|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 12:51:53 GMT
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 6, 2017 12:53:57 GMT
I think it simply has to be done in this day and age. They can’t be used for modern shows and you can’t have a huge musical playhouse unable to take productions that want to use sub stage. They were removed for Lord of the Rings and partially removed for Charlie.. Yes, on reflection I think its the right thing to do. Although the application says they have not been use in over 50 years, I was under the assumption some of them were used fro Lord of the Rings, I must have my wires crossed. The documents justify their removal excellently to keep the theatre competitive and inline with other receiving house along with the removal of the stage's 1:24 rake, to allow a completely flat stage. It would be brilliant if there was a museum big enough to house the three different hydraulic lifts, or at least some of them, so the public could see them and appreciate them. Does V&A have an engineering museum?Yes, it's called the Science Museum!! Until it was closed, the V & A's Theatre Museum was, of course, just across the road. And thanks for posting the images. A picture paints a thousand words, and all that. You are clearly much more computer literate than I am. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 12:57:38 GMT
Yes, on reflection I think its the right thing to do. Although the application says they have not been use in over 50 years, I was under the assumption some of them were used fro Lord of the Rings, I must have my wires crossed. The documents justify their removal excellently to keep the theatre competitive and inline with other receiving house along with the removal of the stage's 1:24 rake, to allow a completely flat stage. It would be brilliant if there was a museum big enough to house the three different hydraulic lifts, or at least some of them, so the public could see them and appreciate them. Does V&A have an engineering museum?Yes, it's called the Science Museum!! Until it was closed, the V & A's Theatre Museum was, of course, just across the road. And thanks for posting the images. A picture paints a thousand words, and all that. You are clearly much more computer literate than I am. Yes, I did think of the Science Museum but didn't realise that building was V&A's theatre museum. wow. And no problem, was tempted to post many more images but didn't want to clog up the 42St thread too much. |
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 6, 2017 13:08:31 GMT
I'll leave it for the Moderators to decide, but personally, @remark , I'd love it if there were more images posted somewhere. I'm sure I'm not alone.
As much as I like a sensitive and well-designed theatre refurbishment, I feel a little sorry for @theatremonkey. He/it will have to discard 40 years of theatregoing knowledge!
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 13:10:27 GMT
I'll leave it for the Moderators to decide, but personally, @remark , I'd love it if there were more images posted somewhere. I'm sure I'm not alone. As much as I like a sensitive and well-designed theatre refurbishment, I feel a little sorry for @theatremoney.com. He/it will have to discard 40 years of theatregoing knowledge! Might be worth a Theatre Royal Drury Lane thread popping up in General Chat, as its not about a musical specifically. If it does, i'll quite happily fill it with images from the planning applications. Edit: Infact I might summarise the planning application in a new thread with images for people to save them going through the 1000's of pages of documents. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 13:21:19 GMT
I'll leave it for the Moderators to decide Personally I have a soft spot for Drury Lane and I love technical details, but there might be copyright issues with reposting images so it's probably best to link to the source site. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 13:30:09 GMT
I'll leave it for the Moderators to decide Personally I have a soft spot for Drury Lane and I love technical details, but there might be copyright issues with reposting images so it's probably best to link to the source site. Fair point. All the material is in the public domain and was openly available to view at public consultation but best to err on the side of caution. |
|
19,794 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Oct 6, 2017 15:25:32 GMT
I'll leave it for the Moderators to decide, but personally, @remark , I'd love it if there were more images posted somewhere. I'm sure I'm not alone. As much as I like a sensitive and well-designed theatre refurbishment, I feel a little sorry for @theatremoney.com. He/it will have to discard 40 years of theatregoing knowledge! as its not about a musical specifically. If it does, i'll quite happily fill it with images from the planning applications. Edit: Infact I might summarise the planning application in a new thread with images for people to save them going through the 1000's of pages of documents. |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Oct 6, 2017 18:03:30 GMT
Nah, it's great fun exploring a new layout. Happened many times and I love it  . I'm now having visions of you swinging round Drury Lane, hanging off the new circle by your tail, etc.! |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2017 18:48:39 GMT
Nah, it's great fun exploring a new layout. Happened many times and I love it . I'm now having visions of you swinging round Drury Lane, hanging off the new circle by your tail, etc.! That's exactly how he does it and nothing will tell me otherwise  |
|
661 posts
|
Post by Oleanna on Oct 7, 2017 1:41:56 GMT
Current Vs Proposed. Stalls definitely looks intersting... not sure if legroom is gained or lost.  Is anybody else concerned by the proposed modifications to the boxes? I find the original 3/2/3 design to be iconic and visually striking and remarkable. I think that the proposed redesigned version will distill this effect, and also potentially not be in keeping with the aesthetic of the rest of the auditorium. The idea of those slips for example, would work in many other theatres, but in this grand old lady, it seems out of place. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2017 2:08:26 GMT
Current Vs Proposed. Stalls definitely looks intersting... not sure if legroom is gained or lost. Is anybody else concerned by the proposed modifications to the boxes? I find the original 3/2/3 design to be iconic and visually striking and remarkable. I think that the proposed redesigned version will distill this effect, and also potentially not be in keeping with the aesthetic of the rest of the auditorium. The idea of those slips for example, would work in many other theatres, but in this grand old lady, it seems out of place. I was thinking the same thing. Whenever I see Drury Lane on TV I can recognise it in a heartbeat just by looking at the boxes (quite similar to the Birmingham Hippodrome's), so it will be a shame to see it reconfigured quite drastically IMO. And what is going on with the column closest to the stage isn't exactly easy on the eye so it would definitely need the show designers to come up with something extravagant to mask it (much like what happened with the Belgrade in Coventry. It looks great during pantomime when masked by the set, but just an empty black void either side of the pros arch during the rest of the year). But beside the box configuration, I think it looks like it will be a great thing for Drury Lane. Hopefully getting rid of 200 seats will help it in someway sell easier (although I have no idea how 42nd Street is doing right now). Can't say I'm too excited about Frozen being the first show in post-refurbishment. |
|
4,029 posts
|
Post by Dawnstar on Oct 7, 2017 11:59:20 GMT
I'm not denying it - how else do I get to report on ALL angles? Also, without the trusty tail-vault, it's a lot of stairs moving between levels. Being able to fire oneself from the dress circle front lighting rail directly to the rear balcony saves a long climb, I can tell you. Don't you stop to check out the upper circle though? |
|
1,483 posts
|
Post by steve10086 on Oct 8, 2017 12:49:20 GMT
Must say I think it’s shame the amazing boxes are being pretty much destroyed. Have always admired them when in the theatre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2017 13:30:09 GMT
Its interesting, the justification for a lot of the changes to the foyer (and other areas of the theatre) are to 'bring it back in line with the original Wyatt structure', but yet the destruction of the iconic TRDL boxes does the opposite.
I can see both sides of the argument. The first stack closest to stage only get used for tech elements now really and by removing them make the stage more accessible for bigger proscenium sets (which are a fairly staple matter of musical theatre these days) they wont be affecting capacity in any detrimental way. I conversely feel that the cluster of 7 boxes surrounding the royal box is really iconic and would be a great loss to the theatres atmosphere and heritage.
There are currently no formal objections to any of the changes to the interior.
|
|
7,190 posts
|
Post by Jon on Oct 8, 2017 16:41:43 GMT
I do think that theatres have to adapt with the times to remain competitive. They are wonderful buildings but let not deny that some of them have their faults.
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 9, 2017 13:57:46 GMT
To a large extent, planning, especially on listed buildings, is a game between the applicant and the planners. The applicant asks for far more than they really want, then, over the weeks and months, they 'negotiate' with the planners to arrive at the scheme they really wanted in the first place.
Both sides know the rules and everyone ends the process satisfied.
|
|
5,062 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on Oct 12, 2017 22:26:59 GMT
Looks like the Lord has been converted and this love of architecture that he is now so happy to throw money at it.
However the Gents in the Stalls, has the cheapest floor covering, the cheapest white tiles, the cheapest white bathroom ceramics, the cheapest hand drier from the RS Cataloque, so where does this Damascus moment come from?
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 13, 2017 12:20:34 GMT
I think most women would happily choose number over finish.
Incidentally, as I read it, in the redeveloped Theatre Royal, the only toilets in the stalls will be two for disabled use. Everyone else, male or female, will have to make their way downstairs to the basement, or upstairs to the royal circle.
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 13, 2017 13:39:10 GMT
Then, unless I'm mistaken, which is entirely possible, there will be chaos!
I'll look for myself next Wedneday, but where do the stairs off from the Rotunda currenly lead too?
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 13, 2017 13:59:44 GMT
Where the bar currently is, which I assumed from the plans was downstairs, is where the new toilets will be. Glad we got to the 'bottom' of it.
I'll get me coat!!!
|
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 14, 2017 12:26:02 GMT
At the risk of becoming a crushing bore, in the interests of research I've been poring over toilets all morning. Much better than pouring over toilets!
|
|
2,302 posts
|
Post by Tibidabo on Oct 14, 2017 12:27:36 GMT
At the risk of becoming a crushing bore, in the interests of research I've been poring over toilets all morning. Much better than pouring over toilets! And definitely better than pawing over toilets...... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2017 12:58:43 GMT
At the risk of becoming a crushing bore, in the interests of research I've been poring over toilets all morning. Much better than pouring over toilets! Careful. Remember what happened to George Michael... |
|
5,159 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Oct 14, 2017 13:07:14 GMT
You will disappointed to learn, Tibidabo, that the new ladies toilets, down in the basement, will have just 18 cubicles. Yes, just 18 cubicles for the hundreds of women 'sitting' in the stalls. |
|
.
