Hi Grant,
Thanks for posting on here; its very interesting to get a glimpse into the other side of the argument!
I’ve no doubt that within the constraints of the architects plans, that an excellent job has been done retaining and restoring many of those original elements. I’m looking forward to seeing the finished work very much, and completely agree that alterations are far preferable to demolitions! I’m also most intrigued to see what you’ve done with the hatboxes…
However, I do disagree on a couple of points
Firstly, it’s not the case that no-one wanted it as a theatre: I was involved with a local theatre group who were actively trying to purchase the building. Unfortunately, they were outbid.
It’s certainly true that retail will be a more lucrative use for the building (once it eventually gets let). I’d still disagree it was the only viable use though.
I’d also take issue with your definition of ‘reversible’. I’m sure everything that has been done is technically reversible, if you threw enough money at it!
What has been done wouldn’t be practical, or more relevantly, economical to reverse given the small size of the theatre though. Or am I wrong ? Is there a management plan in place with costings and procedures thought through for how these alterations could be reversed and the building restored if required?
Given that both this and the neighbouring Townhouse building were under the same ownership, I do think that there was a missed opportunity here to explore re-opening access routes from the Townhouse as an option to solve the level access and other issues in a way that wouldn’t have required such dramatic interventions in the auditorium and, in particular, stage spaces.
To count as realistically reversible in my mind, alterations shouldn’t take away from or remove the primary historic fabric of the building.
As an example of an alternative approach, the former New Gallery cinemas in Regent Street, London, is now a Habitat store. The stepped balcony was boxed over to create new flat floor levels, leaving the rake intact underneath. Additional sales floor space was created by constructing a new lightweight, floating floor in the void between balcony front and proscenium. This has minimum physical intervention into the original fabric.
The sad fact is of course that neither of these buildings is likely to ever revert to theatrical use: having now been converted for retail, who is ever going to be able to make an economic case for theatrical use when - on Regent Street and Buchanan Street - retail is a far more potentially lucrative business?
Which is why the guidelines for dealing with listed buildings state when considering how to reuse buildings, that the most appropriate use may not be the most profitable use, something that’s sadly often conveniently ignored by planning departments…
Nodrog
PS The underground has been rumbling past every 15 minutes for the past 100 years. It doesn’t seem to have been too much of a problem before