Evaluation of Williams College
Theater and Dance Center Siting

Massachusetts Wetlands and Rivers Act
The only sites that have potential for impact on wetlands or rivers are the sites south of Spring
Street: the Doughty Site and the Buildings and Grounds storage facility. Christmas Brook winds its way
in between the Buildings and Grounds storage facility and Weston Field. This brook is
classified as a “river” under the Massachusetts Rivers Protection Act since it appears as a perennial
stream on the United States Geological Association Survey Map. Thus, it falls under the regulations of
the act as revised in 1996.
Under the Act, also protected are the resource areas such as the Riverfront area and bordering
vegetated wetlands. The riverfront area consists of the 100 foot inner riparian zone and the 100 foot outer
riparian zone as measured from the river’s mean annual highwater mark on both sides of the river.
Bordering vegetated wetlands are areas where the soils are saturated or inundated enough to support
wetland indicator plants as specified in Massachusetts General Law, c. 131, §40, which border on creeks,
rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes. The outline within which 50% or more of the vegetation consists of
wetland indicator plants (as identified in the Act but not limited to) and saturated or inundated conditions
defines the vegetated wetland boundary. Also, under protection is the buffer zone which extends 100 feet
from the bordering vegetated wetland boundary.
According to Massachusetts General Law, c. 131, §40, any activities which will remove, fill,
dredge, or alter the riverfront area, vegetated wetlands, and buffer zone requires the filing of a Notice of
Intent. In Williamstown, this Notice of Intent is filed with the Conservation Commission. The Conservation
Commission evaluates the site and the Notice of Intent is sent to the State level which has the final
say about whether or not the development may occur.
There are two additional standards specified in the Rivers Protection Act. Under section 20, no
development can occur in the riverfront area unless it has been shown by a preponderance of the evidence
that:
• such work, including proposed mitigation measures, will have no significant adverse impact*
on the riverfront area for the following purposes:

Social Considerations: The Williamstown Community
Spring Street Business Owners

We interviewed 18 of the business owners and managers on Spring Street to investigate their
opinions on potential sites for the Theater and Dance Center at the south end of Spring Street, i.e., the
Doughty House site and/or the Buildings and Grounds storage site. Although the general consensus was
very positive about these sites, even those most enthusiastic about the possibilities expressed some grave
concerns that they hoped the College would take into consideration if it were to choose either site. The
most commonly repeated concerns included the need for increased parking, and the need for improved
traffic flow on the street. The college could most successfully address the first by responsibly dictating
the use of the new parking lot. For instance, the college should maximize the public use of the lot by
forbidding overnight student parking in the lot, and also by discouraging students from short-term parking
in the lot (thus, limiting the added congestion to Spring Street from students driving to class). The
second concern will hopefully be successfully addressed by the Spring Street 2000 plan, which sould be
coordinated with the development of the theater and dance facility.
The following is a summary of the comments of the Spring Street business owners:

Positive Impacts:
• “It would be beautiful” ...general consensus is that Herb Allen is the right one to have in on the
decision-making to make sure that the building is traditionally-aesthetic and fits the context of a small
town.
• Would help daily parking-shortage problems on Spring Street and parking problems that arise during
big sports events.
• Would be better to have the Theater and Dance Center accessible to townspeople as well as college
students.
• Would help better integrate Spring Street with campus circulation, possibly spurring more business.

Negative Impacts:
• Would exacerbate congestion problems on Spring Street before and after performances, and daily if
students drive to the center for class (especially if they park on the street).
• Might affect the small-town character of the street.
• Will have some big negative impacts on the people who live around the area.

Why we accept:
• The college is expanding; better to have an aesthetically-pleasing building with a large parking lot that
will be only fully utilized for theater and dance functions in the evening/weekends than another type of college building (which we can assume will eventually go in regardless of the outcome of this project).
• Without the college we’d have no business - from students, their parents, perspectives’ parents, tourists;
“if it helps the college, it helps us.”
• Herb Allen is heading up the project - general feeling of respect for his ability to do what’s best for the
town and college in an intelligent way.
• “Anything that’s good for the college is good for the town.”

Why we don’t accept:
• College has a lot of land; there are probably many better sites
• College has been very hush hush in the whole matter... can we be assured the Theater Festival won’t
be coming in? that the college won’t set up yet another snack bar or other type of vending area?

Suggestions:
• Definitely build the parking lot before construction of the building begins.
• Make the parking lot as accessible to the public as possible, i.e., don’t put limitations on the parking
such as “faculty and staff only” spots or allow overnight student parking.
• Rework all of Spring Street; if that can’t be done, at least rework the top, or have a cop on hand for
when things get really backed up.
• Make Bank Street a through street again so that we can have deliveries off the main drag.
• Don’t eliminate street-side parking - many businesses rely on large-volume, low-expenditure purchases...
so people can drive up, get what they need, and be off.
• Make more parking available, and TELL people where it is.
• Keep Denison Park as it is; maybe even do some landscaping, or put in some picnic tables; keep the
construction confined to the Buildings and Grounds storage site.

Williamstown Community Association
The Williamstown Community Association formed “to preserve, protect, and promote neighborhood
and community values including the traditional New England beliefs of concern and respect for
individuals; of open, full, and civil dialogue; and of thoughtful stewardship of our man-made and natural
townscapes.” The WCA has essentiallycreated a means through which the community at large can consolidate into a single body that can interact with the college and thereby (hopefully) play a role in the decision-making process. Although it is
impossible to create a single body that can represent the wide spectrum of opinions and values of the
community, the WCA can at least effectively work to assure that the neighborhood impact remains an
important consideration in the College’s site selection process. They also hope to keep the pressure on
the college to produce a thorough analysis of several options for siting. Although individual opinions may
vary, many members of the Association have expressed their preference for the Greylock expansion/Mather House or Greylock field as the best feasible option. These sites would have minimal neighborhood
impact since the main roads (Route 2 and Route 7) rather than small town roads would take up the
traffic congestion produced at performance times.

Spring Street Renovations
Williamstown is a small Berkshire County town, with a traditional main street (Spring Street),
and New England architecture. What makes it unique is that it is also home to Williams College, the
center of which (Hopkins Hall-Baxter Hall) is also the center of town (Spring Street, the main business
district). The college owns a lot of land in the Spring Street area (approx. 80% of the land on the street,
50% of the surrounding land), and thus any college development around this area should be carefully
planned to account for any negative impacts on the character of the street. The street is the main site in
town for community events, and is home to a variety of locally-owned businesses.
Parking is possibly the most important issue with Spring Street; there is a large public parking lot
(owned and provided by the College) at the bottom end of the street, as well as curb-side parking; but the
problem is that the street was designed for pedestrians, and most townspeople drive when they go to the
businesses on the street. Therefore, there is a chronic shortage of parking spaces.
The Town Manager, Stephen Patch, commented that the 1987 construction of Chandler Athletic
Facility brought out many of the same contentions and issues involving Spring Street as the current
Theater and Dance Center siting. For example, many townspeople protested the location (directly behind
the buildings along the east side of Spring St.) and the size of the building, arguing with good foresight
that it would cause parking problems and congestion, especially during sporting events. The main
problem with the Chandler construction is that it eliminated the alley behind the Spring Street businesses
that was reserved for deliveries. Presently, delivery and mail trucks go down the street at peak traffic
hours, and must block one lane of traffic while they make deliveries and pick up items.
Spring Street renovations are a major consideration of the College in this project. The College
must work closely with the Town Manager and the engineers hired for the renovations, should they
choose to build the Center in the area around Spring street. This concerns the current Doughty House
site and Buildings and Grounds storage site. The renovations are scheduled to begin in the Spring of
2000, and end at the end of the building season. A Spring Street Committee formed for this project,
(which consists of 9 people, including the Town Manager and many of the Spring Street business
owners), planned the new above ground design and a hired consultant did the below-ground engineering.
The main reason for doing the renovations is that the town is presently losing $100,000 per year
on below-ground costs, by having sewer and rainwater combined in one drainage system at the bottom
end of the street, and then paying for cleaning both.
The main consideration for the College is that in order to provide utilities to any sites for the
Theater and Dance Center around Spring Street (again, two of our final site recommendations), the
pavement at the southern end of Spring street will need to be ripped up. This is because the current electricity, sewer system, and water supply to these sites cannot support a 30-40,000 square foot
building. The College will have to work with the town to provide the utilities to the site during or
before, but not after, the renovations to the street are finished. The town manager believes that the
College can feasibly work within this deadline if the it acts responsibly on the issue, which he believes
it will.
The renovations will solve the drainage problems that the southern end of the street now experiences.
The street will be kept two way, but it will be re-paved, made more pedestrian friendly (using
landscaping, benches, new sidewalks; ‘neckdowns’ will also be put in at several locations on the street
to provide safer pedestrian crosswalks.) Although the neckdowns will eliminate several parking spaces
on the street, overall, the project will produce a net gain of 9 spaces, because parking will be extended
around the corner onto Latham Street. The committee has also discussed the problem of sustaining the
businesses on the street while they are negatively impacted by construction. The town has hired a
downtown manager (a person the College should closely work with if they site the Center near Spring
Street). The town is supplying extra funds, available for advertising for the businesses, and for entertainment
events on the street, both of which will serve to counteract the losses in business the stores
will experience during construction.
Does the town manager have any input for the siting of the proposed facility? Patch has said:
“The college has legal rights, but it also has responsibilities to be a good neighbor. It’s not up to me to
decide where the proposed Center should go.” In other words, Patch sees it as his role to work with
the College: the decision they make must be consistent with the town goals. Once they make the
decision, if there are any negative impacts on the town, he will work with the College to mitigate
them. However, from a broader town planning perspective, Patch recognizes that town planning can
only decide HOW a site should be developed, not specifically WHAT should go there. The town’s role
in this process is NOT, therefore, to express its own specific preferred location. However, a study of
the traffic impacts for whatever location the College chooses is crucial.
Another social consideration from the town perspective on the proposed Center, is the town
planning board’s proposed plan for the use of the old town garage site, located on Water Street. With
the help of private investment, the Board would like to develop the property (which is used temporarily
used for storage of materials for Water street renovations), and ideally make it into a combination of
shops and offices. However, most of the site would be devoted to parking, serving those coming to
shop on Spring Street. The town would like to connect the Spring Street and water street area and
develop it more as a town commercial core. That new parking may be provided for Spring Street
should be a consideration if the College sites the Center around the street; the town can also work with
the college on developing a safe, visible walkway between the old garage and Spring Street once the
parking is available. However, it is important for the college to keep in mind that this is only a proposal,
and that the Spring Street renovations will not contribute any significant increase in parking on
the street. Therefore, the College must take responsibility for providing whatever parking is associated
with construction and its impacts, as well as the finished Center.

Town Goals
The Town Manager mentions (see above section) the importance of town goals in planning the
proposed Center: we must examine what these consist of. There are two town goals, as expressed in
the 1989 Growth Management Plan, which concern this project.
First, the town would like to develop its town core intensively (including sustaining the economic
vitality of Spring Street and further development on Water Street), while keeping edges of town
as open space, free of development. Since the College center is also close to the town Center, the
College should plan its development along similar lines. This is an argument for putting the proposed
Theater and Dance Center in a central, highly visible location. The town also has developed an Open
Space Plan, in order to manage its resources better. Therefore, the College will follow town goals well
if it improves or uses land that is already developed, rather than destroy valuable open space, especially
space that is highly valued by the townspeople.
This leads us to the second town goal expressed in the Plan. In order to manage growth effectively,
the town said, well-informed public involvement in decision-making is needed. This Center is a
major development project, and it is the College’s role to provide accurate and up-to-date information
about it to all the groups who will be affected.

Williams College Community
Executive Decision Committee
In April, 1998, Williams College announced its acceptance of a $20 million donation from Herbert
Allen as “good for college.” The donation is to be used to build a Theater and Dance Center, thus, all
interest on the donation before the money is spent, and all future profits that come from the Center are to
return to the Center.
One stipulation on the Center is that it must have one area with a seating capacity of 500-600 for
major functions. The donor has also expressed an interest in having a traditional design that fits the
context of a small town.
The Trustees of the College have the authority to decide on whether or not to build the Center,
where to build it, and which architect to hire to determine layout and design. The Trustees typically defer
these responsibilities to President. He, in turn, usually appoints a committee to evaluate the options and
make a suggestion to which he gives the final approval. However, in this case, the final decision has been
left to an executive committee consisting of President Payne, Trustee Michael Keating, and the donor,
Herbert Allen. All decisions must be agreed upon by all three. There is a no build option: the college
would keep the $10.8 million initial down payment, and then probably use it for scholarship. However,
the college is working with assumption that the Theater and Dance Center will materialize.
Note: These detailsare based our meeting with President Payne, 11/9/98.

Performing Arts Program Committee
As discussed earlier, Williams College has fallen behind other small Liberal Arts Colleges with its
standards and its provisions for opportunities to experience performance arts. In the fall of 1997, President
Payne established an ad hoc committee to evaluate the need for expansion of performing arts. He
also established an ad hoc committee to evaluate the need for renovation of Stetson, as these were both
seen as priorities.
Within the next couple of months, Herbert A. Allen came forward with a $20 million donation to
be used to construct a performing arts facility. At this time, the ad hoc committee had not made any
conclusions concerning the need for such a facility, but the opportunity arose to except the gift. In order
to decide how to use the money to best fit the performing arts needs of the College, the ad hoc committee
was expanded to its current 12 members, including faculty from the Theater Department and Dance
Program, and two students actively involved in the performing arts.
At one time, the College considered including Music in the performing arts facility. But since the
Music Department recently acquired the Brooks and Rogers complex, they felt that they would rather stay
in their space since it was compatible to their needs as opposed to the Theater and Dance programs, both
of which lack sufficient space to accomodate student interest. The Mambawsi Marimba Band will be
housed in the facility since they play an integral role in the African Dance program with Kusika. The
facility might also have lobby space to display student art of which there is a surplus due to the limited
display space available in the Spencer Art Building.
In order to help the committee evaluate and budget the needs of the facility, the College hired the
theater design consulting firm Robert Davis Inc., of New York City. As of November 25th, three drafts
have been produced although they are still yet to be finalized. The third draft fits within the budget for
space and costs concerning construction of the physical facility, but does not allow for site preparation
costs.
As requested by Herbert Allen, there must be performance space large enough to accommodate a
500-600 member audience. However, this performance space does not need to contain a proscenium
style stage which is the traditional style theatre as appears in the Adams Memorial Theater. This will
allow for considerable flexibility within the performance space. Seats could be manipulated to accommodate
a large audience, or broken down to facilitate a smaller workshop type setting. Theater and Dance
stages are not compatible. Theater stages must be able to accommodate sets and contain trap floors,
while dance stages need to be suspended to reduce impact to the dancers. Thus, there must be a number
of performance spaces but they need not all contain 500-600 seats.
The facility will be an educational space, not a venue for the College to make money hosting large
performances from around the country nor to host the Summer Theater Festival. There will need to be
office space, studio space for practicing, rehearsal space, a machine shop to create sets, a physical therapy
room for dancers, and all of the backstage space associated with performance spaces ( N. Moeur, personal
interview). Thus, the facility need not be constructed as a square block, but could be a connected facility ranging from 1-4 buildings (H. Allen, personal interview).
Currently, the Committee is in the process of choosing an architect. Background on the architects
has been available in Sawyer Library and the Committee members have been narrowing down to choosing
about five architects whom they will interview in January, 1999. The architect will determine the square
footage and layout of the Center. Mr. Allen has stipulated that the architecture not resemble the modern
design of Sawyer Library and Mission Park, but rather that it reflect “traditional New England” architecture.
The Committee understand the donor’s desire to get he project underway, but it is wary of making
any rushed decisions.

Committee on Priorities and Resources
The Committee on Priorities and Resources, consisting of eight faculty and three student members,
influences discussion of College priorities and use of resources by interacting with the Provost and
reporting to the faculty. The Committee’s 1998 report concluded that “large new capital projects do not
fit into the existing capital or consolidated budget and should be considered extremely carefully in light of
this and the College’s overall objectives.”
Some of the Committee’s concerns about new capital projects are Williams’ already “world class”
campus, its commitment to financial aid, and rapidly increasing tuition costs. They also noted that even
in the case of a gift of a new building, future maintenance and operating costs are usually supported by the
College instead of by an endowment from the donor. Various sources have estimated that annual maintenance
costs will be between $500,000 and $1,000,000.

Student Opinions
We conducted a survey of the student body via all-campus email in order to better understand
student attitudes about the necessity of the center, participation in future programs at the center, and the
suitability of the center to each of our five potential sites. We received 487 responses, accounting for
almost one quarter of the student population.
Necessity of the Center
We asked the students to answer the following questions by ranking them on a scale of one to ten,
a score of one indicating that it is not important at all, ten indicating extreme importance:

1. How do you rate the necessity of a Theater and Dance Center to the
academic and extra-curricular experience at Williams?
2. When you were considering colleges, how important was the physical
facility ranging from 1-4 buildings (H. Allen, personal interview).
3. If a new Theater and Dance Center were built:
- would you be interested in taking academic classes in dance?
- would you be interested in participating in PE or extra-curricular activities in dance?
4. Would the expansion of theater facilities make you more likely to participate in theater courses or extra-curricular productions? (Y/N)
5. Have you been involved in any dance or theater productions or classes?

Currently, the Committee is in the process of choosing an architect. Background on the architects
has been available in Sawyer Library and the Committee members have been narrowing down to choosing
about five architects whom they will interview in January, 1999. The architect will determine the square
footage and layout of the Center. Mr. Allen has stipulated that the architecture not resemble the modern
design of Sawyer Library and Mission Park, but rather that it reflect “traditional New England” architecture.
The Committee understand the donor’s desire to get he project underway, but it is wary of making
any rushed decisions.
We received positive responses: the average answer for the necessity of the Center was 6.2, with
59% of respondents indicating that the Center is important (i.e. rating between 6 and 10). An overwhelming
78% of students rated the quality of physical facilities as very important in their college choice
(average 6.8), suggesting that the inadequate facilities for dance at Lasell may be a strong detraction for
students interested in the arts. Tables and more specific information about these results appear in
Appendix D.

II. Interest in future programs at the Center
We next asked students a series of questions to gauge interest in different kinds of dance and
theater programs, plus a measure of current student involvement in dance and theater:
The responses to these questions were small as a percentage of all respondents, but large relative
to current participation in theater and dance. For instance, 21% of students indicated that they would be
interested in academic dance, 38% in PE or extra-curricular dance, and 31% in theater courses or
productions. Comparatively, only 30% of students said that they had been previously involved in theater
or dance productions or classes. In fact, of the 342 students who had not been previously involved in arts,
144 indicated that they were interested in at least one of the three programs (academic dance, PE dance,
theater). If the expanded facilities at the new Center added these 144 interested students to programs in
the arts, the number of students involved would double (145 students answered that they have been
already participated in the arts programs). This demonstration of interest in programs at the new Center,
especially by students with no previous involvement in the arts, indicates that students are attracted to
having more alternatives to athletics and other extra-curricular activities on campus.
Current enrollment in theater classes is approximately 94 students each semester, plus more than
150 students in extra-curricular productions. Dance PE classes have 30 students per quarter, plus the 70
members of dance companies, making the combined total number of students currently involved in
theater and dance 344, or about 17% of the student population (note that this is current only, and does not
account for past involvement, like our question specified).

6. Rank each potential site on a scale of 1-10 (1=don’t like it at all;
10=excellent site). If you are not familiar with the site, put zero.
A. Behind the new Science Center/Doughty House
B. Behind Robin’s Restaurant/north of Susie Hopkins House
C. Greylock Quad parking lot/field
D. Outdoor basketball courts behind Mission Park/south of Poker
Flats
E. Expansion of present Adams Memorial Theater/possibly moving
Mather House (admissions building)


III. Site Preferences
Finally, we asked the students to rate each site on a scale of one to ten, one indicating that they
don’t like it at all, ten indicating that they think it’s an excellent site. Students were instructed to answer
zero for a site if they were not familiar with it, and those responses were not included in the averages you
see below.
The AMT expansion received an average score of 5.7, but is preferred only
slightly over the B&G Storage site, with an average of 5.3, and the Doughty House site, with an average
of 4.9. More statistics on the range and distribution of responses to this question appear in Appendix D.

Student Organizations and Use of the Sites:
One reason for the particularly low ratings on the Greylock Swamp and Poker Flats sites is the
involvement of the Williams Ultimate Frisbee Organization (WUFO). This athletic club currently involves
50 men and 30 women of all classes and practices in both the Swamp and Poker Flats fields
approximately 4 times per week in the fall, as well as Poker Flats and Cole Field 5-6 times per week in
the spring. The group also hosts one or two ultimate frisbee tournaments per semester, inviting up to 28
teams, and on such occasions they utilize every available field on campus. The Intramural (IM) Frisbee
team, which also practices on these fields, has about 140 members, and participation has been increasing
steadily over the last few years. We understand that these organizations specifically encouraged their
members to reply to this survey in order to express their interest in retaining these athletic fields. Thus
we feel that our results may be biased against those two sites.

IV. Demographics
As previously stated, we received 487 responses to the survey, accounting for about 25% of the
student body and constituting a very representative sample with respect to sex, class and majors. There
were 272 responses from females (56%) and 215 from males, which is very close to the standard Williams
50:50 ratio of men and women. The response from classes varied slightly, with 30% of the
responses coming from seniors and only 21% from juniors . The junior
response was probably low because many take a semester abroad. Freshman and sophomore responses
were approximately 25% each.
We also asked students to indicate their major(s), prospective major(s) or undecided status.
Interpreting this distribution was difficult since the College keeps records of
juniors and seniors who have already declared their major(s), whereas our survey includes freshmen and
sophomores as well. Our results showed 35% of respondents were majoring in a Division II (Social
Sciences) department, 21% in Division I (Language and the Arts), 25% in Division III (Science and
Mathematics), plus 19%undecided majors. The actual distribution of majors on campus (only including
declared juniors and seniors) is 50% Division II, and about 25% each Divisions I and III. In both of
these tabluations, students with double majors were counted twice - once in each appropriate division.
We considered this pattern to be relatively close to the actual distribution and not problematic since each
division was well-represented.
In examining the demographics of our survey, we looked for differences in scoring based on
gender, class, major, and previous involvement in theater and dance. We found that males rated the
necessity of the Center an average of 12% lower than females, and interest in academic and PE dance
about 45% lower. There was no difference in answers between students of different classes, or those who
had previously been involved in theater and dance productions. We did find that ratings of the necessity
of the Center, importance of physical facilities, and interest in academic and PE dance were higher for
Division I majors, and substantially lower for Division III majors. Division I includes the
Theatre, Art, Classics, English and foreign language departments, Division II includes social sciences
like history and economics, and Division III includes “hard” sciences and math.
This pattern suggests that those students who care about the arts are most convinced of the need for its
expansion at Williams.

Conclusions from the Student Survey:
• AMT Expansion is the preferred site.
• Students are interested in participating in expanding the presence of arts at Williams.
• Students feel that quality facilities are important in how they view the College.
• Students with an interest in the arts are more convinced of the need for arts program expansion.

With regard to the possible sampling bias in the survey due to strong response from students involved in WUFO and IM Frisbee teams, we consider this survey valid as a gauge of vocal student sentiment, but not as an indication of the student body as a whole. The truth remains that the Greylock Swamp and Poker Flats areas are highly valued by many students, not just those in athletic clubs that use them regularly. We took these interests into consideration in evaluating the sites, but did not place substantial weight on the results of the site preference question.

Faculty Opinions
We also surveyed faculty at Williams by distributing flyers to all faculty boxes, and we received 47
responses, accounting for approximately 17% of faculty. First, we asked faculty to rate the necessity of
the Theater and Dance Center to the academic and extra-curricular experience at Williams, the same
question as the student survey, and received virtually the same answer: 58% of faculty rated the importance
between 6 and 10, with an average score of 6.1. Next we asked the faculty to rate the same five
proposed sites:

1. Rank each potential site on a scale of 1-10 (1=don’t like it at all;
10=excellent site). If you are not familiar with the site, put zero.
A. Behind the new Science Center/Doughty House
B. Behind Robin’s Restaurant/north of Susie Hopkins House
C. Greylock Quad parking lot/field
D. Outdoor basketball courts behind Mission Park/south of Poker
Flats
E. Expansion of present Adams Memorial Theater/possibly moving
Mather House (admissions building)

The faculty prefer the AMT Expansion, but made little distinction between the other sites. More details
about responses to this question appear in Appendix D. Finally, we asked the faculty to consider how
the expansion of programs along with the new Center would influence Williams academics:

3. How vital is the expansion of the dance and theater curricula to the
quality of Williams academics? (1=not vital at all, 10=extremely vital)

We received a somewhat ambiguous response.. Most respondents gave the question a neutral
rating of five, suggesting an unwillingness to decide whether the expansion is actually
necessary.

Faculty Comments
In the survey, we requested comments from the faculty, and received a number of very diverse
opinions about the Center and the sites themeselves. They ranged from eloquent statements about the
needs and image of the College to ignorance of the inadequacies of current facilities. Following are a few
excerpts, and the full comments appear in Appendix D:
· “I question whether Williams should try to go big time into the performing arts; other schools are
strong in the area, and we can’t do everything.”
· “I think it would balance the perception of Williams being “too rural” (interpreted as lack of
access to arts), too “bookish,” too athletic. It would add balance, and supplement the existing arts
community (Berkshire Symphony, Summer Theatre, Tanglewood, Jacobs Pillow, College Art
Museum, Clark).”
· “We’ve become so overbalanced towards athletics that activities of the human spirit seem irrelevant on
campus at present.”
· “Essentially throwing away a fine theater (the AMT) to satisfy a donor’s ego strikes me as an unconscionably
profligate use of scarce resources. If we are to have such a large center, it should be central
to the campus, not on the fringe. The campus is already losing its coherence. And it should not
create the kinds of traffic problems in residential neighborhoods or Spring St. that sites A, B and D
would cause.”

Demographics
Analyzing demographics for the faculty survey was difficult because many respondents declined
to give us that information (about 11 of the 47). In order to avoid making conclusions based on a very
small sample, we decided not to analyze differences based on department affiliation, as we did for the
student survey.

Conclusions from the Faculty Survey:
• AMT Expansion is the favored site.
• There is no consensus on whether or not the addition of a Theater and Dance Center is vital to
academic quality.
• Many comments indicated concern about impacts on the residential neighborhood by Doughty
House/Walden Street.
• Many comments conveyed a lack of information about the project and alternative sites.

Long-term Planning
One of our final steps in evaluating the sites was to think about Williamstown and the College in
the future. In 50 years, what will the town look like? For each of the five sites, we asked ourselves the
following questions:

• Is a Theater and Dance Center the best use of the site?
• Would the town and the students be better served if the site were used for something else?

Our conclusion, in keeping with the town Master Plan, was that existing open space should be
preserved because it will only become more scarce as development inevitably continues. Thus, the
Greylock Field and Poker Flats sites should be maintained as open space, especially since they are
currently highly valued by students and the community. We also interpreted this argument to imply that
the Doughty House site, which is highly valued by its neighbors for its contribution to the aesthetic and
residential character, is also a less desirable site.
Instead, we proposed that the Buildings and Grounds Storage site, be the future home of the
Theater and Dance Center. The present uses of the site can be dispersed elsewhere in town, thus
providing the opportunity to make better use of a prime site located near the Village Center. This choice
would involve re-developing an area that has already lost its aesthetic value to the community, and
possibly enhancing the vitality of the Village Center itself.

In conclusion, as mentioned earlier, we determined that the two best alternative sites for the
Theater and Dance Center would be: first, the expansion of the Adams Memorial Theater and the relocation
of Mather House; and second, the Doughty House site. As our final recommendation, though, we
believe that the Buildings and Grounds storage site would be the best location.

Stipulations
As part of our recommendation of the Buildings and Grounds storage site, there are five stipulations
that would have to be met in order for the site to be properly utilized:
• The parking lot that would be created adjacent to the facility should not allow overnight student
parking. There should be a maximum number of parking spots as this adjacent lot so as to provide easier
access for handicapped people and senior citizens who are frequent attendees at theater and dance performances.
The additional spots in the current Spring Street public parking lot and the empty spaces in the
parking lot adjacent to the Center could provide additional parking for visitors to Spring Street. These
new spaces could also provide additional parking for those attending Williams College sports events at the
facilities along the east side of Spring Street and at Weston Field.
• There would have to be a significant redesign of the Denison Park Drive and Spring Street intersection.
The McMahon House, at the end of Spring Street, just east of the public parking lot, that houses
The Travel Store will have to be demolished because it is structurally unsound. The removal of this
building would provide added space and more possibilities for expanded vehicular and pedestrian access
from Spring Street and the public parking lot.
• There should be an enhancement of Denison Park Green and Christmas Brook. Both areas would
ecologically benefit from a systematic cleaning up of trash and removal of invasive plant species. This
would embellish the site on the whole and would rectify the current disturbance to these ecosystems. We
further recommend that walkways be constructed both from the Spring Street public parking lot and from
Weston Field. Both of these paths should be designed in a creative and sensitive manner so as to benefit
both the natural landscape and provide for easy movement between the parking lots, the Center, and
Weston Field. To further enhance the natural appeal of the site, the walkways should contain labels of
pertinent plant species for educational purposes and for a greater awareness of the natural environment
that surrounds the Center.
• We advise the College to conduct an in depth investigation of where to relocate the Building and
Grounds storage site. We believe that Mount Hope Farm, as suggested to our group by Buildings and
Grounds staff, is not a functional or an appropriate area. The College should maintain the possibility of
dividing and placing various functions at varied sites adjacent to the campus.

Benefits of the Buildings and Grounds Storage Site
Having the facility in such close proximity to Spring Street will serve to enhance the integration of
the college and its visitors with the main commercial area of Williamstown. This would bring greater
circulation to the businesses on Spring Street and it would improve the connection of the college with the
members of the town. There would be a better concentration of development in the center of town, and
also it does not destroy valuable open space; both being goals articulated in the Town Growth and
Management Plan of 1989.
Also, placing the facility here would stimulate traffic flow to the facility via Spring Street. Spring
Street is a street that can aptly support more traffic, especially after the renovations scheduled to begin in
the spring of 2000. Most events at the facility will occur in the evening when the regular traffic flow on
Spring Street is not at its peak, and when delivery trucks will not be present as further sources of
congestion.
Parking for visitors would be improved by having the College both expand the public parking lot,
and by providing many new spaces in the parking lot adjacent to the facility.
A fourth benefit pertains to a requirement, as mentioned earlier, in the Massachusetts Wetlands
and Rivers Act. The Rivers Act states that the redevelopment of a previously developed riverfront area
must improve existing conditions. In consideration of the activities that occur, and the materials that are
stored, at the site as presently used by Buildings and Grounds, the placement of the facility at this location
would be an improvement to the ecology of the area. Specifically, the rainwater runoff from the site can
be cleaned and more responsibly integrated with the ecosystem, and invasive plant species can be replaced
with native species.
Finally, we argue that the Theater and Dance Center would aesthetically improve a site that is
currently unattractive. It would also reduce the impact on the surrounding residential are by eliminating
the noise pollution of the Buildings and Grounds trucks and tractors.
Therefore, as a result of our research we are confident in our recommendation that the Buildings
and Grounds storage site is the most feasible site for the placement of a new Williams College Theater and
Dance Center. Alternatively, we believe that the Adams Memorial Theater expansion is the second best
option, and that the Doughty House site is the third best option to our primary recommendation.

I. History and Development
- Burton, Sandra. Personal Interview. October 1998.
- Eppel, David. Telephone Interview. October 1998.
- Lewis, R.Cragin, editor. Williams College 1793-93: A Pictorial History. Williams College Bicentennial
Commission, Williamstown, MA. 1993.
- Wassenar, Winthrop. (Director of Buildings and Grounds Physical Plant, employed at Williams since
1964.) Personal Interview, October 28, 1998.
- Statistics about the Theater department and space capacity were provided by the Theater Department
administrative staff. Some Dance program statistics were supplied by Holly Silva, others were
tabulated from company member lists.

II. Site Overview
- Maps of individual sites were portions of the “Building and Land Use” map created by Buildings &
Grounds, modified by Sasaki and Assoc., “Site Evaluation Study - Theater & Dance Building
Williams College - Williamstown, MA, October 1998” Also, birdseye view map of entire
campus is a reduced version of that same map.
- Slant-perspective map of campus from a pamphlet distributed by Williams College.
- Map including Mission State Park from the Williams College Development Plan, 1954, plan no.
234.

III. Legal Issues
- Demolition Delay Bylaw, Article 23, from the Town of Williamstown.
- Summary of asbestos requirements from OSHA Asbestos Regulations Summary, http://www.
amigroupinc.com/intertrain/osha/oshasum/thm#Introduction, Thursday November 5, 1998.
- Map of bordering vegetated wetlands near Doughty House created by Vince Guntlow and Associates.

IV. Social Considerations
- Spring Street business interviews were conducted with the owners of Goff’s, Where’d You Get That,
Lickety Split, Papa Charlie’s, Gatsby’s, The Clip Shop, Hart’s Pharmacy, Williams Newsroom,
B & L Service Station, Goodman’s Jewelers, Subway, The George Hopkin’s Store, The Library,
Cold Spring Coffee Roasters, and the managers of Vermont Color, the Adventure Goat, Images
Cinema, and Zanna’s.
- Master Plan for the Town of Williamstown, MA. Prepared by Thomas Associates, Community Plan
ners. 1963.
- “The Williamstown We Want.” 1989 Growth Management Plan. (Available from Williamstown Plan
ning Board office, in Town Hall.) 1989.
- Allen, Herbert. Phone interview. 1 Dec 1998.
- Moeur, Nancy. Personal interview. 19 Nov 1998.
- Shen, Clarissa. Personal interview. 2 Dec 1998.
- Committee on Priorities and Resources 1998 Report, courtesy of Catherine Hill.
- Information on student involvement in the Williams Ultimate Frisbee Organization and Intramural
Frisbee courtesy of 1998 Presidents Dan Niedzwiecki and Kerianne Watson.
- Statistics on majors courtesy of the Registrar’s Office.

Appendix D

Student Survey Statistics

	necessity	phys fac	aca.dance	PE dance	site A	site B	site C	site D	site E
Minimum	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Maximum	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
Sum	3004	3318	1603	2200	2213	2331	1617	1537	2740
Points	487	487	487	487	451	441	478	472	477
Mean	6.168378	6.813142	3.291581	4.517454	4.906874	5.285714	4 3.382845	3.256356	5.744235
Median	7	7	2	4	5	5	2	3	6
RMS	6.736154	7.159663	4.358899	5.582313	5.531406	5.868746	4.258636	4.000794	6.384599
Std Deviation	2.709605	2.20269	2.860471	3.282828	2.556077	2.553073	2.589666	2.326794	2.789836
Variance	7.341961	4.851843	8.182295	10.77696	6.53353	6.518182	6.706372	5.413972	7.783186
Std Error	0.122784	0.099813	0.12962	0.148759	0.120361	0.121575	0.118449	0.107099	0.127738
Skewness	-0.25291	-0.98099	1.108259	0.415561	0.077499	-0.07829	0.790776	0.927273	-0.26047
Kurtosis	-1.07633	0.480732	-0.04184	-1.32513	-0.86025	-0.9475	-0.55778	0.095307	-0.98752

	necessity	site A	site B	site C	site D	site E	expansion
Minimum	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Maximum	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
Sum	273	201	196	219	171	280	253
Points	45	43	43	43	42	43	47
Mean	6.0666667	4.6744186	4.5581395	5.0930233	4.0714286	6.5116279	5.3829787
Median	6	5	5	5	3	7	5
RMS	6.5029908	5.5969261	5.4088644	6.0019377	4.9062642	7.2368566	6.0512
Std Deviation	2.3683519	3.1146423	2.9463644	3.2131719	2.7708664	3.1950266	2.7940402
Variance	5.6090909	9.7009967	8.6810631	10.324474	7.6777003	10.208195	7.8066605
Std Error	0.35305306	0.4749785	0.44931636	0.49000413	0.42755396	0.48723699	0.40755265
Skewness	-0.20480587	0.24513819	0.28258887	0.041359435	0.46825089	-0.42976784	0.12569643
Kurtosis	-0.8131874	-1.2311946	-1.2162592	-1.3877178	-1.0883765	-1.1542577	-1.009375

Faculty Survey Comments

1) On a scale of 1 to 10, how do you rate the necessity of a Theater and Dance Center to the academic
and extra-curricular experience at Williams College? (1=not important at all; 10=extremely important)
· “Current facilities not up to date. AMT is oldest unrenovated building on campus (+50 yrs).”
· “I question whether Williams should try to go big time into the performing arts; other schools are
strong in the area, and we can’t do everything.”
· “New facilities for dance are crucial, and the AMT needs to be upgraded technically. Theater and
dance faculty need better office conditions. I don’t believe we need a whole new center.”
· “Vital theater/dance/music programs are essential, and new facilities are needed. But to serve our
needs truly, we have to create the right facilities in the right place. Any old “new” theater and dance
facility just won’t do and could be counter-productive.”
· “I think it would balance the perception of Williams being “too rural” (interpreted as lack of access
to arts), too “bookish,” too athletic. It would add balance, and supplement the existing arts community
(Berkshire Symphony, Summer Theatre, Tanglewood, Jacobs Pillow, College Art Museum, Clark).”
· “seems we have adequate [facilities] now.”
· “but much smaller in scale that what has been proposed.”
· “I thought we already had one: Lasell and AMT….”
· “If it gives us [english dept.] the AMT for use as a film space”
· “We need to bring all our performing arts together.”
· “Liberal arts colleges have a duty to provide first rate performing arts. Williams needs a facility
worthy of its leading stature.”
· “Each part of the college is entitled to grow; other parts, such as Art Museum, Art Studio, etc. have
had their turns.”
· “What is inadequate about the AMT?”
· “Improvement of existing space is necessary especially for dance - however a renovation of dance to
the main Lasell gym and improvements to AMT would be better than new building.”
· “We’ve become so overbalanced towards athletics that activities of the human spirit seem irrelevant on
campus at present.”

2) Below is a list of potential sites for the Dance and Theater Center. Rank each site (A,B,C,D, and E)
on a scale of 1-10 (1=don’t like it at all;10=excellent site). If you are not familiar with one of the sites,
put zero for that site.
A. Doughty House and Spring Street town parking lot
· “The Doughty location is just about the worst place I could imagine for this building. First
it’s a residential neighborhood, and second, the wetlands of Denison Park would be jeopardized.
I just couldn’t deal with tearing down Doughty House, the house next door and Susie
Hopkins for one egomaniac’s dream of Broadway on Spring Street.”
· “’In-town’ is a bad idea for the town and for the college - for the college because the location
is too far from existing facilities and from the hubs of campus life in general. Bad for the town
for any number of reasons, all of which have been discussed in the local press (traffic, quality
of town life if college completely dominates Spring Street and so on).”
· “Doughty and Spring St. location with one-way traffic on Spring St.”
B. Behind Robin’s Restaurant/north of Susie Hopkins House
C. Greylock Quad parking lot/field
· “doesn’t fit landscape”
· “can parking lot in Greylock Quad be put underground?”
D. Outdoor basketball courts-behind Mission Park/south of Poker Flats
· “too far - should be centrally located”
· “too remote, too out of context, too out of sight”
E. Expansion of present Adams Memorial Theater/possibly moving Mather House (college
admissions building)
· “AMT expansion is too expensive - will require even more resources to relocate existing
offices”
· “I believe there would be less disturbance of local residences if theatre were located with easy
access from rte. 2 or rte. 7.”
· “Essentially throwing away a fine theater (the AMT) to satisfy a donor’s ego strikes me as an unconscionably
profligate use of scarce resources. If we are to have such a large center, it should be central
to the campus, not on the fringe. The campus is already losing its coherence. And it should not
create the kinds of traffic problems in residential neighborhoods or Spring St. that sites A, B and D
would cause.”
· “Town garage is best site”
· “don’t much care where it goes”
· “I simply don’t know enough to say.”
· “I don’t know. Don’t have enough information.”
· “From a planning perspective, why isn’t the College expanding North? Route 2 crossings are a
problem and will increasingly become so! The campus is becoming somewhat chaotic.”
· “Site discussion is almost meaningless without discussion of how to handle traffic and parking.”
· “I like A or B except for their remoteness; E seems like the best compromise location.”

3) How vital is the expansion of the dance and theater curriculums to the quality of Williams College
academics? (1=not vital at all; 10=extremely vital)
· “Dance does need better facilities and theater needs more room or a different distribution of space
than it presently has. But for only 5 majors? The building of Spencer Art did NOT increase enrollments
in studio art. In fact, enrollments dropped to 9 students the second year we had the building.
What Spencer did was consolidate the studio art facilities into one integrated space. Perhaps Theater
and Dance should be together, but wanton destruction of existing buildings and environmentally
precarious areas is not the way to go about it.”
· “I give a neutral 5 because, while expansion could significantly improve Williams academics, it could
also be a drain on academics. Again, the right kind of expansion in the right place is necessary.”
· “…if they are to grow with the rest of the college”
· “Most of the benefits of college are the out of classroom experiences with students, for students.
Anything that challenges, attracts, exposes students to more new people, ideas is good for everybody.”
· “Is there really a demand?”
· “We need more opportunities for non-jocks and increasing artistic diversity.”
· “What’s the demand? Is the College unable to meet it currently? If not, for what time into future is
AMT adequate?”
· “This needs deep and thoughtful discussion.”
· “Dance should become its own dept.”
· “The rigor required by a well run program in theater and dance and music is worthy of the best
Williams offers in other disciplines. Their enhancement here would benefit us all.”

---

*No Significant Adverse Impact Criteria: Alteration within the 200 foot riverfront area is limited to
5,000 square feet or 10% of the net square footage. There must be 100 feet of undisturbed vegetation.

by the CES Web Page Team