Ernest Runtz F.R.I.B.A., F.S.I.
Theatre Design and Construction - Theatres - Obituaries
Theatre Design and Construction (1913)
The play is the thing - granted, but who will deny that a good play seems more brilliant, and an indifferent drama less tiresome, if produced within surroundings making wholly for the physical and mental comfort of the audience, players, and employees. It is the architect's province to design such a setting, and solve what in most instances is a very difficult problem (bearing in mind the conditions and restrictions imposed by the authorities and the many and varied requirements essential to success) both before and behind the curtain.
Right - Ernest Runtz & Ford Architects' Gaiety Theatre, London - From the 'Academy Architecture and Architectural Review' of 1907.
It is impossible in the short space available to give a full treatise upon this important branch of the architectural profession, and one can only touch upon the most salient features in connection with theatre buildings, essential though they are, which warrant the large expenditure involved in their erection. To begin with, in London we are faced with perhaps the most perfect set of theatre regulations extant; there are, and always will be in official documents of this description, flaws and incongruities, but there can always be a saving clause for the admission of modifications in any or all of them, and this to an extent is the case with the rules and regulations issued by the London County Council in regard to theatre buildings.
The Site
Above - A Sketch of the Crown Theatre, Peckham by its Architect, Ernest Runtz - From the Academy Architecture and Architectural review of 1898.
The ideal site for a theatre is, of course, an isolated one, but we can dismiss this so far as London is concerned; such a site in the heart of the West End would be too costly to warrant the erection of a theatre capable of bringing in a reasonable profit. The most likely form of any new sites available in London are corner ones, having frontages to two thoroughfares (three preferably), one of which, according to the L.C.C. regulations, must be not less than 40 ft. wide, and the other not less than 30 ft. wide from end to end; moreover, one half of the boundaries at least must abut on such thoroughfares. A good shape for a comer site for a medium-sized theatre, one may roughly take to have a frontage to the main thoroughfare of 70 or 80 ft. by a depth of 140 ft., with a superficial area of between 10,000 and 11,000 ft. This would allow about 25 to 30 ft. for the crush-room and foyer and main approaches, an auditorium 50 ft. square, stage 35 to 40 ft. in depth, and sufficient space for a block of dressing-rooms in the rear. Out of the site itself a side passage way about 10 ft. in width in this case would be required, so that ingress and egress could be obtained from both sides of the house. The level of the site is a matter of importance, a dead level is, of course, a satisfactory problem to deal with, but perfection for a theatre is a site having a slope from its main entrance downwards toward the stage; this not only economises in the staircases, which are a costly feature in theatre buildings, but it enables the audience from the various parts to gain access to the streets quickly.
Regulations
Those enforced in London are many and varied, but space does not permit of any attempt to make an analysis of them. Generally they make for the safety of the public first, the width of the staircases being governed by the number of persons to be accommodated in the various parts of the house, the minimum height between the tiers is fixed, the width of gangways and of seats, and the distance from one row to another. Projecting architectural features in the corridors are rigidly excluded, even if such corridors comply strictly with the regulations in other respects; inflammable building material is excluded from the construction as much as possible, thus wooden linings are not allowed to walls unless made fire resisting, and the number of hydrants and fire appliances are carefully set out with a view to providing for every emergency.
A theatre building, moreover, is divided into three distinct fire risks, viz. :- auditorium, stage, and dressing-room blocks, and commercially this is a considerable advantage from an insurance point of view, as the risks vary, i.e., a heavier rate is put on the stage block for obvious reasons, and the rates charged for the auditorium and dressing-room blocks vary according to the surroundings and circumstances; therefore, new theatres have to face standing charges for insurance of much smaller dimensions than the older theatres, where the line of demarcation between the three parts of the theatre are not so well defined.
Where openings are necessary for the purpose of communication between the various blocks fire-resisting doors or partitions are insisted upon, and are either of hard wood, steel armoured, but best of all in the writer's opinion are the unarmoured 2-in. teak doors, as the presence of metal or, at any rate, exposed metal of any description (metal being a splendid conductor of heat whereas wood is a non-conductor), is obviously a disadvantage in the presence of fire; moreover, metal expands considerably under the influence of heat, and the doors are likely to get twisted and jammed, so that where hard wood can be used with the consent of the authorities it is preferable.
A very important regulation, which is, doubtless, now in universal use, is the provision of an iron-framed double-lined asbestos fire-resisting curtain to the proscenium opening, which is operated by a lever from the stage, and also by a lever from the stage doorkeeper's office, so that in a case of panic at the curtain line the last-named lever could be worked by a person close to an exit, and in comparative safety.
Curiously enough there is no special regulation with regard to the heating and ventilation of theatres, and the writer is somewhat surprised that the authorities have not given some indication that they will require to be satisfied on these most important points in connection with the health of both players and audience.
Planning
The first thing to think of in planning a public building, such as a theatre, is the means of getting the audience out in the event of panic in the shortest space of time; to this end, apart from other cogent reasons, the planning should be simple and direct, that is to say, so that a person having once entered from the street and found his way to his seat should have no difficulty in finding his way out instinctively, even under conditions of great excitement; in other words, the way to the street should be obvious. This proviso for minimising the risk of panic should come as the first consideration; next, the structure generally should be of fire-resisting material; no man can hope to make a theatre fireproof.
Exterior
Above - A printed (photolithographed) card published by M&A Roberts of 293 Whitechapel Road, showing the Pavilion Theatre, Whtechapel Road, circa 1900 - Courtesy Fred Cooper.
The treatment of the exterior or elevation of a theatre is to an extent - at any rate, from a commercial point of view - a minor matter. In big cities and important thoroughfares a dignified, if not elaborate design, would seem essential, and, of course, affords the architect an opportunity of displaying his ability to the general public by adding a landmark to the district. On the other hand, in smaller townships and in side city streets, all that seems necessary is a simply designed front indicating the purpose of the building, with some prominent feature emphasising the main entrance. The money available is best spent on the interior of the theatre, where the comfort of the audience is concerned, as people do not sit on a kerbstone to see a play, however much they may cling to theatre walls like limpets in a queue.
Auditorium
Above - The Circles of Ernest Runtz's Middlesbrough Empire in May 1989 - Courtesy Ted Bottle.
The best shape for an auditorium is a perfect square, but there is a growing tendency to make it wider than it is deep, which may have advantages of simplicity in arranging the sight line, but which, whilst adding possibly to the breadth and dignity of the auditorium, is detrimental to the acoustic properties, necessitates a larger stage opening, and, therefore, a more costly setting, and an augmented number of chorus and supers.
There should be no seat in a modern theatre from which a full and complete view of the stage is not obtained. Cast-iron columns are now, of course, things of the past, and the circles are practically bridges of steel, generally with one deep girder from side to side of the auditorium, at an appointed distance between the front of the circle and the rear wall, from which radiate other girders running through the web of the first-named, and forming cantilevers, until the circle curve is met in the front. On this steel structure concrete flooring is placed, on which are wooden fillets at intervals for fixing the boarded surface.
It is not likely, at any rate in London, that a three-tier house will again be permitted, the minimum distances between the tiers in accordance with the regulations are such as to make the gallery so steep as to look, even if it is not, uncomfortable and dangerous. It is a fact, moreover, that the view from the gallery of a three-tier house cannot be satisfactory, owing to the dwarfing or foreshortened appearance of the actors on the stage; at the same time the acoustic properties of the gallery portion are frequently the most effective in the building.
A two-tier house is, in the opinion of the writer, the most satisfactory form for an auditorium, the dress, or first tier, having a tier in the rear of it running over the main approaches, such as the crush-room and foyer, with a tier over as an upper or balcony circle.
It is usual that the stalls level of the theatre should be sunk some distance from the pavement level, the advantage of this is that the means of egress from ail parts is thus within the shortest possible distance of the street level, apart from which much valuable space underneath the pavement is usually permissible by arrangement with the authorities.
A pleasing feature in all theatres should be the crush-room, which should be spacious and attractive. From here are usually situated the main entrances to the stalls, dress circle, and balcony. To each part of the house there should be at least two exits (more in large theatres) placed symmetrically, so that the audience coming in at one entrance will know that there is immediately opposite to it in the auditorium a similar exit, and if this system were universally adopted the danger from panic would be much less, as the audience would instinctively find the exits.
As one can scientifically sight on the sections and plans each seat, there is no excuse for any architect in erecting a theatre putting in any seats which do not afford a perfect view of the stage.
Right - An early photograph of the auditorium of Ernest Runtz's New Theatre, Cardiff - Courtesy John West.
In planning the gangways it is desirable so to place them as to give the appearance of space and amplitude, as the sense of overcrowding does not engender a feeling of comfort and freedom in the audience. Regulations here again govern chiefly one's course of procedure; for instance, no seat is allowed to be more than 10 ft. from a gangway, so that the length of any row of seats is limited to 20 ft. In the stalls area stage boxes are generally provided, and at the Gaiety, in London, a gangway is saved by placing a number of seats immediately under the boxes instead of, as is usually the case, having a gangway on either side and one in the centre of the stalls. This not only gives a very roomy appearance but actually saves a gangway, thus providing more seats. Excepting under special circumstances this method seems capable of universal adoption. On the other hand, the question of the efficiency of the proscenium boxes has never been solved even now; they are always the cause of dissatisfaction, as it is very difficult to provide for people to do other than look round a corner. I should like to see these boxes abolished in their present form. The space could be well and advantageously utilised in connection with the stage, and if boxes are essential, as presumably they are, the better place for them is at the back of the dress circle, where they are approached directly from the foyer. A block of empty boxes facing the audience always has a depressing effect, and those flanking the proscenium opening are constantly in view, and are the greatest offenders.
The crush-room and foyer are often sacrificed so far as spaciousness and utility are concerned for the sake of the auditorium and the provision of a greater seating capacity; indeed, these more important adjuncts are often relegated to the background in theatres in this country as compared with those on the Continent, where a very large amount of space is devoted to them, often wastefully. A happy mean would seem to be advantageous.
The refreshment buffets in our theatres, in many instances, seem to be afterthoughts, and one has to burrow one's way into a far discant cellar through tortuous passages, or to some small apartment about the size of a scullery in the upper regions, to obtain refreshment. Surely this must be through carelessness. or over-haste in planning; at any rate, the writer commends this matter to intending owners of new theatres as one worthy of greater consideration and attention in a new theatre.
The Stage
Above - An early postcard showing Ernest Runtz's Palace Theatre, Halifax.
The dimensions of the stage chiefly depend on the class of entertainment or play which is likely to be evolved at any particular theatre. A theatre designed for chamber plays or comedies need not, of course, be so spacious as those devoted to musical plays and the drama. In London the line of demarcation is generally plain, but in the provinces, where all sorts and conditions of touring companies provide the "attraction," the class of stage required is one having a depth of at least 40 up to 60 ft. from the float, proscenium opening 28 to 30 ft. in width, and the stage itself should be double the width of the proscenium opening, which in the latter case would be 15 ft. on either side, making 60 ft. in all. On one side of the stage, or at the back at least, there must be a pair of elephant doors for the reception of the scenery. A scene dock, too, is a very useful if not necessary adjunct.
The flies should be of fire-resisting construction, and of sufficient height from the stage to take any scenery on the road. There should be underneath these flies a similar but smaller structure for the electricians, and the grid should be of sufficient height to take up a scene without folding.
Care should be taken that ample exits are provided for the stage hands. It is hardly fair to leave the men in the flies, for instance, with only a cat ladder to the stage level as a means of escape. There should be an emergency door on to the roof of some adjoining building, or an outside ladder or stair with direct access to a passage, yard, or street.
What is known as a working stage is now hardly ever erected in the first instance, it is left for the resident stage carpenter or engineer to provide such developments as occasion may require.
Dressing Rooms
The writer has inspected in detail some eighty theatres throughout the United Kingdom. It is astounding to find that actors and actresses even now have to put up with dressing-room accommodation not worthy of the name - ill ventilated, unclean, and in most cases without hot water supply, and with the sanitary conveniences conspicuous by their scarcity. Their very existence is a tribute to the long-suffering qualities of those whose mission in life is to provide entertainment for their fellows. They must, indeed, be enthusiasts to put up with such environments. Happily in more modern theatres it has been largely recognised (as generally now in all business undertakings) that men and women are capable of better work if their surroundings engender comfort and cheerfulness, and even so there is still room for improvement in the accommodation behind the curtain. I should like to see a revival of the Green Room for the convenience of the members of the company. It has many advantages, but here again space and money considerations are governing factors.
Decorations
Above - The auditorium of Ernest Runtz's New Theatre, Cardiff in 2011 - Courtesy Jenny Rowley.
It is difficult as an architect to write under such a heading without blushing, in view of the many monstrosities which are, and probably will be, perpetrated in many theatres and music halls in the name of architectural ornament. It cannot be that the designs are prepared by architects; if they are, in many cases it would be well if the architects confined their attention to the structure. Surely the decorations of the auditorium should be of such a nature as will give a soothing and restful sensation to the eye on the fall of the curtain, the brilliancy of the setting of the stage must be enhanced in value by the contrast, and this alone is a good and sufficient reason for the argument. How often do we find the auditorium plastered with sanguinary or glaring wall paper reminiscent of an "abbatoir?" how often do we find the structure constituting the private boxes cloaked with gigantically proportioned petrified housemaids despoiling by exaggerated contours "Hogarth's line of beauty," the lower portion of them where nature intended a very different finish being concluded by a prime tail end which would be more in place at Billingsgate. Again, we are indulged with the contemplation of gaping jaws of wild animals adjacent to chubby little cherubs evidently in blissful ignorance of the possibility of a near acquaintance with the interior of these denizens of the jungle. Still further are our feelings harrowed by contemplating a sleeping beauty surrounded by a bevy of energetic angelic heralds emitting blasts from golden trumpets calculated to awaken the dead.
Are these descriptions exaggerated? Well, perhaps they may be. But do such marvels of artistic design emanate from the drawing boards of the eminent theatre architects, or as they are sometimes called theatrical architects, or are they not the product of cheap German and Italian models?
We are seriously asked by some to believe that the public ask for these when the question is raised, but the writer pleads ignorance of the demand, and from his experience can say no one more appreciates refinement, provided it is bright and cheerful, than the general public; they just submit to these incongruities because they are helpless in the matter. It is to be seriously hoped that in the numerous new theatre structures that must in course of time replace the old ones throughout the country, the building owners will make a point of having their decorations supervised by an architect, or at least call in really able decorative experts.
Thus a well-planned and solidly constructed theatre will not be ruined by being clothed with so-called decorations which are abortions. The result will be that distinctive characterisation is given, and a higher tone engendered, than that obtained by adopting the garish and degenerate emanations of those who revel in plastic coarseness. Economy will also be the result, if not in the initial outlay, in the upkeep of the property.
With so many beautiful shades of secondary and tertiary colours available, the introduction of primary colours in the auditorium in all their crudity is to be deprecated. Judicious mural decoration in the shape of paintings are, of course, quite admissible, but here again it is best to be without them unless they possess individual merit, better to have a few examples which are good than to smother every available space of plain plaster with impossible clouds and figures.
With regard to the act drop, especially in provincial theatres, where the same people congregate weekly, landscape or figure subjects as the basis are undesirable. They become monotonous, if not annoying. Scenic artists at the present day possess such high merit and capabilities that a painted realistic draped silk or satin curtain (if actual material is impossible) is far more suitable, and if its tones are kept in harmony with the general scheme of the auditorium it helps to make the whole homogeneous, instead of making a break in the continuity of the design.
With regard to furnishing, this, of course, depends upon the length of the purse, but it is best in the long run to avoid the cheap stall and common carpet and to, have the very best quality, even if it is to be plain, and if this course is adopted and the "vacuum" cleaner installed, it will economise in the long run both in wear and in the number of cleaners required, and this economy will be more appreciated after the theatre has been opened some years.
In conclusion, the circle fronts and the frame constituting the proscenium opening being generally in plaster, there is no difficulty in getting refined, original, and beautiful designs rather than crowding every inch of space with impossible Gargantuan monstrosities.
Acoustics and Ventilation
Above - A Drawing of Ernest Runtz's Empire Theatre of Varieties, Hastings - From 'The Playgoer' 1901 - Courtesy Iain Wotherspoon.
How many otherwise pleasing theatres have been spoiled by the lack of attention to these most important factors? How many times does one hear of persons after visiting a theatre remark when they reach home that they have a bad headache, and that they always get one when they go to a theatre? Doubtless many readers themselves have been victims. It should be the aim of every theatre proprietor to have his theatre so ventilated that his patrons should feel better when they have left than when they came in. It is not an extremely difficult thing, at any rate, to give a modicum of ventilation other than the old sun burner (which in its way was very good), or the electric fans placed very largely in evidence which do no more than stir up the foul air.
A little forethought, the provision of flues with an up current engendered by hot water pipes and fans, would do much; but by far the best system is the "Plenum" system as adopted, I believe, at the Hippodrome, in London, and at the Gaiety, the latter being equipped by Messrs. Stotts. The writer claims no credit for it himself, and can therefore speak freely as to its merits. This "Plenum" system consists of sucking in the air by means of fans at the top of the building, the air is then passed through or over a canvas wheel soaked with water and thus purified, from thence it is forced over a battery of radiators and heated in accordance with requirements. It is then forced down ducts or flues to the various parts of the auditorium, being regulated by dampers conveniently accessible for the attendants' supervision. In the summer time the air is passed through cooling chambers, and it is so adjusted that the atmosphere is changed four times within the hour. No more striking example of the effectiveness of this system can be adduced than the evidence of a lady journalist who attended the opening night at the Gaiety, and who by some oversight had not received a ticket for admission, she being subsequently provided with a back seat in the upper circle. I received a communication from her the next morning asking what had been done to the new Gaiety, for she went there with a bad headache and came away without one. This may have been partially due to the exhilarating influence of the entertainment, but more probably to the purity of the atmosphere. Mr. George Edwardes was advised to advertise that "one night at the Gaiety was as good as a fortnight at Margate," but evidently the public have discovered this without his going to the expense.
One great feature which will appeal to theatre proprietors of this system is that the installation of radiators throughout the auditorium becomes unnecessary. They will know from experience that even the best regulated radiators are occasionally a source of trouble, and wherever they are placed dust accumulates, and does mischief to the decorations.
Acoustics
Judging from many examples of theatres in existence in London this is a matter which seems to be the last to be considered, and when one remembers that after providing for the safety of the public the essential features of a theatre should be that the audience should see and hear perfectly, one marvels at the omission. But little thought appears to be given in connection with the material used for engendering perfect sound, and the shape of the auditorium seems to be governed by the number of people that can be accommodated, the result in many instances being that one half the people in the auditorium may hear well and the remainder indifferently, or not at all.
What are the causes of these serious defects? First of all there seems to be a growing tendency to put as much marble as possible on the walls, in conjunction with the foreign plaster work previously referred to. If the latter is offensive in appearance, the former is equally an offender from the point of view of sound, in so far as it is non-resonant. This was known to the ancient Greeks in their open-air theatres, which were constructed of stone and marble; to remedy this defect they placed at intervals round the tiers metal vases and vessels to counteract the difficulty by their resonant qualities.
Fibrous plaster or hard wood is far better for sound, and if marble is to be used at all it should be applied with a light hand.
To obtain a good chance of perfection in acoustics the auditorium of a theatre should be either square or an extension of a square, at right angles to the proscenium. The best formation of the roof of the latter should be in the nature, so far as practicable, of a musical instrument of trumpet mouth formation. This is easily accomplished by the provision of an arch of fibrous plaster over the top of the proscenium springing from the sides of the boxes, or if these are abolished, what is better still, decorated panelling in lieu of the same. Beyond this arch of trumpet mouth formation should be a "slung " ceiling hung of resonant material, such as fibrous plaster, constituting, as it were, a "Baldacchino." It is advisable if possible to have no naked upward outlets at the back of the auditorium or in the ceiling itself.
The respective merits of a medium-sized proscenium opening and circle fronts in accord, as compared with a huge proscenium opening, a flattish auditorium, and a very wide circle, so far as acoustics are concerned, are self-evident. The circle is so near the singer in the latter case and so extensive in width that the voice has no opportunity to spread to the necessary angle to embrace all the audience; whereas with a smaller front and greater depth of auditorium, the volume of sound pursues its way as from a musical instrument within its appointed limit of radiation.
Generally
Above - A Sketch showing Ernest Runtz's Royal Holborn Theatre of Varieties - From the Building News and Engineering Journal, January 7th 1898.
The writer does not pretend that his views will be shared by all who read this attempt to generalise the main features of theatre construction; if, however, in a few instances he has given food for reflection to those who are about to erect theatres, and possibly a few hints which may be of service, his purpose is served.
Great strides have been made in the last two decades in the endeavour to attain the attributes necessary for the physical comfort of the players and the audience, but whilst important improvements have been effected both before and behind the curtain the "perfect" theatre has yet to be built, for even in some of the latest and most up-to-date structures one may truly say there have been done those things which ought not to have been done, and there have been left undone those things which ought to have been done, and without proper attention to ventilation, one might add, and there is no health in them. This is not intended as a tirade against the architectural profession, which in many instances is deserving the greatest possible sympathy by reason of the conditions surrounding an architect's employment and by the smallness of the client's purse. It is useless to attempt to make bricks without straw, and it is of too common occurrence to blame the architect for not making a proper brick, when, if the truth were known, he is more sinned against than sinning. One of the greatest difficulties that he has to face is the work at high pressure in preparing designs for what is often one of the most complicated of buildings, when he ought to be given many months for the solution of the problem instead of rushing out at the shortest notice working drawings, so that the building may be erected within a ridiculous period. Under such circumstances he neither does credit to himself nor to his client; many items are bound to come in as afterthoughts, and it is well to remind those who are fortunate enough to be able to erect and own a theatre of the old adage "the more haste the less speed," and that art in architecture, as in its other branches, cannot be turned out like mincemeat from a machine.
Mr. Granville Barker, that staunch pioneer of purpose and simplicity in stage setting, has struck a note which theatre architects and owners may well take to heart in dealing with the problems as to the suitable treatment of auditoria; are there not some amongst us who will strive to break away from the form and expression of the stereotyped so-called decorative art which is prevalent? As usual, if attempts in this direction are made, there is the inevitable danger of revolutionary exaggeration, but even so a real break in the traditionary methods might lead to a wholesome shaking up of the decorative dice box to the advantage of all.
As Mr. Granville Barker's setting of Shakespeare has been a revelation to playgoers, his views upon the disposition and housing of an audience and the treatment of auditoria would be equally instructive and interesting.
The above article on Theatre Design and Construction by Ernest Runtz was first published in the Stage Yearbook of 1913.
Ernest Runtz Obituaries
Ernest Runtz was the architect of many Theatres in London and the Provinces, a list of some of them which are featured on this site can be found here and here. He died in October 1913, not long after the above article was published, some obituaries from contemporary newspapers follow.
The Shoreditch Observer, Saturday the 18th of October 1913
We regret to record the death of the well-known architect, Mr. Ernest J. Runtz, which occurred on Wednesday. He had been suffering for upwards of a year from an operation for stone. He was a well-known man in the City, where for some yeas he was the junior partner in the firm of Walker and Runtz of Moorgate-street. When that partnership was disolved he became distinguished as a designer and builder of theatres. In this connection his method of redecoration of the old Adelphi may be remembered, while the Gaiety in the Strand bids fair to remain an example of his work for many years to come. He built several provincial theatres an theatres in London, but in addition it is right to mention that he was the architect of the beautiful building of the Norwich Union Insurance Company at the junction of Picaddilly and St. James-street. Amongst his more recent work was his employment by the London County Council in the matter of the Strand widening. He was the son of the late Mr. J. Runtz of Stoke Newington, and brother of Sir J. J. Runtz, C.C,. ex-Mayor of Stoke Newington.
The ERA, Wednesday the 22nd of October 1913
By the death of Mr. Ernest J. Runtz, which took place on Wednesday last, after a long illness, a well-known architect has passed away. Mr. Runtz was for some years junior partner in the firm of Walker and Runtz, of Moorgate-street. After the dissolution of the partnership he became prominent as a designer and builder of theatres. He redecorated the old Adelphi Theatre, and the present Gaiety Theatre is one of the examples of his work. He built several other theatre, in London and the provinces, and was the architect of the striking building of the Norwich Union Assurance Company at the junction of Piccadilly and St. James-street. He was employed by the London & County Council, in Connection with the widening of the Strand.
Above - An article and plans for the Strand Improvements partly designed by Ernest Runtz in 1900 - From The Morning Leader, London 27th December 1900. For more information on this click here.
The Stage Newspaper, Thursday the 23rd of October 1913
The death took place on Wednesday last week of Mr. Ernest J. Runtz, well-known architect. Mr.. Runtz had been ill for some time, and last year underwent a severe operation. Of the various theatres and halls in London and tho provinces which he built, the present Gaiety is perhaps the most important work he carried out. The Crown, Peckham, was erected from his designs, and he was responsible for the reconstruction of the Adelphi, the Pavilion, Whitechapel, and the building of theatres in Birmingham, Cambridge, Cardiff. Halifax, Hastings, Lowestoft, and Middlesbrough. Mr. Runtz contributed a valuable article on theatre design and construction to the last issue of The Stage Year Book.