December 18, 1997

Dear Mr. Broward:

I have carefully read an reread the report "Metropolitan Amphitheater Sound Study" prepared for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, by Kirkegaard & Associates. A careful consideration of the intended impact of this report conveys to me an all too obvious ambiguity the dual propose of which is initially to technologically sanitize and/or desensitize and finally to divert attention away from the essential problem to be solved in the location and compass orientation of an outdoor amphitheater on the proposed site in this urban setting.

Departing from the Kirkegaard report, I point out that there are two separate and distinctly different operational modes to be encountered and forthrightly analyzed and recommendations tendered in the Kirkegaard report.

1. The operational mode for the essentially "IN-HOUSE" controlled performances of classical music (symphonic, chamber, recital etc.) popular music and jazz music which hereinafter will be referred to as Mode I. The essential electro-acoustical requirements and environmental impact for this mode is vividly presented and thoroughly analyzed in the Kirkegaard Report.
2. The operational mode for the presentation of "IMPORTED" and I emphasize the "not in-house controlled rock and hard rock performances which hereinafter will be referred to as Mode II. The essential electro-acoustical requirements and environmental impact and a like in-depth treatment of which is ignored in the Kirkegaard Report.

To this observer the principle aim of the Kirkegaard Report would seem to be an earnest but failed attempt at diverting attention of a concerned but technologically uninformed citizenry from the environmentally destructive consequences of Mode II by a concentrated emphasis on Mode I.

Therefore, it is incumbent upon me to here enumerate the conditions pertaining to Mode II which I further identify as the "worst-case" scenario.

1. It is a well known fact in the entertainment industry that travelling rock and hard rock shows, otherwise referred to here as "itinerant noise polluters", carry with them an insist upon using their own high powered (MEGGAWATT) electronic sound amplifying systems together with the personnel who "ride gain" I.E. control same.
2. The sound transducing elements (loudspeakers) in these traveling systems are purposely designed vertical columns of up-front, "horizontally" oriented transducers for the propagation of high-powered, ear-splitting, stereophonic sound energy which is indiscriminately directed out into the seated audience of the auditorium, then into the occupants of the surrounding outdoor berm and finally out into the great "BEYOND" as well.
3. Indiscriminate and environmentally insensitive use of these temporarily-installed, high-powered traveling systems is a far cry from the "vertically" oriented, distributed layout of transducers (loudspeakers) installed in an overhead pattern and directed downward into the audience. And which system is meticulously described in the Kirkegaard Report. This is the permanently installed distributed in-house system for Mode I.
4. Categorically it is also well known that the "itinerant noise polluters" do not ever, repeat, DO NOT EVER, use the in-house sound system of whatever kind or design.
5. "ERGO" the house management has no control whatsoever over either the direction or the energy levels of the sound projected from that which can now best be described as an electronically-energized, high-powered trumpet, the carrying power of which, depending upon atmospheric conditions and surrounding natural and/or manmade obstructions has been conservatively estimated at one to two miles.

I now call attention to page 41 of the Kirkegaard Report.

Quote: " The key to successful management of the facility from a sound control standpoint requires providing a sound system that minimizes spill into the community and provide an appropriate level of performance to satisfy the needs of the performer's. In this way, the performer's touring system- which will always be unknown in terms of sound control-" etc. etc. etc. continuing with: " how loud is too loud will give the city the latitude to cap the level at the sound mix" etc. on to conclusion.

The underlined above would seem to indicate that anything and everything goes and at the same time provide an escape hatch for the architect and the consultant.

It all finally comes down to this: In lieu of the architect and the consultant either coming to grips with an solving the severe environmental problems for accommodating Mode II to this site or recommending that an alternate site be found the Kirkegaard Report places the responsibility of what to do about the "itinerant polluters" squarely with the City of Jacksonville. What exactly is being recommended here? A city ordinance enforced by the police equipped with sound level meters monitoring every performance of an "itinerant polluter" with the courts following up and leveling appropriate fines for environmental violations? It is quite obvious that an enforced city ordinance such as this would certainly in the long run and for obvious reasons be economically self-defeating.

Now a personal note: I have knowledge of two facilities similar to that which is being suggested for Jacksonville.

1. Camden, New Jersey: The open end of this electronically energized trumpet (theater auditorium) is oriented to the Delaware River and in a direct line with downtown Philadelphia about a mile away. The normal background surface traffic ambient present in downtown Philadelphia notwithstanding, the added noise pollution projected from this "open ended" theater across the river is disturbingly audible.
2. Hartford, Connecticut: this theater situated in the boondocks (an industrially zoned environment) is on the outskirts of town between AMTRAK and Interstate 91. This outdoor amphitheater is perfectly sited and far and away from any and all acoustically sensitive urban areas. It serves its designed purpose admirably.

To conclude: It is the considered opinion of this office that the proposed site for the Jacksonville Outdoor Amphitheater is wrong. However, since we all still live in a free society and if certain members of this society chose to go prematurely deaf via the route of environmental noise polluted sound, I am the last person to say nay.

But never, never, never let those of that persuasion suggest that the dissenters who do no chose to do likewise are also heard and their opinion given due respect.

Respectfully Submitted

George C. Izenour