Dear editor:

I commend the Shaw Festival for its decision to hold a public open house at the Royal George Theatre on July 16 (“Shaw open house aims to address concerns on Royal George rebuild,” July 17).

Participants were shown firsthand some of the challenges that the Festival has overcome for decades to make the George a premier venue for live theatre in Canada.

And there are many, from the dingy, damp and cramped green room, the lack of space for dressing rooms and set storage, the crumbling foundations, a minuscule lobby, inadequate bar/refreshment area and, in particular, the lack of accessibility.

Based on what I saw and heard, I suspect most people on the tour would agree that changes to the George are overdue, and that an extensive refurbishment is needed to not only ensure that the theatre is in compliance with building, fire and accessibility codes, but also to support its continued safe operation as a centre for the performing arts.

What’s at issue isn’t the need for the George to be upgraded: it’s how the Shaw Festival intends to go about it.

Their plan is to start with a clean slate: to demolish the existing theatre and two adjacent homes now owned by the festival.

We’re being assured that that’s OK, because neither the existing theatre nor the houses can be considered historic despite their age.

In the eyes of the festival, they’ve been altered too much over the years to warrant heritage status. But if we tear down our built heritage simply because it’s evolved over time, soon there will be nothing historic left in our town.

The festival also says that it is impossible to repair the Royal George’s foundations, but it does not appear to have considered whether the existing theatre could be raised to allow those foundations to be replaced.

It’s true, as one member of the festival team said when I asked about this, that raising a building the size of the George would be a formidable engineering challenge, and that the clay speed tile and wood in its walls may not withstand the effort.

But I’d like to see the festival explore every option to preserve the theatre, while still addressing its other issues.

It may, as the festival contends, be impossible to save the George. But if that’s the case, I question the need to replace the theatre with a massive new facility that will, based on the drawings I’ve seen, significantly alter the historic feel of Queen Street and devastate the streetscape on Victoria.

And for what? A loading bay on Victoria that will apparently be used 10 times a year; a third-floor lounge and terrace overlooking Queen Street for the festival’s donors and patrons; a new two-story rehearsal hall; and a lobby that will be bigger than the existing theatre.

I hope the festival team will rethink their design for the new theatre. Not the push to make the new space fully accessible and incorporate accessible washrooms — I commend the festival for wanting to achieve this — but the overall look and feel of the facility.

It only takes a look across the street, to 124 on Queen Hotel, to see that it’s possible to erect a large new building in Old Town’s historic core without taking away the charm and heritage feel of Queen Street or the quaintness of Victoria. Isn’t there a way to incorporate existing facades into the design of the new Royal George?

If the festival looks into this, if it takes the concerns of residents into account and makes a bona fide effort to address them, I suspect that in the long run I’ll be happy to take a seat in the new Royal George, with the wider aisles, better leg room and other improvements the theatre will offer.

But if it does not, I may find myself boycotting the Shaw Festival in the future.

It’s their choice, and mine.

Terry Davis
NOTL