Completing the Dream:Beth El Temple Center Sanctuary Renovation
Comments & Questions Encouraged
Disclaimer:
Recent Posts
Archives
Recent Comments
 | mwolfson on Updated Plans |
| mwolfson on Tushy Testing |
 | Rusty on What is going on? |
 | Jodi Greenspan on Tushy Testing |
| mwolfson on What’s in an image? |
I realize this is not the final shot but a couple of questions.
1. Looking at the seating arrangements I have concerns about emergedncy egress and also the hagafah, the parading of the Torah. This is both for the flexable seating and the fixed seating.
2.Are the lower panels of some of the stained glass windows being blocked.
3.There are two what appear to columes one on the left side of the bima and one on the right side at the lower end of the fixed seating, what are they?
Donald B. Goldman
April 1, 2008 at 1:03 pm
The seatiing arrangements in the flexible zone will change as we want them to, depending on the type of service, but there will always be aisles for the hakafah. As far as egress, it will remain as it is now, with the existing Emergency exits on the sides, and the back door out to the lobby.
None of the stained glass will be blocked. The low walls on the ramps are lower than the bottom of the windows.
The columns on the floor at the edge of the flexible seating are supporting the roof.
elyseshuster
April 5, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Here is a comment I received from another member of the congregation & it brings up some good points:
Has anyone considered the future costs of maintenance for the proposed sanctuary renovation? Looking at the model, several areas of concern arise.
First, the new ceiling is made of wood. Roofs leak! Our sanctuary roof with its great expanse is particularly vulnerable. Repairing a ceiling with plaster and paint is one thing; it will be quite expensive to repair wood damaged by water.
Second, the design calls for ledges over the windows and extensive latticework. These are great dust-catchers. Currently our sanctuary is relatively low-maintenance. However, many in our congregation have significant dust allergies, never mind the unsightly cobwebs that will develop and show in the latticework or from the ledges to the walls. Has anyone thought about the cost to maintain and dust these on a weekly or bi-weekly basis?
Third, we will have transparent windows in the sanctuary. Who will keep them clean and at what cost?
We have budgeted for the renovation, but before we approve a design, it behooves us to be mindful of the upkeep costs of that design to ourselves and future congregants.
Is there a way to keep the general plan, but have different design elements? Could the stained glass windows be as they currently are, with no ledges? Could the wall contain no lattice? Could the ceiling be painted, not wood?
These small changes could significantly affect our budget in years to come.
Sharon Rich
April 29, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Are there plans to install fire sprinklers in the sanctuary? All this new woodwork & light fixtures attach are going to cause a fire hazard, causing higher insurance premiums costs etc. There is no safety feature with suspended ceiling that is included in the exit door’s path. These renovation plans are putting the temple at risk.
Harold
May 1, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Harold-
We are not required to put in sprinkler and really cannot afford to do so.
All the light fixures and wood will be fire rated.
All the fabric and carpet will actually be more fire resistant than we have right now.
Not sure what you mean about the suspended ceiling being a safety risk. In fact the ceiling you see is currently suspended from the buildings structure. The architects have hired a structural engineer and the town of Belmont reviews the plans – the space will be safe and I don’t think people should worry.
You may not be aware but there is currently and will remain an attic space above the sanctuary.
Mike Wolfson
May 3, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I find the new design troubling. The lattice work is going to be a huge dust catcher that is unlikely to get a proper and regular cleaning. The sneeze factor here is nothing to sneeze at! The popsicle stick vibe of all those little wood pieces just doesn’t communicate calming, serenity, or sanctuary to me. Compounding the sneeze factor is the snooze factor of all that wood; the new sanctuary design appears to be a sort of dark, wood toned monochromatic cave. Also, I just simply do not understand the need to remove the mosaic ark and put it on another Temple wall…the older members who donated and purchased it are not honored at all by it’s removal, particularly in light of the lack of a specific need to move it. What technical or design rationale is there to move it? Spiff it up, change the mill worked trim wood around it but please don’t remove it without good reasons; and so far I have seen no real reasons elucidated.
Elaine Alligood
May 5, 2008 at 2:13 am
Elaine-
Although I appreciate your comments and respect your opinions I have to save I was offended by your tone. The Oversight committee spends hours debating, discussing and considering everything you mentioned and are still working with the architect to iron out many of these issues. The use of language like the “Compounding the sneeze factor is the snooze factor of them all …” I found that disrespectful and insensitive. In addition your comments about the wood do not make sense, we haven’t even picked the type of wood so who knows how dark or light it will be.
We will take your comments to heart even if they lack the sensitivity to say politely that you are concerned about the darkness of the space, worried about dust, and need a better explanation about moving the ark – which is:
a. it is too small
b. it does not fit in the proportions of the new space
c. we felt that altering was disrespectful to the art
We will never make everyone in the congregation happy, but we take all comment seriously and it is emotionally hard to have the congregation take pot shots at us all the time.
mwolfson
May 12, 2008 at 10:05 pm
I’m surprised you find my comments so upsetting; they weren’t meant to be. I don’t doubt at all the deep commitment by the committee and I’m grateful for all you are doing.
My comments weren’t addressed to your time spent or commitment however, but to my particular reaction to the design; too much wood for my taste, I’d like some color in the room that communicates serenity and sanctuary–but the committee wants wood to do that, fair enough.
I have a degree in art history; a great love for art and it’s preservation whatever style, and I have strong feelings about potentially dishonoring the gift of our some of our earliest members without good reason. None of the information from the committee explained the specifics of WHY the ark had to move–thank you for that. We were asked for feedback, I gave it and I’m sorry it wasn’t feedback the committee wanted to hear.
Elaine Alligood
May 23, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Elaine –
The committee does take all comments seriously and appreciates them.
I apologize for the committee – I was the one who was offended by the tone of the comment -
mwolfson
June 27, 2008 at 7:56 pm