system of theater ventilation. He made use of the heat from the central
chandelier for removing the foul air, and admitted the air through
numerous openings in the floor and through inlets in the front of the
boxes.
Dr. Reid, an English specialist in ventilation, is generally regarded
as the originator of the upward method in ventilation. He applied the
same with some success to the ventilation of the Houses of Parliament
in London. Here fresh air is drawn in from high towers, and is
conducted to the basement, where it is sprayed and moistened. A part
of the air is warmed by hot-water coils in a sub-basement, while part
remains cold. The warm and the cold air are mixed in special mixing
chambers. From here the tempered air goes to a chamber located directly
under the floor of the auditorium, and passes into the hall at the
floor level through numerous small holes in the floor. The air enters
with low velocity, and to prevent unpleasant draughts the floor is
covered in one hall with hair carpet and in the other with coarse hemp
matting, both of which are cleaned every day. The removal of the foul
air takes place at the ceiling, and is assisted by the heat from the
gas flames.
The French engineer Péclet, an authority on heating and ventilation,
suggested a similar system of upward ventilation, but instead of
allowing the foul air to pass out through the roof, he conducted it
downward into an underground channel which had exhaust draught. Trélat,
another French engineer, followed practically the same method.
A large number of theaters are ventilated on the upward system. I will
mention first the large Vienna Opera House, the ventilation of which
was planned by Dr. Boehm. The auditorium holds about three thousand
persons, and a fresh-air supply of about fifteen cubic feet per minute,
or from nine hundred to one thousand cubic feet per hour, per person
is provided. The fresh air is taken in from the gardens surrounding
the theater and is conducted into the cellar, where it passes through
a water spray, which removes the dust and cools the air in summer.
A suction fan ten feet in diameter is provided, which blows the air
through a conduit forty-five square feet in area into a series of three
chambers located vertically over each other under the auditorium. The
lowest of these chambers is the cold-air chamber; the middle one is the
heating chamber and contains steam-heating stacks; the highest chamber
is the mixing chamber. The air goes partly to the heating and partly
to the mixing chamber; from this it enters the auditorium at the rate
of one foot per second velocity through openings in the risers of the
seats in the parquet, and also through vertical wall channels to the
boxes and upper galleries. The total area of the fresh-air openings
is 750 square feet. The foul air ascends, assisted by the heat of the
central chandelier, and is collected into a large exhaust tube. The
foul air from the gallery passes out through separate channels. In the
roof over the auditorium there is a fan which expels the entire foul
air. Telegraphic thermometers are placed in all parts of the house and
communicate with the inspection room, where the engineer in charge of
the ventilation controls and regulates the temperature.
The Vienna Hofburg Theater was ventilated on the same system.
The new Frankfort Opera House has a ventilation system modeled upon
that of the Vienna Opera House, but with improvements in some details.
The house has a capacity of two thousand people, and for each person
fourteen hundred cubic feet of fresh air per hour are supplied. A fan
about ten feet in diameter and making ninety to one hundred revolutions
per minute brings in the fresh air from outdoors and drives it into
chambers under the auditorium arranged very much like those at Vienna.
The total quantity of fresh air supplied per hour is 2,800,000 cubic
feet. The air enters the auditorium through gratings fixed above the
floor level in the risers. The foul air is removed by outlets in the
ceilings, which unite into a large vertical shaft below the cupola.
An exhaust fan of ten feet diameter is placed in the cupola shaft,
and is used for summer ventilation only. Every single box and stall
is ventilated separately. The cost of the entire system was about one
hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars; it requires a staff of two
engineers, six assistant engineers, and a number of stokers.
Among well-ventilated American theaters is the Madison Square Theater
(now Hoyt's), in New York. Here the fresh air is taken down through a
large vertical shaft on the side of the stage. There is a seven-foot
suction fan in the basement which drives the air into a number of boxes
with steam-heating stacks, from which smaller pipes lead to openings
under each row of seats. The foul air escapes through openings in the
ceiling and under the galleries. A fresh-air supply of 1,500 cubic feet
per hour, or 25 cubic feet per minute, per person is provided.
The Metropolitan Opera House is ventilated on the plenum system, and
has an upward movement of air, the total air supply being 70,000 cubic
feet per hour.
In the Academy of Music, Baltimore, the fresh air is admitted mainly
from the stage and the exits of foul air are in the ceiling at the
auditorium.
Other theaters ventilated by the upward method are the Dresden Royal
Theater, the Lessing Theater in Berlin, the Opera House in Buda-Pesth,
the new theater in Prague, the new Municipal Theater at Halle, and the
Criterion Theatre in London.
The French engineer General Arthur Morin is known as the principal
advocate of the downward method of ventilation. This was at that
time a radical departure from existing methods because it apparently
conflicted with the well-known fact that heated air naturally rises.
Much the same system was advocated by Dr. Tripier in a pamphlet
published in 1864.[7] The earlier practical applications of this system
to several French theaters did not prove as much of a success as
anticipated, the failure being due probably to the gas illumination,
the central chandelier, and the absence of mechanical means for
inducing a downward movement of the air.
[7] Dr. A. Tripier. Assainissement des Théâtres, Ventilation, Éclairage
et Chauffage.
In 1861 a French commission, of which General Morin was a member,
proposed the reversing of the currents of air by admitting fresh air
at both sides of the stage opening high up in the auditorium, and also
through hollow floor channels for the balconies and boxes; in the
gallery the openings for fresh air were located in the risers of the
steppings. The air was exhausted by numerous openings under the seats
in the parquet. This ventilating system was carried out at the Théâtre
Lyrique, the Théâtre du Cirque, and the Théâtre de la Gaieté.
Dr. Tripier ventilated a theater in 1858 with good success on a similar
plan, but he introduced the air partly at the rear of the stage and
partly in the tympanum in the auditorium. He removed the foul air
at the floor level and separately in the rear of the boxes. He also
exhausted the foul air from the upper galleries by special flues heated
by the gas chandelier.
The Grand Amphitheater of the Conservatory of Arts and Industries, in
Paris, was ventilated by General Morin on the downward system. The
openings in the ceiling for the admission of fresh air aggregated 120
square feet, and the air entered with a velocity of only eighteen
inches per second; the total air supply per hour was 630,000 cubic
feet. The foul air was exhausted by openings in steps around the
vertical walls, and the velocity of the outgoing air was about two and
a half feet per second.
The introduction of the electric light in place of gas gave a fresh
impetus to the downward method of ventilation, and mechanical means
also helped to dispel the former difficulties in securing a positive
downward movement.
The Chicago Auditorium is ventilated on this system, a part of the air
entering from the rear of the stage, the other from the ceiling of the
auditorium downward. This plan coincides with the proposition made in
1846 by Morrill Wyman, though he admits that it can not be considered
the most desirable method.
A good example of the downward method is given by the New York Music
Hall, which has a seating capacity of three thousand persons and
standing room for one thousand more. Fresh air at any temperature
desired is made to enter through perforations in or near the ceilings,
the outlets being concealed by the decorations, and passes out through
exhaust registers near the floor line, under the seats, through
perforated risers in the terraced steps. About 10,000,000 cubic feet
of air are supplied per hour, and the velocity of influx and efflux is
one foot per second. The air supplied per person per hour is figured
at 2,700 cubic feet, and the entire volume is changed from four and a
half to five times per hour. The fresh air is taken in at roof level
through a shaft of seventy square feet area. The air is heated by steam
coils, and cooled in summer by ice. The mechanical plant comprises four
blowers and three exhaust fans of six and seven feet in diameter.
The downward method of ventilation was suggested in 1884 for the
improvement of the ventilation of the Senate chamber and the chamber
of the House of Representatives in the Capitol at Washington, but the
system was not adopted by the Board of Engineers appointed to inquire
into the methods.
The downward method is also used in the Hall of the Trocadéro, Paris;
in the old and also the new buildings for the German Parliament,
Berlin; in the Chamber of Deputies, Paris; and others.
Professor Fischer, a modern German authority on heating and
ventilation, in a discussion of the relative advantages of the two
methods, reaches the conclusion that both are practical and can be
made to work successfully. For audience halls lighted by gaslights he
considers the upward method as preferable.
In arranging for the removal of foul air it is necessary, particularly
in the downward system, to provide separate exhaust flues for the
galleries and balconies. Unless this is provided for, the exhaled air
of the occupants of the higher tiers would mingle with the descending
current of pure air supplied to the occupants of the main auditorium
floor.
Mention should also be made of a proposition originating in Berlin
to construct the roof of auditoriums domelike, by dividing it in
the middle so that it can be partly opened by means of electric or
hydraulic machinery; such a system would permit of keeping the ceiling
open in summer time, thereby rendering the theater not only airy,
but also free from the danger of smoke. A system based on similar
principles is in actual use at the Madison Square Garden, in New York,
where part of the roof consists of sliding skylights which in summer
time can be made to open or close during the performance.
From the point of view of safety in case of fire, which usually in
a theater breaks out on the stage, it is without doubt best to have
the air currents travel in a direction from the auditorium toward the
stage roof. This has been successfully arranged in some of the later
Vienna theaters, but from the point of view of good acoustics, it
is better to have the air currents travel from the stage toward the
auditorium. Obviously, it is a somewhat difficult matter to reconcile
the conflicting requirements of safety from smoke and fire gases, good
acoustics and perfect ventilation.
The stage of a theater requires to be well ventilated, for often it
becomes filled with smoke or gases due to firing of guns, colored
lights, torches, representations of battles, etc. There should be in
the roof over the stage large outlet flues, or sliding skylights,
controlled from the stage for the removal of the smoke. These, in
case of an outbreak of fire on the stage, become of vital importance
in preventing the smoke and fire gases from being drawn into the
auditorium and suffocating the persons in the gallery seats.
Where the stage is lit with gaslights it is important to provide a
separate downward ventilation for the footlights. This, I believe, was
first successfully tried at the large Scala Theater, of Milan, Italy.
The actors' and supers' dressing rooms, which are often overcrowded,
require efficient ventilation, and other parts of the building, like
the foyers and the toilet, retiring and smoking rooms, must not be
overlooked.
The entrance halls, vestibules, lobbies, staircases, and corridors
do not need so much ventilation, but should be kept warm to prevent
annoying draughts. They are usually heated by abundantly large direct
steam or hot-water radiators, whereas the auditorium and foyers,
and often the stage, are heated by indirect radiation. Owing to the
fact that during a performance the temperature in the auditorium is
quickly raised by contact of the warm fresh air with the bodies of
persons (and by the numerous lights, when gas is used), the temperature
of the incoming air should be only moderate. In the best modern
theater-heating plants it is usual to gradually reduce the temperature
of the air as it issues from the mixing chambers toward the end of the
performance. Both the temperature and the hygrometric conditions of the
air should be controlled by an efficient staff of intelligent heating
engineers.
But little need be said regarding theater lighting. Twice during the
present century have the system and methods been changed. In the early
part of the present century theaters were still lighted with tallow
candles or with oil lamps. Next came what was at the time considered
a wonderful improvement, namely, the introduction of gaslighting.
The generation who can remember witnessing a theater performance by
candle or lamp lights, and who experienced the excitement created
when the first theater was lit up by gas, will soon have passed
away. Scarcely twenty years ago the electric light was introduced,
and there are to-day very few theaters which do not make use of this
improved illuminant. It generates much less heat than gaslight, and
vastly simplifies the problem of ventilation. The noxious products
of combustion, incident to all other methods of illumination, are
eliminated: no carbonic-acid gas is generated to render the air
of audience halls irrespirable, and no oxygen is drawn to support
combustion from the air introduced for breathing.
It being now an established fact that the electric light increases the
safety of human life in theaters and other places of amusement, its use
is in many city or building ordinances made imperative--at least on
the stage and in the main body of the auditorium. Stairs, corridors,
entrances, etc., may, as a matter of precaution, be lighted by a
different system, by means of either gas or auxiliary vegetable oil or
candle lamps, protected by glass inclosures against smoke or draught,
and provided with special inlet and outlet flues for air.
Passing to other desirable internal improvements of theaters, I would
mention first the floors of the auditorium. The covering of the floor
by carpets is objectionable--in theaters more so even than in dwelling
houses. Night after night the carpet comes in contact with thousands
of feet, which necessarily bring in a good deal of street dirt and
dust. The latter falls on the carpets and attaches to them, and as
it is not feasible to take the carpets up except during the summer
closing, a vast accumulation of dirt and organic matter results, some
of the dirt falling through the crevices between the floor boards. Many
theater-goers are not tidy in their habits regarding expectoration, and
as there must be in every large audience some persons afflicted with
tuberculosis, the danger is ever present of the germs of the disease
drying on the carpet, and becoming again detached to float in the air
which we are obliged to breathe in a theater.
As a remedy I would propose abolishing carpets entirely, and using
instead a floor covering of linoleum, or thin polished parquetry oak
floors, varnished floors of hard wood, painted and stained floors,
interlocked rubber-tile floors, or, at least for the aisles, encaustic
or mosaic tiling. Between the rows of seats, as well as in the aisles,
long rugs or mattings may be laid down loose, for these can be taken
up without much trouble. They should be frequently shaken, beaten, and
cleaned.
Regarding the walls, ceilings, and cornices, the surfaces should be of
a material which can be readily cleaned and which is non-absorbent.
Stucco finish is unobjectionable, but should be kept flat, so as not to
offer dust-catching projections. Oil painting of walls is preferable
to a covering with rough wall papers, which hold large quantities
of dust. The so-called "sanitary" or varnished wall papers have a
smooth, non-absorbent, easily cleaned surface, and are therefore
unobjectionable. All heavy decorations, draperies, and hangings in the
boxes, and plush covers for railings, are to be avoided.
The theater furniture should be of a material which does not catch or
hold dust. Upholstered plush-covered chairs and seats retain a large
amount of it, and are not readily cleaned. Leather-covered or other
sanitary furniture, or rattan seats, would be a great improvement.
In the stage building we often find four or five actors placed in
one small, overheated, unventilated dressing room, located in the
basement of the building, without outside windows, and fitted with
three or four gas jets, for actors require a good light in "making
up." More attention should be paid to the comfort and health of the
players, more space and a better location should be given to their
rooms. Every dressing room should have a window to the outer air, also
a special ventilating flue. Properly trapped wash basins should be
fitted up in each room. In the dressing rooms and in the corridors and
stairs leading from them to the stage all draughts must be avoided,
as the performers often become overheated from the excitement of the
acting, and dancers in particular leave the heated stage bathed in
perspiration. Sanitation, ventilation, and cleanliness are quite as
necessary for this part of the stage building as for the auditorium and
foyers.
It will suffice to mention that defects in the drainage and sewerage
of a theater building must be avoided. The well-known requirements
of house drainage should be observed in theaters as much as in other
public buildings.[8]
[8] The reader will find the subject discussed and illustrated in the
author's work, Sanitary Engineering of Buildings, vol. i, 1899.
The removal of ashes, litter, sweepings, oily waste, and other refuse
should be attended to with promptness and regularity. It is only by
constant attention to properly carried out cleaning methods that such
a building for the public can be kept in a proper sanitary condition.
Floating air impurities, like dust and dirt, can not be removed or
rendered innocuous by the most perfect ventilating scheme. Mingled with
the dust floating in the auditorium or lodging in the stage scenery
are numbers of bacteria or germs. Among the pathogenic germs will be
those of tuberculosis, contained in the sputum discharged in coughing
or expectorating. When this dries on the carpeted floor, the germs
become readily detached, are inhaled by the playgoers, and thus become
a prolific source of danger. It is for this reason principally that the
processes of cleaning, sweeping, and dusting should in a theater be
under intelligent management.
To guard against the ever-present danger of infection by germs, the
sanitary floor coverings recommended should be wiped every day with a
moist rag or cloth. Carpeted floors should be covered with moist tea
leaves or sawdust before sweeping to prevent the usual dust-raising.
The common use of the feather duster is to be deprecated, for it only
raises and scatters the dust, but it does not remove it. Dusting of
the furniture should be done with a dampened dust cloth. The cleaning
should include the hot-air registers, where a large amount of dust
collects, which can only be removed by occasionally opening up the
register faces and wiping out the pipe surfaces; also the baseboards
and all cornice projections on which dust constantly settles. While
dusting and sweeping, the windows should be opened; an occasional
admission of sunlight, where practicable, would likewise be of the
greatest benefit.
The writer believes that a sanitary inspection of theater buildings
should be instituted once a year when they are closed up in summer. He
would also suggest that the granting of the annual license should be
made dependent not only, as at present, upon the condition of safety
of the building against fire and panic, but also upon its sanitary
condition. In connection with the sanitary inspection, a thorough
disinfection by sulphur, or better with formaldehyde gas, should be
carried out by the health authorities. If necessary, the disinfection
of the building should be repeated several times a year, particularly
during general epidemics of influenza or pneumonia.
Safety measures against outbreaks of fire, dangers from panic,
accidents, etc., are in a certain sense also sanitary improvements, but
can not be discussed here.[9]
[9] See the author's work, Theater Fires and Panics, 1895.
In order to anticipate captious criticisms, the writer would state
that in this paper he has not attempted to set forth new theories, nor
to advocate any special system of theater ventilation. His aim was
to describe existing defects and to point out well-known remedies.
The question of efficient theater sanitation belongs quite as much to
the province of the sanitary engineer as to that of the architect.
It is one of paramount importance--certainly more so than the purely
architectural features of exterior and interior decoration.
* * * * *
In presenting to the British Association the final report on the
northwestern tribes of Canada, Professor Tylor observed that, while
the work of the committee has materially advanced our knowledge of
the tribes of British Columbia, the field of investigation is by no
means exhausted. The languages are still known only in outlines. More
detailed information on physical types may clear up several points
that have remained obscure, and a fuller knowledge of the ethnology of
the northern tribes seems desirable. Ethnological evidence has been
collected bearing upon the history of the development of the area under
consideration, but no archæological investigations, which would help
materially in solving these problems, have been carried on.
THE NEW FIELD BOTANY.
BY BYRON D. HALSTED, Sc. D.,
OF RUTGERS COLLEGE.
There is something novel every day; were it not so this earth would
grow monotonous to all, even as it does now to many, and chiefly
because such do not have the opportunity or the desire to learn some
new thing. Facts unknown before are constantly coming to the light, and
principles are being deduced that serve as a stepping stone to other
and broader fields of knowledge. So accustomed are we to this that
even a new branch of science may dawn upon the horizon without causing
a wonder in our minds. In this day of ologies the birth of a new one
comes without the formal two-line notice in the daily press, just as
old ones pass from view without tear or epitaph.
_Phytoecology_ as a word is not long as scientific terms go, and the
Greek that lies back of it barely suggests the meaning of the term, a
fact not at all peculiar to the present instance. Of course, it has to
do with plants, and is therefore a branch of botany.
In one sense that which it stands for is not new, and, as usual, the
word has come in the wake of the facts and principles it represents,
and therefore becomes a convenient term for a branch of knowledge--a
handle, so to say--by which that group of ideas may be held up for
study and further growth. The word _ecology_ was first employed by
Haeckel, a leading light in zoölogy in our day, to designate the
environmental side of animal life.