Dear editor:
I happen to have been born in Rome. You may not know it, but in Rome whenever a new building project is approved and the excavation phase begins more often than not, everything comes to a halt.
Why? You may ask. Because in the excavation process ancient artifacts and buildings are discovered. Archeologists and historians are called in to qualify the discovery.
Many times building plans are cancelled and in the most favorable conditions they are delayed. In all cases the building process in Rome is long and painful.
Romans have a surplus of ancient artifacts and buildings, yet they continue to treat every new discovery with great care.
In Canada, on the other hand, we have a limited number of heritage locations, and Niagara-on-the-Lake is one of them.
One would think that, given the scarcity of historical sites, we would take extra care of our Historic Town. My observation leads me to believe that we are not good stewards of our heritage.
There have been countless efforts to push the envelope, stretch the necessary boundaries of common sense to diminish the historic atmosphere of this town.
We are all in awe when we walk down historic cities or villages in Europe, yet we are totally oblivious to the effort it has taken local communities and administrations to protect what they have.
Evidence of our ineptitude is glaringly apparent when no building limitations are enforced, and at the edge of town, one finds himself staring at a project that has utilized every inch square available with a mix of building styles, commercial purposes and structures.
What to say about architectural harmony and building proportions gone awry?
Yet that building project had to be viewed, reviewed and approved by a group of elected officials, would it not?
Fast forward to an upcoming project placed in the centre of the Historic Town. If you were in Rome, Avignon or Stratford, UK, elected officials and historical experts would go to great lengths to ensure that the scale, the style and the impact of the project would in the end enhance and showcase its surroundings as well as the new building.
If the Shaw needs a bigger theatre, there is plenty of space in the vicinities of the Festival Theatre where a new theatre or an expanded Festival Theatre can be planned and built away from the hustle and bustle of Queen Street.
In the final analysis, an anachronistic structure is only part of the problem. A significantly larger theatre will impact the influx of automotive and pedestrian traffic beyond current capacity.
There are businesses on Queen Street that gleefully welcome large crowds. Yet I can assure you many of them are barely managing to deliver in goods and service when traffic peaks.
The Royal George Theatre should remain a “boutique theatre” — a special place for special and limited events.
The building should be restored and preserved. As an aside most Shaw’s plays were originally performed in small theatres or dinner clubs.
The price ticket for the expansion should take the restoration of an old building in mind. A new state-of-the-art building or a renewed and much larger Festival Theatre can be planned and built without too many restrictions.
If I think about the illustrious George Bernard Shaw, a man known for wanting to cause no harm to animals and a strong proponent of human rights as well as nature preservation, I believe he would be appalled that we have to plead with the powers that be on preserving the spirit and use of the Royal George Theatre to its originally intended purpose.
Lydia Madonia
NOTL
