75-foot stage and over 4,800 square feet of stage area; the Bank of America Theater, with between 230 and 400 seats depending on the configuration and a stage area of 1,914 square feet; and the 3,150 square foot Bank of America Hall, a multi-purpose/events hall that features state of the art AV production equipment and excellent sound acoustics for band and choral performances. Additional spaces include a mezzanine/gallery space, a prep kitchen, box offices, six dressing room, a green room, and various support areas. The three key spaces are detailed in illustrations below.

17

Case Studies


6.18

Case Studies


6.19

Case Studies


6.20

Case Studies


6.

Management and OperationsThe Eisemann Center is owned and operated by the City of Richardson, and therefore all staff are City employees. As of early February, the Center employed 26 full-time staff and six part-time staff. In addition to managing and operating the facility, the Eisemann Center has established its own presenting series called the Spotlight Series. The Richardson Symphony Orchestra is the only group referred to as a resident group. Other key user groups are shown below.

• Chamberlain Performing Arts• Choice Music Events• Cross Timbers Youth Orchestra• Indian Cultural Heritage Foundation• Collin County Ballet Theatre• Ivy Camerata Orchestra• Lone Star Wind Orchestra• New World Ballet• Keyboard Conversions• Richardson Arts Alliance• Family Arts• Plano Symphony Orchestra• Richardson Community Band• Richardson Symphony Orchestra• Rich Tones• The Living Opera• The Vocal Majority Chorus• Tuzer Ballet

During the design and construction phases of the center, the City of Richardson created a special non-profit rate card for existing arts organizations based in Richardson. As long as these organizations remain based in Richardson, they receive discounted rates. Furthermore, these organizations receive priority booking and send in their date requests on May 1st for the next season, which runs from October to September of the following year.

Facility UsageThe Eisemann Center had 541 usage days during the 2008-2009 fiscal year, down from 626 usage days the year before. Since opening in 2002, the total number of usage days is estimated to be 3,836, which includes 3,003 events and performances. The total number of performances and events in the 2008-2009 fiscal year was 426, down from 487 in 2007-2008, but up from 354 in 2002, when the facility opened. Approximately 80 percent of the events are rentals, whereby the event is presented by an outside group, and 20 percent of events are presented by the Eisemann Center. Total attendance in 2008-2009 was 189,902, down from 209,301 the year before.

It was noted that one of the design objectives of the Eisemann Center was to hold multiple events simultaneously, and this objective has successfully been met. The separation of the three lobbies allows for three large events to be held at the same time, and with state-of-the-art sound-proofing technology, noise-interference is not an issue.

Finally, the Eismann Center benefits from the active business community in the surrounding area, with relatively strong corporate rentals.

21

Case Studies


6.

Rental RatesRental rates for the three major facilities are illustrated in the following tables.

Table 30: 2010 Rental Rates at the Bank of America Hall

Mon-Thu Fri-Sun Mon-Thu Fri-Sun

Base Rate – (3 hr minimum) $150 $200 $250 $300

Additional Hours $50/hr $67/hr $83/hr $100/hr

Base Fee – Day Max (7am – 5pm) $225 $300 $375 $450

Base Fee – Eve Max (5pm – 11pm) $225 $300 $375 $450

Base Fee – Day/Evening Max (7am – 11pm) $338 $450 $563 $675

Base Rate – (3 hr minimum) $113 $150 $188 $225

Additional Hours $38/hr $50/hr $63/hr $75/hr

Base Fee – Day Max (7am – 5pm) $169 $225 $281 $338

Base Fee – Eve Max (5pm – 11pm) $169 $225 $281 $338

Base Fee – Day/Evening Max (7am – 11pm) $254 $338 $422 $506Source: Eisemann Center

Simultaneous Use: The discounted rates noted below are for use of Bank of America Hall by clients who have contracted the use of either the Hill Performance Hall, Bank of America Theatre or both during the same time period.

DescriptionNon-Profit Commerical

Bank of America Hall

22

Case Studies


6.

Table 31: 2010 Rental Rates at the Hill Performance Hall and the Bank of America Theatre

CommericalCommeri

calMon-Thu Fri-Sun Mon-Sun Mon-Thu Fri-Sun Mon-Sun

Base Fee/Perf. or Event – Evening (5pm – 11pm)$1,500 $1,650 $2,650 $350 $385 $525

Base Fee/Perf. or Event - Daytime (7am – 5pm) $1,500 $1,650 $2,650 $350 $385 $525

Additional Performance/Same Day $750 $825 $1,325 $175 $193 $275

Rehearsal Hours (3 hr minimum charge) $450 $495 $825 $150 $174 $250

Additional Hours (Perf. or Rehearsal) $150/hr $165/hr $275/hr $50/hr $58/hr $75/hr

Additional Hours (Production/Technical) $75/hr $83/hr $137/hr $25/hr $39/hr $50/hr

Day Meeting* (3 hr minimum within 7am-3pm) $450 NA $825* $150 NA $250*

Day Meeting* (Add’l hours within 7am-3pm) $150/hr NA $275/hr* $50/hr NA $83/hr*

Hold Time/Day (7am – 5pm w/no activity) $75/hr $83/hr $137/hr $25/hr $39/hr $50/hr

Hold Time/Evening (5pm – 11pm w/no activity) $50/hr $58/hr $75/hr

Source: Eisemann Center

*Day Meeting rate applicable only to events with very minimal technical needs that occur during the hours of 7am – 3pm on a Monday – Thursday.

Margaret and Al Hill Performance Hall Bank of America Theatre

Non-Profit Non-ProfitDescription

23

Case Studies


6.

Financial CharacteristicsThe City of Richardson funds the operations of the Eisemann Center from the Hotel/Motel Tax Fund. The operating budget for the facility has been around $2.5 million. Actual revenues and expenditures from the 2007-2008 fiscal year are shown below.

Table 32: Operating Revenues and Expenditures, by Category, at the IAC

The Eisemann Center Foundation is a 501c(3) organization used as a mechanism for the Center to receive philanthropic donations.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedThe Eisemann Center faced challenges during the construction period with significant cost overruns that have forced the Center to try and raise money well after construction has been completed. Currently, the Center is running multiple campaigns to try and raise money to pay off bond debt, including a “Name a Seat” campaign. It was noted that “fast track” construction is not in the best interest of any new facility. Due to a number of factors, the entire project had to be accelerated to meet a critical time table of other developments taking place within the Galatyn Park Urban Center. That being said, the changes to the design were made and have been critical to the success of this facility operationally. The City of Richardson has been very supportive of hiring experienced and qualified managers to operate the facility. The vision and purpose is shared by all, from the City Council to staff and user groups, that has allowed the Eisemann Center to not only serve Richardson, but all of North Texas.

Revenue by CategoryActual 2007-

2008 % of BudgetFees $784,480 44.80%Ticket Sales and Surcharges $252,148 14.40%Concessions $16,848 1.00%Eisemann Presents Revenue $627,907 35.90%Miscellaneous $67,772 3.90%City Subsidy $717,086 29.10%Total Revenues $1,749,155 100.00%

Expenditures by CategoryTotal Personnel Costs $1,637,596 66.40%Total Purchases, Prof & Tech Services $65,403 2.70%Total Purchases, Property Services $39,102 1.60%Total Other Purchases $267,110 10.80%Total Supplies $457,030 18.50%Total Expenditures $2,466,241 100.00%Source: City of Richardson, Texas

24

Case Studies


6.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedThe Eisemann Center faced challenges during the construction period with significant cost overruns that have forced the Center to try and raise money well after construction has been completed. Currently, the Center is running multiple campaigns to try and raise money to pay off bond debt, including a “Name a Seat” campaign. It was noted that “fast track” construction is not in the best interest of any new facility. Due to a number of factors, the entire project had to be accelerated to meet a critical time table of other developments taking place within the Galatyn Park Urban Center. That being said, the changes to the design were made and have been critical to the success of this facility operationally. The City of Richardson has been very supportive of hiring experienced and qualified managers to operate the facility. The vision and purpose is shared by all, from the City Council to staff and user groups, that has allowed the Eisemann Center to not only serve Richardson, but all of North Texas.

The Center has greatly benefited from naming campaigns for both the overall facility itself as well as individual theaters. If the City of Richardson had imposed their name on the facility, it is believed that the center would not have been as successful to date. Additionally, the design of the Center, which allows for separate events to occur simultaneously time, has allowed the facility to generate strong rental revenues, especially on peak weekend days.

25

Case Studies


6.

The Dairy Center for the Arts, Boulder, Colorado

Development HistoryThe Dairy Center for the Arts in Boulder Colorado is housed in the historic Watts-Hardy Dairy building, which until the 1970s operated as a dairy storage and processing plant. It has become the premier arts center in Boulder with a mission to provide diverse opportunities to create, learn, and participate in high quality performing and visual arts experiences for the community.

The Center was founded in the late 1980s when a group of artists cleaned out the abandoned building for arts events and programming. By 1990, organizers announced plans to convert the space into an arts center. A year later, Sinton Dairies donated the land to the founding non-profit arts organization, which would need to raise $750,000 to acquire the building. The Boulder City Council agreed to buy the building on behalf of the Center, which raised $300,000 toward the total cost. The City provided a bridge loan of $450,000 plus $100,000 for safety improvements. In 1995, the City transferred ownership of the building to the Center, which had raised $800,000 in cash and pledges towards a goal of $3.5 million to enlarge and remodel the building. In 1998, renovations began with funding through matching grants from Boettcher and Gates Foundation of approximately $1.5 to $2 million combined. In 2000, the City of Boulder acquired the property as debt forgiveness for the initial bridge loan, and agreed to lease the space to the Center for $1 per year, providing maintenance and ongoing repairs in excess of $2,500. Construction of the performance space, The Dairy lobby, McMahon Gallery as well as improvements to the Carson and East theaters were completed in 2004. In 2009, The Dairy secured a donation from the Boedecker Foundation that will allow them to add an art house theater, a glass atrium, and an entryway, in addition to seeding an endowment for ongoing operations.

26

Case Studies


6.

Physical Characteristics of the Facility

The facility includes 42,000 gross square feet, which includes three professional theater venues:• Performance Space (250 seats)- ideal for dance and all performing arts events• Carsen Theater (80 seat, proscenium)- suited for experimental theatre, student productions,

film, lectures, concerts and recitals• East Theater (100 seat, three-quarter thrust)- popular with local theatre companies

The Dairy also has three gallery spaces: McMahon Gallery (85 person capacity), Focus Gallery (180 square feet) which formerly served as a hallway space, and the MacMillan Family Lobby (150 capacity) which is designed to accommodate exhibitions. There is also a multi-purpose room, the V Room (825 square feet), as well as 25 studios (22 small music studios and 3 large dance studios) in addition to administrative offices, some of which are rented to resident organizations.

27

Case Studies


6.

Figure 20: The Dairy Center for the Arts Building Plan

Management and Operating StructureThe Dairy is operated by a private non-profit organization and owned by the City with 14 resident companies:3rd Law Dance/Theater, Boulder Ballet, Boulder County Arts Alliance, The Boulder International Fringe Festival, Boulder Ensemble Theatre Company (BETC), Boulder Philharmonic Orchestra, Boulder’s Upstart Crow Theatre Company, CenterStage Theater Company, EcoArts Connections , Helander Dance Theater , Imagination Makers Theater Company, Lemon Sponge Cake Contemporary Ballet Company, The Parlando School for the Arts, and Stories on Stage.

Resident organizations currently have priority on scheduling performance venues. They are given one month of priority scheduling at the end of the calendar year for the coming season. Resident companies do not receive specific discounts. Other arrangements are made with resident companies when The Dairy enters in to a co-production or specialized agreement. The current management team has been hired since the founding of The Dairy and granted resident status to the various organizations. The criteria for designating residency status are known.

28

Case Studies


6.

Facility Usage and AttendanceOutside groups also use the space, but utilization is 70 percent resident organizations. Live theatre is half of total utilization, dance 30 percent, and the rest is music meetings, and other workshops. The Dairy hosts 450 events per year.

Rental Rates

Table 20: Rentals Fees for The Dairy Center for the Arts

Financial CharacteristicsThe Dairy’s total annual operating budget in 2008 was $647,000. Salaries account for 44 percent of total expenditures and utilities/minor maintenance for 15 percent. The Center earns $367,000 from rentals, of which 70 percent are from venues and 30 percent from office rentals. The theatre venues are most important to revenue generation, especially the performance space, which is the most expensive to operate. The Center requires an annual subsidy of over $200,000, of which less than $30,000 is provided by the City. The City subsidy is provided by sales tax revenue, an arrangement made for all facilities that are part of the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District. The Dairy employs four full-time staff members and 14 part-time employees.

Venue Rental FeesPerformance Space -5 hour minimum

-$110/hour, includes technician-$2 per ticket ticketing fee-$15/hour house management with a 4-hour minimumNon-Profit discount is $20 per hour on the space rental.

Carsen Theatre -5 hour minimum-$49/hour, includes technician. $30/hour without technician.-$160 “Performance Package” includes 4 hours of house management and full ticketing service

East Theatre -5 hour minimum-$59/hour, includes technician. $40/hour without technician-$160 “Performance Package” includes 4 hours of house management and full ticketing service

V Room -4 hour minimum-$30/hour during administration hours (Monday through Friday 9 am – 5 pm)-$45/hour during off hoursNon-Profit discount is $8 per hour

Gallery -4 hour minimum-$95/hour includes house managementNon-Profit discount is $20/hour

Lobby -4 hour minimum-$95/hour includes house managementNon-Profit discount is $20/hour

Source: Dairy Center for the Arts

29

Case Studies


6.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedThe primary advice The Dairy management offers to every new organization is to hire staff with experience in arts facility management. Two years ago The Dairy board made a commitment to address management concerns that had plagued the facility and hired the current professional team, rather than enthusiastic and well-meaning arts-oriented people whose salaries were less. Since the management team has been in place, finances have stabilized, the vision of daily operations has form and purpose, earned income is up dramatically, fund-raising is focused and effective, and the relationship between the board and staff has improved. The interviewee commented that there is something rather romantic about the artistic-director model of management, but the romance tends to cool quickly in the face of the daily challenges of maintaining a facility.

30

Case Studies


6.

Fort Worth Community Arts Center, Fort Worth, Texas

Development HistoryThe facility currently occupied by the Fort Worth Community Arts Center has had a long history, with multiple tenants prior to its existing use. In 1950, the City Council of Fort Worth sold approximately $800,000 worth of bonds, which funded the Forth Worth Arts Center, housing a children’s museum and an art museum. The facility, located on the west side of the Will Rogers Complex, was designed by Herbert Bayer and opened in 1954. In 1966, the William Edrington Scott Theater opened adjacent to the museum, and in 1974, another addition was developed, expanding the gallery space to the east and south sides of the building. The museum’s name was changed to the Fort Worth Art Museum in 1974, and fourteen years later, the name changed again to the Modern Art Museum of Fort Worth. By the early 1990s, it was decided that the space was too small for the Modern Art Museum, so another property was purchased in the cultural district for this use, which was eventually opened in 2002. It was at this point that the City solicited bids from groups throughout the city and granted the Arts Council of Fort Worth and Tarrant County the contract to operate the old facility as the Fort Worth Community Arts Center. Subsequently, City funds have supported selected renovation and upgrades of the facility, such as a $2.6 million project in 2006 that replaced the HVAC system. However, some of the building still does not comply with current code, which is an ongoing challenge for its operators.

The mission of the Fort Worth Community Arts Center is “to provide accessible and affordable exhibition, performance, workshop, classroom, and office space to artists and arts organizations in the region, and to serve the general public by presenting the work of contemporary visual and performing artists in a user-friendly environment that is available for event and meeting rentals.”

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityThe Fort Worth Community Arts Center is comprised of multiple gallery, performing arts, and flexible spaces totaling 77,000 square feet. The 500-seat W E Scott Theater is the main performance hall, hosting an array of dance, theater, poetry, and children productions. This thrust-stage theatre includes state of the art lighting and sound technologies. Additional performing spaces include the Hardy and Betty Saunders black box theatre and Garber Hall.

31

Case Studies


6.

The onsite café serves as the primary kitchen during intermission and special events and is operated by a separate contractor. For weddings and banquets, the café serves as a catering kitchen, and outside caterers are welcome to use the facility. The current café operator is attempting to grow its catering business so that it can operate as the preferred caterer for the multitude of special events held at the FWCAC.

The various gallery spaces, with names and sizes shown below, host a variety of visual art exhibitions, meetings, and other special events.

Table 16: Size and Capacity of Spaces at the Fort Worth Cultural Center

A detailed floor plan of the gallery spaces, excluding the Hardy and Betty Sanders Theater, is shown below.

The acoustics in the performing halls, and even to an extent in the gallery spaces, were designed for speaking events, such as readings, lectures, and seminars. Consequently, although there are many performing arts events held in the halls, the acoustical features are less than desirable.

SpacesSquare

Feet CapacityBack Gallery 1,600Focus Gallery 1 720Focus Gallery 2 682Front Gallery 2,992Galleries 1-7 1,886Sanders Gallery 1,600W E Scott Theater 500Garber Hall 60Hardy and Betty Sanders Theater 120Café 100Source; Fort Worth Community Arts Center

32

Case Studies


6.

Figure 19: Building Plan for Fort Worth Cultural Center

8

25

10

29.5

17.5

HARDY & BETTY SANDERS THEATRE

40 47

FRONT GALLERY

BACK GALLERY

FOCUS BACK[2]

FOCUS FRONT[1]

#3 #4 #5

#6

CAFÉ GALLERY

Ceilings Front Gallery 16’ Focus Galleries 10’ 3,4,5,6 Galleries 12’ Back Gallery 12’ Café Gallery 12’ Sanders Theatre 18’ (xx) = Linear feet

Glass Windows

5 5

8.6

19.5 15

27

3.5

20.5

3.3

12.2

17.5

17.5

13.5

13.5

3.8

43

43.3

6 8.5 6

3.5

11

7.5

4.5

13.5

24

Glass Windows

□

(82)

(92.5)

(217.5)

3.5

(60.5) (67)

(137) (108.5)

(110)

(91.6)

FRONT ANNEX

33

Case Studies


6.

Management & Operating StructureThe FWCAC is owned by the City of Fort Worth and operated by the Arts Council of Fort Worth and Tarrant County, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. There are currently about seven full-time and four part-time workers, in addition to contract workers and periodic interns.

Resident Organizations

The Fort Worth Community Arts Center is home to 12 tenant groups, who use the space both for performance and administrative purposes. These tenants are listed below:

• The Lone Star Chorus• Imagination Celebration• Texas Non-profit Theaters• Fort Worth Opera• Fort Worth Theater• Centro Cultural de las Americas• Fort Worth Public Art• American Association of Community Theatre• The Arts Council of Fort Worth and Tarrant County• Amphibian Stage Productions• Z’s Café

The tenant groups pay rent to the facility in return for access to space and subsidized rates for spaces within the facility.

Facility UsageAccording to the director of the FWCAC, the facility operates at close to capacity, with a new gallery exhibition opening every month, art classes and rehearsals during the week, and a variety of “filler” events such as church group presentations, masses, and meetings. The facility also maintains a strong wedding and special events business in order to generate earned income. The total number of event days is estimated to be approximately 600.

The FWAC’s programming includes presentations, visual, and performing arts exhibitions. The center solicits submissions from local and regional artists, and once they have selected work to present, they offer the following services to the winning artists:

• Press releases;• Mailing of 1000 invitations;• Exhibition checklist that includes pricing if work is available for sale;• Insurance;• Limited installation and deinstallation;• Staffing for the exhibition space; and• Small opening reception.

34

Case Studies


6.

The FWAC works closely with the Texas Artists Coalition, or the TAC, which is a membership program offering services and benefits to North Texas Artists. Services include classes and workshops, juried exhibitions, and general support for artists that are beginner through professional. A large percent of programming at the FWAC is through the TAC.

The most important spaces for generating activity and revenue are the Back and Front Galleries, the largest galleries at the facility. These spaces are used for birthday parties, weddings, corporate meetings, religious celebrations, and traveling exhibitions (though most exhibits are from local artists).

Rental RatesSpecial events are an essential source of revenue for the FWCAC, and rental rates are charged on a four-tier scale, with tenant organizations paying the least and commercial organizations paying the most. The following tables summarize the rental rates charged for each of the spaces at the FWCAC:

Table 17: 2009 Hourly Rental Rates for Gallery Spaces at the FWCAC

Gallery 1 $23.00 $38.00 $43.00 $86.00Gallery 2 $23.00 $43.00 $46.00 $92.00Gallery 3 $23.00 $30.00 $38.00 $72.00Gallery 4 $23.00 $30.00 $38.00 $72.00Gallery 5 $23.00 $30.00 $38.00 $72.00Gallery 6 $23.00 $30.00 $43.00 $86.00Back Gallery $29.00 $38.00 $62.00 $122.00Front Gallery $29.00 $38.00 $96.00 $197.00Outside Courtyard $29.00 $38.00 $62.00 $122.00Veranda $36.00 $50.00 $72.00 $147.00

Client pays for the actual hours spent in the space, from move-in to move-out.

Rates are valid from 8AM to 11PM Monday through Saturday and 12 Noon to 8PM on Sunday.

After hours, rates are double those shown. Double rates apply only if the client and/or guests

of the event are in the building. Otherwise, no additional charges apply.

Space TenantArts Non-Profit

& Artists

Other Non-Profit

& Community Commercial

35

Case Studies


6.

Table 18: Rental Rates for Theater Spaces at the FWCAC

Table 19: Rental Rates for Additional Spaces at the FWCAC

Arts Non-Profit& Artists

$335.00 $730.00

$237.00 $639.00

$62.00 $122.00

$22.00 $48.00

$22.00 $48.00

$72.00 $96.00

$851.00 $1,215.00

$608.00 $911.00

$56/hr plus 4 hours minimum

tech time


tech time


tech time


tech time

Rehearsal prior to load-in or rehearsal with no theatre rental (p/hr)


tech time$67/hr plus 4 hours minimum tech time

$115.00 $115.00

Load-in and Load-out only (p/hr)


tech time$67/hr plus 4 hours minimum tech time

$115.00

Building Maintenance Fee

per performance day $110.00

Performance - First Day $695.00 $972.00

Performance - Additional Days $525.00 $729.00

Event per hour $59.00 $86.00

Space: William Edrington Scott Theatre

Load-in and Load-out only (p/hr) $18.00 $24.00

Rehearsal prior to load-in or rehearsal with no performance rental (per hour) $18.00 $24.00

$274.00

Dark Days (optional) $59.00 $91.00

Additional Days $204.00

Other Non-Profit& Community Commercial

First Day $292.00 $365.00

Space; Hardy and Betty Sanders Theatre Tenant

Tenant

Arts Non-Profit &

Artists

Other Non-Profit &

Community CommercialGarber Hall (per hour) $18.00 $24.00 $43.00 $121.00Community Room (per hour) $18.00 $19.00 $24.00 $24.00

After hours, rates are double those show n. Double rates apply only if the client and/or guests

of the event are in the building. Otherw ise, no additional charges apply.

Client pays for the actual hours spent in the space, from move-in to move-out.

Rates are valid from 8AM to 11PM Monday through Saturday and 12 Noon to 8PM on Sunday.

36

Case Studies


6.

Financial CharacteristicsThe annual operating budget of the FWCAC is generally between $600,000 and $700,000. Approximately one-third of the operating budget (between $200,000 and $300,000) is earned through facility rentals. The FWCAC has a “booming” wedding business and is able to cover many expenses through this business. Approximately one to two percent of the operating budget is raised by the Arts Council and offered as grant money to the facility. Other contributed income, including a City of Fort Worth subsidy of approximately $200,000, provides the remaining funds. The financial support from the City is supposed to cover the cost of management of the facility.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedKey challenges and lessons learned are as follows:

• Older facilities can have numerous structural problems, leading to operating challenges. A proactive maintenance program is essential.

• Raising funds through earned and contributed income to cover programs is one of the major challenges faced by all cultural centers, including the FWCAC. It is important to have a diverse pool of income sources.

• The FWCAC could not operate its arts center without allowing private special event rentals such as weddings and corporate events. However, there can be conflicts in scheduling between the private and cultural programming that need to be addressed. The amount of revenue that an outside facility rental will bring in often needs to be weighed against the value of a program and flexibility of the program in scheduling.

• The facility should be designed with flexible spaces that allow for simultaneous events if possible.

37

Case Studies


6.

The Irving Arts Center, Irving, Texas

Development HistoryThe Irving Arts Center (IAC) was constructed in two phases, with the first phase, including the main galleries and wing spaces, completed in 1986. The vision for the arts center was born from within the local community, and after careful political maneuvering, the City Council established the City of Irving Arts Board in 1980. Together with the 12 founding/core groups, the Irving Arts Board created a master plan for a visual and performing arts complex that would meet local demand for art spaces, while still providing a venue for large touring groups on a more infrequent basis. After the galleries opened in 1966, the two theater venues were completed and opened in 1990. With land donated to the City, the major cost was construction, which totaled $6 million and was funded through a City bond issuance and financed through the City hotel and transient occupancy tax. The bonds were paid off in 2009.

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityThe 64,000 square foot Irving Arts Center is located on a 10-acre arts complex and includes four gallery spaces and two major theaters, the Carpenter and Dupree Theater, which seat 700 and 253 people respectively. Square footage and capacity, where available, are shown for each space within the IAC in Table 21.

38

Case Studies


6.

Table 21: Capacities and Sizes at the Irving Arts Center

Venue Fixed Reception Banquet Classroom Hollow Square Theatre Board

Square Feet

Carpenter Performance Hall 700 773

360 (stage)

30 (stage)

250 (stage)

5,414

Carpenter Lobby

399 144

2,795

Dupree Theater 253 515 240

(stage)

20 (stage) 175

(stage)

3,605 Dupree Lobby

382 156

2,678

IAC Rehearsal Room

375 175 131 60 200 40 2,627 Suite 200

411 200 140 70 350 40 2,880

Meeting Rooms A & B (each)

49 23 17 12 30 12 345 Meeting Room C

32 660

Combined A &B

98 46 34 24 45 34 690 Combined A, B, & C

192 90 67 45 75 35 1,350

Courtyard

50

50 Focus Gallery

139 65

976

Main Gallery 544 253 3,808 Source: Irving Arts Center

39

Case Studies


6.

As noted above, in addition to the major spaces, the IAC has a rehearsal hall, meeting spaces, a catering kitchen, and office space that houses the administrative staff of the facility. Additional features include an outdoor courtyard, adjacent to the special events room, and a sculpture garden with fountains.

40

Case Studies


6.

Management and OperationsThe Irving Arts Center is owned and operated by the City of Irving. The City Council appoints an 11-person Board to oversee the operations of the facility. In total there are about 19 full-time staff, thirteen part-time staff, and a handful of contract workers who assist in presentations and productions.

Resident OrganizationsThere are 12 resident organizations that call the IAC home and are considered founding organizations due to their campaign efforts back in the 1980s. These organizations are listed below.

• New Philharmonic Orchestra of Irving• Momentum Dance Company• Lyric Stage• Las Colinas Symphony Orchestra• Irving Symphony Orchestra• Irving Symphonic Band• Irving Art Association• ICT MainStage• Irving Chorale• Irving Black Arts Council• Entertainment Series of Irving• Academy of Bangla Arts and Culture

As founding organizations, these 501(c)3s are offered subsidized rates. In the past and for many years, the founding organizations were also offered priority booking, although this became a problem as more organizations grew within the community and the business for special events (and need for additional funding) increased.

Facility UsageThe IAC is highly utilized throughout the year and often has to turn groups away to other venues. In total, there are between 120 and 130 users, in addition to resident groups, who rent the facility in a given year. The users are comprised of approximately 80 percent nonprofit groups and 20 percent commercial groups. As a presenter, a programmer, a rental facility for arts groups, and a rental facility for outside private events, the IAC attracts a wide array of user-groups. Between Thursday and Sunday, usage is characterized by weddings, special events, and performances, with rehearsals, classes, and special programming occurring during the weekdays. In total, the IAC presented an estimated 256 of its own programs during the 2008-2009fiscal year. Table 22 illustrates the total number of annual events by type for fiscal years 2004-2009. Annual attendance is also shown.

41

Case Studies


6.

Table 22: Total Number of Events, by Type, at the Irving Arts Center (FY04-FY09)

CATEGORIES FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Performances

Competition

1 7 1 4 5 0

Performance 242 206 217 226 207 206

Festivals

18 34 29 20

Total Performance 243 213 236 264 241 226 Rehearsals

Auditions

18 21 6 12 18 16

Dress Rehearsals 30 37 38 26 35 47

Load in

64 56 77 73 69 84

Set Build

21 28 10 14 13 7

Move out

67 59 70 80 78 84

Perf Holding

6 45 42 84 81 133

Strike

22 23 30 25 22 20

Tech rehearsal 15 4 4 6 6 4

Reg. rehearsals 437 403 337 345 372 364

Tours

12 12 12

Installation

35 36

Total Rehearsals 680 676 614 677 741 807 Meetings

Seminars

4 92 135 132 131 127

Special

65 60 61 39 39 9

Meetings

394 379 302 261 356 279

Total Meetings

463 531 498 432 526 415

Classes

Workshops

4 3 3 2 0 0

Lectures/demo 4 1 2 3 2 6

Classes

384 467 322 343 369 470

Total Classes

392 471 327 348 371 476

Exhibitions

exhibitions

23 24 22 24 24 23

Total Exhibitions 23 30 22 24 24 23

Receptions

Banquets

4 0 0 0 0 0

Luncheons

3 3 2 2 6 7

Receptions

68 63 41 58 57 63

Ceremonies

4 2 4 4 5

Total Receptions 79 68 47 64 68 70

TOTAL EVENTS 1,880 1,989 1,744 1,809 1,971 2,017 ATTENDANCE 69,790 94,311 85,345 118,032 133,583 130,758 ##Reduction in meetings FY06 due to Chamber relocation in March 2006 Source: Irving Arts Center

42

Case Studies


6.

Rental RatesRental Rates for each type of function are shown in the tables below. These rates do not include technicians, supervisors, security, janitorial staff, and equipment rentals, which are extra charges.

Table 23: 2010 Rental Rates for Performance Halls at the IAC

Table 24: 2010 Rental Rates for Receptions at the IAC

VenueNonprofit Commercial Nonprofit Commercial Nonprofit Commercial

$200/hr $400/hr $100/hr $200/hr $1,800 (10hrs) $2,500 (10hrs)$800 min $1,600 min $400 min $800 min $1,000 (4hrs) $1,250 (4hrs)

$75/hr $150/hr $50/hr $100/hr $750 (10hrs) $1,250 (10hrs)$300 min $600 min $200 min $400 min $450 (4hrs) $625 (4hrs)

$74/hr $100/hr$300 min $400 min

1 Daily Rate Packages at the Dupree Theater include Suite 200Source: Irving Arts Center

Daily Rate PackagesPerformance Price/Hr (4 hr

min)Rehearsal Price/Hr (4 hr

min)

Carpenter Hall

Dupree Theater1

Rehearsal Studio & Suite 200

$40/hr $40/hr

VenueNonprofit Commercial

$25/hr $400/hr$100 min $200 min

$50/hr $75/hr$200 min $300 min

$100/hr $150/hr$400 min $600 min

$75/hr $100/hr$300 min $400 min

Source: Irving Arts Center

Rehearsal Hall, Suite 200

Receptions Price/Hr (4 hr min)

Focus Gallery

Dupree Lobby

Main Gallery, Sculpture Garden & Carpenter Lobby

43

Case Studies


6.

Table 25: 2010 Rental Rates for Meetings at the IAC

Financial CharacteristicsThe Irving Arts Center operated with a budget of approximately $3.5 million in 2009, excluding transfers from other City funds, with earned income accounting for about $600,000. An estimated 55 percent of earned income is from event rentals and theater rentals, with the remaining income from programming and administration fees (the IAC charges a $1 Facilities Fee on all tickets sold through the box office). The annual subsidy required to operate the facility in 2009 was $2.6 million. The subsidy is paid for by revenues from the City Hotel Tax. With proximity to many Fortune 500 companies, the City of Irving enjoys high occupancy rates in its hotels throughout the year. The table below shows actual revenues and expenditures from the 2007-2008 fiscal year.

VenueNonprofit Commercial

A,B,C Art Lab $20 $30$40 (<49

people)$60 (<49

people)$50/hr, $200

min (50+ people)

$75/hr, $300 min (50+

people)

$75 (<49 people)

$100 (<49 people)

$75/hr, $300min (50+

people)

$100 /hr, $400 min (50+

people)Source: Irving Arts Center

Rehearsal Hall & Suite 200

Meetings Price/Hr

Room ABC Combined

44

Case Studies


6.

Table 26: Revenues and Expenditures of the IAC by Category

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedSome of the challenges at the IAC are as follows:

• Too many entrances: There are multiple entrance and exit doors throughout the facility, which makes it hard to secure certain areas of the building and has caused significant confusion among patrons. During major events, the IAC has to provide security throughout the building, rather than in the area in which an event is occurring and constantly be aware of patrons who appear lost and confused.

• Confusing Layout: Related to the above point, the layout of the facility is confusing for many patrons and results in people wandering around quite a bit.

• Carpenter Theater size: During the time in which the theaters were being planned, many of the founding groups were concerned about major touring groups and well-endowed commercial groups displacing their usage. Therefore, during deliberations about the size of the theaters, ideas for a seat theater with between 1,500 and 1,800 seats were thrown out. However, now, two decades later, these groups are attracting greater audiences and want to perform in a larger venue. Any facility design should incorporate the potential for growth, or at least allow for the potential to expand in future years as cultural groups grow and become more active.

Revenues by CategoryActual 2007-

2008 % of Budget

Taxes $1,716,700 43.6%Charges for Services $574,895 14.6%Grants $37,358 0.9%Misc $243,100 6.2%Transfers $1,679,724 42.7%TOTAL REVENUES $4,251,777 108.0%

ExpendituresSalaries and Wages $1,187,009 30.2%Benefits $306,751 7.8%Supplies $115,190 2.9%Structure Maintenance $132,576 3.4%Equipment Maintenance $23,215 0.6%Misc Services $2,041,990 51.9%Transfers $47,370 1.2%LandBuilding and Structure $13,345 0.3%Equipment $68,840 1.7%TOTAL EXPENDITURES $3,936,286 100.0%Source: City of Irving, Texas

45

Case Studies


6.

Latino Cultural Center, Dallas, Texas

Development HistoryThe Latino community in Dallas began organizing in the early 1990s for a facility that would meet the performing and visual arts needs of the community, and as part of this effort, created a master plan for a cultural center. The community preferred that the facility not be located within the Arts District, and ultimately, the Meadows Foundation, located between Live Oak Street and Swiss Avenue, donated eight acres adjacent to their property for the project.

In 1995, the City approved a bond sale totaling approximately $3.8 million, with the remaining funds to be raised by the community and future user-groups. Through a combination of foundation and corporate support, the Latino community raised the remaining $4.2 million to complete the structure. The 27,000 square foot facility, which opened in September 2003, was designed by renowned Mexican architect Ricardo Legorreta. The mission of the Dallas Latino Cultural Center is “to serve as a regional catalyst for the preservation, development, and promotion of Latino and Hispanic arts and culture.”

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityThe most prominent space in the Latino Cultural Center is the auditorium, which totals approximately 7,000 square feet and includes an orchestra pit, a proscenium stage, and 300 fixed seats. Additional support spaces include a green room, men and women’s dressing rooms as well as a star’s dressing room, a costume shop with some storage, and a stage shop. This additional support space totals 4,145 square feet. Gallery space comprises nearly 1,900 square feet, with an additional 2,000 square feet of multi-purpose flexible space and 1,350 square feet of classroom space. There is an outside courtyard with an additional 2,500 square feet of usable space, although this area is relatively underutilized compared to original expectations primarily due to design issues. A summary of space allocation is shown below.

46

Case Studies


6.

Table 13: Space Allocation for Interior Spaces of the Latino Cultural Center

The second phase of the Latino Cultural Center is currently under planning and will result in a 60,000 square foot facility after expansion, shown in the diagram below.

Figure 18: Site Plan for Dallas Latino Cultural Center Expansion

Space SFAuditorium 11,125Multi-purpose Space 1,980Display Gallery 1,875Office Space 1,350Building Circulation 4,535Mech / Elec / Plumbing 550Restrooms / Service 1,285Total Phase I Interior Space 22,700Source: Latino Cultural Center

47

Case Studies


6.

The proposed expansion will extend the existing plazas and parking lot and add approximately 3,600 square feet of classroom space, 5,000 square feet of gallery and exhibition space, and a new 200-seat black box theater. The new black box theatre will share a lobby with the existing theatre and be located adjacent to gallery spaces, allowing theatre patrons to enjoy exhibitions during performance intermissions.

Management and Operating StructureThe Latino Cultural Center is owned and operated by the City of Dallas. The facility, before recent budget cuts, had seven full-time employee positions, including a manager, marketing coordinator, two program coordinators, a technical director, an office assistant, and a janitorial staff, in addition to one part-time office assistant. All of the staff are employees of the City of Dallas. Budget cuts have affected staffing levels, which are currently lower than previous years. The Latino Cultural Center serves as a rental facility, but also produces and presents its own programming. There is a separate, non-profit organization, the Friends of the Latino Cultural Center, which raises private funds for Center activities and programs.

Resident OrganizationsThere are approximately eleven “core user groups” who were generally identified based upon their involvement in fundraising for the construction of the facility, although there was not a clear application process for designation. Core user groups receive a significant discount on rental rates and obtain booking priority. The eleven core user organizations include:

• These organizations are shown below.• Alegre Ballet Folklorico• Tango Argentino Dallas• Cara Mia Theater Company• Anita N. Martinez Ballet• Conte de Loyo Flamenco Dance Theatre• Vistas Films• Martice Enterprises• Ollimpaxqui Ballet Company• Teatro Dallas• The Mexico Institute• Bailes Españoles

48

Case Studies


6.

Other regular users are as follows:• Indian Fine Arts Academy• Centro Argentino de DFW• Parranda Venezuela• Dallas Chamber Music• Texas Ballet Theater School• Sabor a Tango• Teatro FlorCandela• Associacion Boricua de Dallas• Orchestra of New Spain

Rental Rates and PricingThere is no admission charge for Latino Cultural Center exhibits, although performances and events typically have prices between $10 and $15. Rates for organizations renting the Latino Cultural Center are shown in the table below:

Table 14: 2009 Rental Rates for the Latino Cultural Center

Facility Usage and AttendanceDuring 2009, the facility was booked on every weekend throughout the year, with the exception of a few weekends in the late summer and early fall months, for a total of close to 980 event days. The Latino Cultural Center accounted for about 62 percent, or over 600 days, of all event days with its own programming. Core group usage accounted for an additional 64 days, with the remaining 307 days used by non-core groups. Total attendance during this time period was approximately 24,000, which includes all programming at the Center.

Space Capacity Standard Non-ProfitResident/

Core

Oak Farms Performance Hall 300 $300.00 $100.00 $50.00

Theater Lobby 60 $100.00 $50.00 $25.00

Multipurpose Room 70 $100.00 $50.00 $25.00

Plaza 400 $300.00 $150.00 $75.00Source: Latino Cultural Center and City of Dallas

Rates

49

Case Studies


6.

Financial CharacteristicsThe Latino Cultural Center has a complex financial structure. Income sources include City of Dallas subsidy through the Office of Cultural Affairs for general operating expenses and utilities, the City Equipment Building Services (EBS) department payment of maintenance costs, earned income from rentals and ticket sales, and grants. In addition, the Friends of the Latino Cultural Center, a non-profit organization created to support the facility, has raised funds that are spent on programming at the Center (e.g. Target, Macy’s). Operating costs are therefore paid by three entities – the Office of Cultural Affairs, EBS, and the Friends of the LCC. In order to fully understand the true costs of running the Latino Cultural Center, it is important to include all of these costs, regardless of who is actually paying for them. The estimated “comprehensive” operating budget for 2008-09 is shown below, and operating expenses for 2007-08 are also shown in order to provide context for the impact of City budget cuts on the facility finances.

Table 15: Sources of Income and Expenditures, by Category

50

Case Studies

Category 2007-08

Estimates 2008-09

Estimates % of

TotalINCOMEEarned Income

Rental Fees $12,217 $9,924 2%Ticket sales and class fees $3,990 $6,013 1%Subtotal Earned Income 1 $16,207 $15,937 3%

Contributed IncomeCity General Fund (OCA) General Operating $593,300 $464,009 74%City General Fund (OCA) Utilities and water $97,119 $84,096 13%City General Fund (EBS) Building maintenance) $16,235 $10,019 2%Texas Commission on the Arts $2,907 $3,603 1%Corporate grants $40,000 $44,750 7%Friends of the LCC $3,989 $3,479 1%Subtotal Contributed Income $753,550 $609,956 97%

Total Income $769,757 $625,893 100%

Operating CostsSalaries and benefits $393,100 $305,344 49%Supplies / services / admin $63,889 $42,542 7%City funded cultural contracts / artistic services $84,454 $79,057 13%Grant funded programs $40,000 $44,750 7%Bldg repairs, maintenance, custodial2 $84,085 $71,029 11%Utilities / water $97,119 $84,096 13%Other (including reimbursments) $0 ($1,000) 0%

Total Operating Costs $762,647 $625,818 100%

2 Includes EBS building maintenance costs

1 Earned income is deposited into City's General Fund, w hich is the source of the City's funds for OCA/LCC


6.

Key characteristics from the operating budget shown above are as follows:• The overall operating budget for 2007-08 was approximately $763,000, which is about $28

per square foot. The budget for 2008-09 is estimated to be over $100,000 less at $626,000, or $23 per square foot (budget decrease largely due to savings due to vacant positions). The 2009-10 year’s budget is expected to be even less due to significant City-wide budget reductions.

• Utilities, including water, are just over $3 per gross square foot.• Earned income is relatively low at $16,000 or 3 percent.• The City subsidy of the Latino Cultural Center, including utilities and building maintenance,

was $558,000 in 2008-09.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedThe following are key lessons learned from the experience of the Latino Cultural Center in Dallas:

• The physical design of a facility can affect the operations dramatically, and it is therefore critical that future users are incorporated into the planning process at an early stage. Lessons from the physical design of the Latino Cultural Center (e.g. side orchestra pit, connection to courtyard, etc.) should be incorporated into the design of the proposed Asian American Cultural Center. Outdoor spaces should be well-integrated with the indoor facilities to allow for seamless indoor-outdoor movement throughout the facility and to maximize flexibility for programming.

• The process of designating certain groups as core or resident organizations can be challenging, particularly with diverse ethnic communities. If such a system is going to be established where groups receive preferential rates and facility privileges, it is critical to have a transparent process and clear criteria that allow all qualified groups to be considered. Otherwise, the process can divide the community. It is also essential that clear responsibilities and privileges be set out for the groups that do receive such designation.

• City management and operations of the facility, while providing some advantages, may also have some constraints, particularly in a difficult City budget environment. Management by a non-profit organization may allow for more a more robust fundraising and earned income generating program by necessity and may allow for more flexibility to address changing economic conditions.

• The Latino Cultural Center has served as a venue for outside groups to perform in (i.e. a rental facility), but has also produced and presented its own programming, which has been an important component of its overall offerings.

51

Case Studies


6.

Sammons Center for the Performing Arts, Dallas, Texas

Development HistoryThe Sammons Center for the Arts was a collaboration that formed in 1981 to restore the historically designated Turtle Creek Pump Station and convert the building into an arts center. Owned by the City of Dallas, the Turtle Creek Pump Station was in danger of being demolished due to its derelict condition. The Sammons Center for the Arts, at that time called the Turtle Creek Center for the Arts and led by the Greater Dallas Youth Orchestra, agreed to raise all of the funding for the renovation in exchange for an operating agreement that would allow the nonprofit to lease the building until 2034 for $1,000 per year, starting in 1981. It took the Sammons Center five years to raise the $3 million necessary to complete the historic renovation process. Finally, on March 1, 1988, the facility had its grand opening.

Physical Characteristics of the FacilityUnlike other facilities surveyed, the 20,000 square foot Sammons Center is not designed to be a performance hall, although it does include some limited performance space. Rather, the Center focuses on provision of space for administrative and office functions, rehearsals, and small performances. Given the historic standards to which the renovation, and subsequent repairs must adhere, many of the technical and acoustical features of the center are not “perfect” for any one type of performance. However, a high level of creativity has been employed to adapt the space to serve the user groups while maintaining historical status. The two performance halls, Meadows Hall and Kirth Hall, can accommodate 300 people and 150 people respectively. An approximate break-down of the space by use is shown in the table below.

52

Case Studies


6.

Table 27: Use of Space at the Sammons Center

Management and OperationsThe Sammons Center is owned by the City of Dallas and operated by the Sammons Art Center, a 501(c)3 that with a 27-member advisory board. Currently, the Center employs three full-time and three part-time staff. The nonprofit organization both manages the physical facility and is responsible for one major program, the Sammons Jazz series.Resident GroupsThe following twelve core resident groups were either key participants in the fundraising efforts to restore the Turtle Creek Pump Station or became eligible for residency when other groups moved out:

• Arga Nova Dance• Dallas Area Cultural Advocacy Coalition• Dallas Dance Council• Dallas Swing Dance Society• Fine Arts Chamber Players• Greater Dallas Youth Orchestra• New Arts Six• New Texas Symphony • Shakespeare Festival of Dallas • Turtle Creek Chorale• USA Ballroom Dance Association• Women’s Chorus of Dallas

These twelve groups have offices within the Sammons Center, with the Greater Dallas Youth Orchestra and Shakespeare Dallas considered anchor tenants. Currently there is a waitlist of about 30 organizations waiting to be residents at the Sammons Center. In the past, a space opened once every three years, but there have not been any indicators of a future opening for the past two years. The Sammons Center is hopeful that they will be able to expand and accommodate the demand for support space from even more groups.

Type of Space Square Feet

Office Space 6,000

Multipurpose/Rehearsal/Performance 6,000

Conference/StudioCommon Areas (restrooms, hallways, lobby) 4,500

Storage/Mechanical Rooms 2,500Source: Sammons Center for the Arts

53

Case Studies


6.

Resident groups are charged a rental rate for the office space and, in return, can use the administrative services and facilities and the rehearsal spaces at no or very little cost. In addition to the 12 groups above, the Sammons Center also has 40 regular users and an additional 50 users who rent the facility on a semi-regular basis. Furthermore, the Sammons Center participates in the Dallas Arts Resource System (DARS) and provides about 14 additional organizations with administrative support functions, including use of conference and meeting spaces and design and graphic services. This program is funded by a grant and allows even more groups to access the resources at the Sammons Center.

Facility UsageThe facility is used 365 days per year, hosting an average of 1,500 people per week, including performers and guests. Approximately 70 percent of events are rehearsals, auditions, or meetings. The remaining usage is for public events such as concerts, dances, and performances. Between the Sammons Jazz program and programs offered by resident and non-resident user groups, the Sammons Center is basically fully utilized. A few years ago, the Sammons Center stopped hosting special events, such as weddings and banquets due to scheduling conflicts. It is now available only to arts groups for arts-related events.

Rental RatesAs previously noted, resident organizations and users through the DARS program are not charged rental rates for spaces within the Sammons Center. Tenants pay $10.50 per square foot of office space which is approximately 50 percent below commercial rates. Rehearsal rates are typically handled on a case by case basis, with the average rehearsal rate at $25 per hour. Resident groups pay $300 for a performance in Meadows Hall and $200 for a performance in Kurth Hall. Non-resident groups pay $600 for a performance in Meadows Hall and $450 for Kurth Hall.

54

Case Studies


6.

Financial CharacteristicsThe Sammons Center operated with an annual budget of $475,000 in 2009. The revenues by category are shown below:

Table 28: Income by Category at the Sammons Center

Source AmountContributed Income

Corporate Donations $143,000Individual Donations $104,000Foundations $19,000Fundraising $12,000State of Texas $8,000City of Dallas $40,000

Subtotal Contributed Income $326,000

Earned IncomeOffice Rental $51,000Rehearsal Rental $53,000Administrative Services $44,000Interest Accrued $1,250

Subtotal Earned Income $149,250Total Operating Budget $475,250Source: Sammons Center for the Arts

55

Case Studies


6.

Table 29: Expenditures by Category at the Sammons Arts Center

Office space has been the most productive form of revenue generation due to the relatively low overhead associated with office space. The Sammons Center received slightly less than 10 percent of its revenue in 2009 from the City.

Actual Estimate* Proposed

Expenditure Categoryyear end

2008year end

2009year end

2010

Personnel Salaries Administrative $177,548 $185,773 $181,500 Artistic $17,768 $18,400 $18,400 Technical / Production Benefits (payroll taxes, health ins, etc.) $30,464 $30,649 $29,463Total Personnel Salaries $225,780 $234,822 $229,363

Outside Professional Services Administrative $5,150 $5,566 $5,566 Artistic $18,365 $18,575 $18,500 Technical / Production $2,250 $2,250 $2,250Total Outside Professional Services $25,765 $26,391 $26,316

Travel Postage and Shipping** $18,365 $19,230 $18,000Telephone $5,842 $5,340 $3,350Equipment RentalSpace Rental $1,000 $1,000 $1,000Utilities $43,489 $42,596 $43,000 Postage CenterTotal Services $68,696 $68,166 $65,350

Production $34,451 $39,608 $35,000Marketing/Promotion/Printing $4,832 $7,798 $5,000Supplies / Materials $20,908 $29,237 $25,000Insurance $15,231 $15,704 $14,500Other $41,647 $43,841 $40,000

Total Production $117,069 $136,188 $119,500

Totals $437,195 $465,667 $440,029Source: Sammons Center

56

Case Studies


6.

Key Challenges and Lessons LearnedKey lessons learned from the experience of the Sammons Center are as follows:

• If at all possible, build an endowment into the capital campaign.• While the organization is able to tap multiple sources for funding and is not reliant on City

funds for operations, raising funds on an annual basis can be time consuming and challenging, especially given the current economic circumstances.

• The Sammons Center is proud that they can provide the services that are too often missing in artistic communities. The need for support space is often overlooked in the development of cultural facilities.

57

Case Studies


6.

Summary of Key Lessons Learned and Implications

ERA has developed four summary tables highlighting key physical, operating, and financial characteristics of the cultural centers discussed in this section. These tables are organized as follows:

• Table 35: Overview of Facility Characteristics• Table 36: Overview of Development Characteristics• Table 37: Overview of Operating Characteristics• Table 38: Overview of Event Characteristics

A summary of key lessons learned, with possible implications for the Dallas Asian American Cultural Center, are as follows:

• Most of the cultural facilities reviewed have serve as producers and presenters of programming, including facilitating performances and programming by other cultural organizations through facility rentals.

• Programming includes a wide range of performances, exhibits, classes, workshops, and festivals.

• A diverse mix of both capital and operating income sources has been important for many cultural centers, while dependency on one or two sources has proved very challenging in this economic environment.

• The development and operation of a successful cultural center requires a commitment from leaders and community members who will serve as proponents and “champions” for the project over time.

• The cultural centers that tend to have the most balanced mix of earned and contributed income (with some exceptions), were City owned but operated by a 501(c)3, non-profit organization. Non-profit organizational management, while having some additional challenges, tends to allow for more flexibility in fundraising.

• Community collaboration in exhibits and programming has been important to many organizations.

• Outside private event rentals have been a significant funding source for many of the cultural centers, although some have also struggled with the scheduling issues and the balance between mission oriented programming versus outside rentals that bring in funding.

• New cultural centers should try to include an endowment as part of their capital campaign fundraising goals to provide additional stability.

• Cultural centers all have their niche, and they will be able to always accommodate the needs of all groups in a particular community. Some groups may continue to operate in mainstream facilities or may choose to use other facilities based on design, size or capacity, site location, past relationships, fee structures, etc.

• Design and planning for a new facility should consider the potential for user groups to grow over time, and the facility should be organized such that it can be expanded over time.

• Each of the cultural centers interviewed incorporate some type of participation model for cultural groups through membership programs, physical tenancy, or designation as a core or resident user group. For all of these facilities, the responsibility on the part of the groups generally includes some type of fee (with varying structures), and the benefits included items such as office space, access to administrative equipment and services, reduced rental rates, a certain number of free use days in meeting rooms per year, and/or priority booking. Having a clearly defined participation structure at the outset is critical.

58

Case Studies


6.

Table 35: Overview of Facility Characteristics

Table 36: Overview of Development Characteristics

Cultural Center Location GSF Type Capacity Facilities / Spaces

Charles W. Eisemann Center Richardson 117,000 Margaret and Al Hill Performance Hall

1,563 seats two theaters, multipurpose hall, state-of-the-art support spaces, prep kitchen, box office, 3 lobbies

Fort Worth Community Arts Center Fort Worth 77,000 W E Scott Theatre 500 seats dozen galleries, three theatres, café

The Irving Arts Center Irving 64,000 Carpenter Performance Hall

5,414 SF. 700 seats

two theaters, 4 galleries (includes 2 theatre lobbies), rehearsal hall, meeting space, catering kitchen, administrative offices, courtyard

Wing Luke Asian Museum Seattle 60,000 Entire Facility 40,000 public SF welcome and community halls, theatre, museum galleries, conference room

The Dairy Center for the Arts Boulder 42,000 Performance Space Theatre

250 seats three theatres, three galleries, multi-purpose room, 25 studios, offices

Dallas Latino Cultural Center Dallas 27,000 Auditorium 300 seats auditorium support spaces, gallery, multi-purpose space, classrooms, courtyard

Chinese Cultural Center San Francisco 20,000 Auditorium 4,464 SF auditorium, gallery, multi-purpose, two classrooms, administrative offices, small kitchen

Sammons Center for the Performing Arts Dallas 20,000 Meadows Hall 300 seated theatre style

office space, multipurpose/performance/rehearsal space, conference rooms, storage, administration

SOMArts Cultural Center San Francisco 17,000 Bay Gallery 3,200 SF gallery/theatre, art gallery, photography and print studio, dance studio, offices, -outdoor space

Oakland Asian Cultural Center Oakland 15,000 Auditorium 325 seated theatre style

auditorium, small gallery, five conference rooms, dance studio, full catering kitchen

Source: Individual Institutions, ERA AECOM

Largest Rentable Space

Cultural Center LocationYear Opened

Development Cost

Development Cost per SF Facility Owner Facility Operator Resident Organizations

Fort Worth Community Arts Center Fort Worth 1950n/a; $2.6 million renovation project 2006

n/a City of Fort WorthArts Council of Fort Worth and Tarrant County (501c3)

12 tenant groups

Chinese Cultural Center San Francisco 1965 Integrated into hotel devt.

n/a City of San Francisco Private non-profit None

SOMArts Cultural Center San Francisco 1979Old renovated building;costs not known

n/a City of San Francisco Private non-profit None; sponsored organizations and tenants

The Irving Arts Center Irving 1986 & 1990 $6 million $94 City of Irving City of Irving 12 resident organizations

Sammons Center for the Performing Arts Dallas 1988 $3 million renovation

$150 City of Dallas Sammon Center, Private non-profit

12 resident organizations

Oakland Asian Cultural Center Oakland 1996 Integrated into larger devt.

n/a City of Oakland Private non-profit None; long standing relationships with artists who teach classes

The Dairy Center for the Arts Boulder 1998 ~$3.5 million $83 City of Boulder Private non-profit 14 resident companies

Charles W. Eisemann Center Richardson 2002 $48 million $410 City of Richardson City of Richardson 1 resident group

Dallas Latino Cultural Center Dallas 2003 $8 million $296 City of Dallas City of Dallas11 core user groups who contributed to capital fundraising

Wing Luke Asian Museum Seattle 2008 (new bldg)

$23 million renovation

$383 Private non-profit Private non-profit None


59

Case Studies


6.

Table 37: Overview of Operating Characteristics

Table 38: Overview of Event Characteristics

Cultural Center LocationTotal Events or Event days Annually In-house Program Development Rental Structure

Dallas Latino Cultural Center Dallas 979 event days 62 percent of event days

Fort Worth Community Arts Center Fort Worth 600 event days Classes and limited events Discount for tenants, lesser reduction for non-profits

The Dairy Center for the Arts Boulder 450 events none; 70 percent resident organizations

No specific discount for resident companies- same for non-profits

Oakland Asian Cultural Center Oakland 200-300 events Classes and limited events Discount for non-profit groups

SOMArts Cultural Center San Francisco 300 events 3 Exhibitions and limited eventsSubsidized rate for resident or sponsored organizations, non-profit discount

Chinese Cultural Center San Francisco 4-5 exhibitions, 130 programs Exhibitions and limited eventsSubsidized rate for community organizations (non-profit and for-profit eligible)

The Irving Arts Center Irving 2,017 eventsExhibitions, educational programs, youth and family

Sammons Center for the Performing Arts Dallas ~300 eventsSammons Jazz rehearsals and performances Discounts for tenants

Charles W. Eisemann Center Richardson 541 event days, 426 eventsEvent presentation (concerts, and dance, theatre, musical performances)

Non-profit discount and special rates for organizations based in Richardson

Wing Luke Asian Museum Seattle n/a

Exhibition and program development with community advisory processspace rental program for earned revenue

Discount for non-profit groupsevents must not conflict with museum mission


60

Case Studies

Cultural Center LocationOperating

Budget GSF

Operating Budget per

GSF

Earned Income

Ratio

Best Revenue Generator Space

City Subsidy Source

The Irving Arts Center Irving $3,500,000 64,000 $54.69 17% Auditorium 83% Hotel Tax Fund

Charles W. Eisemann Center Richardson $2,500,000 117,000 $21.37 68% Performance Halls

32% Hotel Tax Fund

Wing Luke Asian Museum Seattle $2,000,000 60,000 $33.33 25% Event rentals target at $50,000

none none

SOMArts Cultural Center San Francisco $950,000 17,000 $55.88 30% Largest gallery 60% Hotel Tax Fund

Fort Worth Community Arts Center Fort Worth $650,000 77,000 $8.44 33% Largest galleries 31%

The Dairy Center for the Arts Boulder $647,000 42,000 $15.40 57% Largest theatre 5%Scientific and Cultural Facilities District tax revenue

Dallas Latino Cultural Center Dallas $763,000 27,000 $28.26 2% Auditorium 93% City General Fund through OCA, EBS

Chinese Cultural Center San Francisco $600,000 20,000 $30.00 35% Auditorium 10% Hotel Tax Fund

Sammons Center for the Performing Arts Dallas $475,000 20,000 $23.75 31% Performance Halls

8% Cultural Organization Program

Oakland Asian Cultural Center Oakland $425,000 15,000 $28.33 40% Auditorium 20% No future source


City of Dallas...City of Dallas Asian American Cultural Center AACC 0. Executive Summary 2 Report...

Documents

Transcript of City of Dallas...City of Dallas Asian American Cultural Center AACC 0. Executive Summary 2 Report...