Abbey Theatre is unlikely to be redeveloped at its present location

Isnt the existing one unsafe? would it be really bad if it shut down for 6 months to renovate?

I see that church behind the Abbey is for sale. I always thought that this church would be one of the limiting factors to the Abbeys expansion on the present site. I supposed that it would be hard to convince whatever church it was to give up their place of worship! I wonder if the church listed?

Eventually, – the penny drops that buying a lot of sites, from differing owners, who know that the purchaser is well heeled and can be held to ransom, and then build on a small plot, restricted by roads on three sides, to rebuild the Abbey, which does not fill all the time anyhow, is not really a good idea.

By the way, poor old Michael Scott tried to persuade Ernest Blyth to rebuild the Abbey elsewhere. But then, as until now, nostalgia for one of the Abbey sites won out.

Why not move the Abbey out of Dublin – after all Knock Airport is good enough for government work!

the obvious idea all along has been to move the abbey to the carlton site and give O’Connell St a real focal point. the carlton facade would be a great starting point and all the necessary space would be there to allow for access and so on to the backstage area for props etc. this was a big problem apparently in the old abbey.
if all goes well with the rejuvenation plan for the street and with some more good ideas then O’Connell St could really become the grand parade it should be. i doubt if it will ever happen but all the fast food joints should be banned as well!

Originally posted by dc3
Eventually, – the penny drops that buying a lot of sites, from differing owners, who know that the purchaser is well heeled and can be held to ransom, and then build on a small plot, restricted by roads on three sides, to rebuild the Abbey, which does not fill all the time anyhow, is not really a good idea.

That is true of private buyers but not the government through passing a ministerial order through the Oireachtas the lands may be compulsorily acquired at open market value. Which given its location and the condition of the commercial market shouldn’t be too much.

Much more worrying is the potential listing of the Church, which I’m not familiar with.

Personally I think they want it in City West myself it would be easier for our John O’D to speed home.

This really is the LUAS situation in 1997 all over again. :confused:

P.S. any chance of a smilie in the form of an indefinite Clock looking dazed

i always thought it would be great to see a canopy old school style extended from the savoy with lights etc. and old fashioned movie poster stands like i have seen in france – cylinder drums with 2 posters each
plus we could do with a couple of major incentives like a new super cinema a la leicester sq. a major music store or bookshops to attract people there. the abbey moving there would be a great step in the right direction.
as for the rest keep dreaming i guess…

If the Abbey moves to O’Connell St… the design will also suffer from another form of nostalgia… the facade of the Carlton. It’s a millstone around the neck of any new proposal for the site.

Sorry but the Carlton is perfect for the Abbey. It would solve two significant problems in the immediate area: just what is to become of the Carlton and the problems of the existing Abbey.

It would be preferable for the Carlton site to be redeveloped as a theatre than any other proposal. What O’Connell Street needs is a good dose of culture and the abbey move would facilitate that. Secondly, redeveloping the Carlton as a shopping arcade would temporarily be a good thing, but like all shopping centres they suffer from transient popularity. Stephens Green is a bit of a joke and so is the ILAC, but when they opened they were all the rage. Thankfully cultural institutions have a greater permanence.

The Abbey suffered from invisibility, as well as space constraints, on the present site. The Carlton site would, appropriately enough, provide that visibility such an institution would need.

Finally the Carlton facade is stunning – and would be an asset, not a liability to any new development on the site.

Agreed.
I’m still not convinced about it moving to O’ Connell St though; the effect the Abbey would have on the place would be precisely the same as the current situation with ‘The Bag Shop’ (or is it gone now), ie, nothing.

How is Upper O’ Cll St supposed to develop by eating up the prestigious Carlton site, the large expanse of Dr Quirkeys next door, and the equally significant derelict site, replacing them all with a comparatively dead institution in terms of footfall.
Pass the Abbey on the current site, and note the complete lack of interaction with the street and the public.

If more productions were on during the day, and other uses/attractions for the place included, perhaps.

Were it to move here, it is essential that the plans drawn up by Arthur Gibney and Paul Clinton on behalf of the Carlton Group be used. They proposed flanking Art Deco wings for each side of the 1938 facade, creating a major set-piece. It looked fantastic.

That proposal looked vile! A giant Po-Mo wedding cake with the Carlton Facade as it’s centrepiece…

What does Po-Mo mean?
(other than something bad…)

I think it was great, ok there were some decidedly ‘heritage style’ canopys at street level it could have done without, but otherwise it complemented, indeed simply flowed, into the existing facade, and would have contributed to the terrace as a whole.

Of course thats just a matter of opinion on my part, but if this is what’s built on O’Connell St I don’t think I’ll ever go near the place again…!

Heres the pic I was looking for…

Oh and Po-Mo = Postmodern – the dirtiest of dirty words for all architecture students nowadays!

I was looking for that pic too!

Excuse my ignorance re po-mo.
Still, that design isn’t really po-mo. It looks like it on paper, indeed similar to many such yokes put up all over London in the 80s, but in the context of the existing facade it isn’t.
Such modernist vertical lines and the stepping of wall is very post-modern if in a stand alone development, but next to the cinema is clearly art deco in style.
The pilasters are equally po-moish, but in the context of the cinema they are simply repeating the features and lines of the original facade. Executed in the same materials as the original, the design would work perfectly.

Most architects preference today is always to throw up up-to-date glazed boxes next to older structures, rather than enhancing them by sometimes building in the same style.
O’Cll St is a place where I think this is necessary, where the rest of the street needs to be taken into account as well.

putting the abbey in the grand canal basin area was the idea first mooted by the abbey board but as usual that idea got booted by the govt.
a great focal point for either site as the national theatre could be a fantastic venue if designed and handled properly. one can only dream but a wicked theatre/venue with all the bells and whistles smack in the middle of town would be great to have. we will just have to wait and see i guess as always…

From RTÉ.ie

Minister confirms Abbey will move site
The Minister for the Arts, John O’Donoghue, has told the Dáil that the proposed new Abbey Theatre will not be built on its current site.

The Minister also confirmed that the Abbey would not be moving to the Carlton Cinema site on O’Connell Street.

He confirmed to Fine Gael’s Jimmy Deenihan that the OPW had been asked to investigate alternative sites that can not be identified at present.

O’Donoghue also said that he hoped to be in a position to announce the new site before the end of the current year.

Meanwhile, the Chairman of the Abbey Theatre, Eithne Healy, today welcomed the Arts Council’s confirmation that it has engaged Anne Bonnar as lead consultant for the Council’s review of the Abbey.

“We are looking forward to giving Anne Bonnar every assistance with her review”, Healy said.

“With this week’s publication of the Abbey’s Working Group Report and the start today of the Arts Council review, I feel there is now a real momentum on all sides to address the difficulties facing the Theatre and place it on a firm foundation for the future.”

100 euro, it’s going to either Grand Canal or Spencer Dock………………………

I don’t understand why the Carlton site is being ruled out before the High Court ruling on the City Council’s CPO? Maybe its prudent to come up with another idea pending this much overdue ruling – which was expected before the summer break.
Still, surely O’Connell St is the obvious solution if it can work? I’d hate to see it crossed off the list permanently.

Where are the other sites which are being considered?

Plenty space in Kerry?

Few planning constraints.

I’m joking – I hope.

I would love to see Hawkins House knocked down and rebuild the Abbey where the old Theatre Royal used to be along with a new Screen cinema complex. A landmark development of international significance incoprpoating the 2 would be great.

you offering evens Niall, I’d be happy to go a ton on this.

Someone suggested the “old” Coláiste Mhuire site on Parnell Square to me this evening.

Could that be a runner?

Originally posted by PaulC
I would love to see Hawkins House knocked down and rebuild the Abbey where the old Theatre Royal used to be along with a new Screen cinema complex. A landmark development of international significance incoprpoating the 2 would be great.

Now that would be a fascinating idea… Especially in the context of the future of College Green etc being discussed in another thread. Me votes for that!

This is a fiasco, like the much needed National Stadium, and the National Conference Centre, etc….Why are the government foot-dragging and dithering about so much needed facilities? They have oodles of billions of disposable spendable euro and yet won’t commit themselves to spend a cent. The tax revenues/coffers are always abundant. What a mean backward bunch!
I bet the new Abbey Theatre will look insignificant in an insignificant spot, showing insignificant plays and attended by insignificant people. At least, I suppose, it will carry on the tradition of a fiasco that was always the Abbey!

Originally posted by PaulC
I would love to see Hawkins House knocked down and rebuild the Abbey where the old Theatre Royal used to be along with a new Screen cinema complex. A landmark development of international significance incoprpoating the 2 would be great.

AS with vinnyfitz, I agree that this would be a good location. It would probably have to have office space above the theatre and cinema to replace the existing space in Hawkins House.

That is an interesting proposal alright, helping to rejuvinate what is still a rundown part of the city and linking the area to any development on College Green. It would also be extraordinary that it would then be located on a mirror image site on the opposite side of the river!
As attractive as a river setting would be at Spencer Dock or Grand Canal, I’d still prefer that the Abbey remained in the heart of the ‘old’ city.

Did the CC not designate the choice of Carlton site for the Abbey as offical policy a few weeks ago?

Yeah, but if the cabinet has other ideas I’m sure that would be easily overlooked…

No, Graham, the city council made it official policy to move the Abbey to O’Connell Street. Not much they can do about it really – the council doesn’t have the readies.

I think Hawkins House has to be the favourite. The docklands now is full – Terry Devey got the contract for their artistic site, which had been looked at for the Abbey before. I’ve heard Colaiste Mhuire is on the shortlist of three too. Logical enough in that you have other cultural institutions nearby e.g. the municipal art gallery, the garden of remembrance, the Gate and, er, the wax museum!

Course the GPO is where it should be, and pelt An Post the hell out of there. But the building is too shallow, I’m told.

How about Fingal county council’s hq on O’Connell Street – it’s the old Dublin county council hq. I mean what are Fingal doing there given that (a) O’Connell Street is not in Fingal and (b) they have their own spanking new hq in Swords

Ah jaypers if anything I think O’Connell Street would be the ideal location. It is a missed opportunity not to build it here on the premiere street. All held up because of some stupid legal matter, from the Michael Mcdowell brigade. This is a missed opportunity. I think that the Hawkins House location is a bit too secluded in a way. A river frontage would be great too ….could be a showpiece.
I hope, when built, it will not be a mistake and the same problem arises in a few decades time…..but the Abbey was always ridden with ill luck regarding premises.

Hope they get a big noise to design it if thats the case…..and with no parochial nepotism either as we have seen in past.

Why stop at three?

Hawkins House, The Long Stone and McTurcails should go as well,

You need to think big,

It would be entirely feasable to construct a 7-8 storey square down there incoporating mixed uses and a Civic Space.

I do kind of agree with Greg F about the ‘insignificant’ location as being the reason for the Abbey’s failure to date. The existing Abbey is an excellent Theatre it is just too small and in one of the dodgier parts of town.

I think that the Abbey should be put out as a tender with the site open to the choice of the bidding consortia, it would be interesting to see what would emerge.

i too would love to see hawkins house knocked down. it is soooo ugly.

I hear that the OPW aren’t happy with any of the three sites. Whichever they chose will be a compromise.

What I’d love to know, though, is if the judge in the Carlton Cinema site is aware of the fact that the length of time he has taken to give the judgement (about six months now) has meant that one of the state’s most important cultural institutions has to go elsewhere….

That’s an idea about the GPO, indeed it’s interesting that so few, if any, proposals have ever been made about the idea of converting the GPO for an alternative use over the years.

The drawback of the Carlton site architecturally has always been the site limitations – there’s only so much you can do with infill.
To have a national institution that specifically moves to another site, only for it to be incorporated into a terrace is rather pointless from an architectural perpective, and from the point of incorporating a civic space around it, bringing it to life etc.

The Hawkins site has so much potential in this regard, esp having possibly 3 street frontages. It can stand for itself, and is also an area of the city that has such a quirky urban layout that could create impressive vistas of it, whilst also not impinging on the historic nature of the area in a way that some new builds can in more regular settings.

What do people make of the present Scott theatre. Was it purposely designed as a fortress given the area of town it’s in?
The ‘floating’ effect intended I don’t think works – not that the extention to the front helps – but overall think it is one of the most unpleasant buildings in the city, to the extent one wouldn’t even think it was architect designed. I’ve always tried to understand its design and to put it in context of being new and in good condition etc, but still cannot get round how it just looks like a giant public convenience.

They should put it beside the new conference centre, create a landmark location. A purpose built, architecturally magnificent building that would have the possibility of using its space on a commercial basis as an overflow for the conference centre. means i wouldn’t have to pay as much to see an overrated production of whichever ocasey/synge/friel tripe is currently playing in rotation.

Originally posted by Graham Hickey

What do people make of the present Scott theatre. Was it purposely designed as a fortress given the area of town it’s in?
The ‘floating’ effect intended I don’t think works – not that the extention to the front helps – but overall think it is one of the most unpleasant buildings in the city, to the extent one wouldn’t even think it was architect designed. I’ve always tried to understand its design and to put it in context of being new and in good condition etc, but still cannot get round how it just looks like a giant public convenience.

This building has always baffled me. Even years ago before I took any real interest in the built environment I remember it. It is so unussual that part of me likes it for that reason, but when I really think about it and its relationship to the street I cannot find much that pleases me about it. Also, as you say Graham, that tacked on extention really does it no favours at all.

My OPW sources say they have excluded two of the three shortlisted sites (Colaiste Mhuire and docklands) and are concentrating on Hawkins House. They need to buy some properties in the vicinity in order to extend the footprint, and are sussing that out. Neighbouring landowners are, as we speak, adding noughts to the value of their buildings…..

@Sue wrote:

My OPW sources say they have excluded two of the three shortlisted sites (Colaiste Mhuire and docklands) and are concentrating on Hawkins House. They need to buy some properties in the vicinity in order to extend the footprint, and are sussing that out. Neighbouring landowners are, as we speak, adding noughts to the value of their buildings…..

That’s strange Sue, I’m not sure I would rely on your sources. For example, it’s not true that docklands was one of the three shortlisted options.
😉

So its either Colaiste Mhuire or Hawkins House according to the Irish Times today.

I’d prefer Hawkins House but I fear the vacant and decaying school has the edge. Will the Theatre be enough of a magnet to invigorate that entire corner of Parnell Square?
I mean, where on earth would one go for a pint after the show?

Anyone know what are the plans for the development of the Rotunda hospital?

Full article:

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Mr O’Donoghue, is to ask the Cabinet to approve a new Dublin site for the Abbey Theatre within a matter of weeks.

The Minister is currently studying two sites, Hawkins House – the home of the Department of Health which was once the site of the Theatre Royal – and Coláiste Mhuire, a former school, on Parnell Square.

A third site at Infirmary Road has been ruled out because it is perceived to be too far from the the city centre. Another possibility, the former Carlton Cinema site in O’Connell Street, has been dropped because of a legal dispute over ownership.

A spokesman for Mr O’Donoghue insisted last night that no decision on the two final sites had yet been made, but the Minister was particularly keen to resolve the issue before Christmas, allowing the decision on the future of the Abbey to be taken in its centenary year.

The spokesman said appraisal of the two sites was still being carried out by the Office of Public Works which was looking at the “commercial sensitivities” of the Coláiste Mhuire site. The spokesman explained that commercial sensitivities was a reference to the fact that “not all of the site at Parnell Square is in public ownership”. But he added that whichever site emerged from the process is to be brought to Cabinet by Mr O’Donoghue “within weeks”.

While the Coláiste Mhuire site has the advantage of retaining the Abbey Theatre within the north inner-city – in the constituency of the Taoiseach, Mr Ahern – the five publicly owned Georgian houses on the site are listed for preservation in the Dublin City Development Plan. To move the Abbey successfully to the site would represent an architectural challenge, but not an insurmountable one.

Coláiste Mhuire has the advantage of being on Parnell Square where the Gate Theatre, the Ambassador Cinema, the Dublin Writers’ Museum, and the Hugh Lane Municipal Gallery are already housed. The National Wax Museum is around the corner in Granby Row. The establishment of the Abbey Theatre on the square would be a major boost for Dublin City Council’s hopes to expand the cultural range of facilities in the north city.

Against this, Hawkins House has regularly featured in various lists of Dublin’s worst buildings. The Tánaiste and Minister for Health, Ms Harney, remarked on taking up office there recently that half the windows wouldn’t open while the other half wouldn’t close. Its city centre location and association with the Theatre Royal are seen as positive elements.

The Government initially decided to redevelop the Abbey on its existing site and turned down the offer of a new site in the docklands. However, the existing site is not large enough and acquiring additional properties would be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming.

@vinnyfitz wrote:

I mean, where on earth would one go for a pint after the show?

Joxer Dalys or the Waxies Dargle. You can try out your cod Sean O’Casey Dublin accents on the salt of the earth in these fine establishments. I’m sure you will be received with open arms.

Yesterday’s Sunday Times said that Colaiste Mhuire had been chosen.

Sunday Times – November 14, 2004
Abbey gets Parnell Sq school site
John Burns and Siobhan Maguire
A FORMER Christian Brothers college on Parnell Square in Dublin is set to be unveiled as the new home of the Abbey theatre.
Colaiste Mhuire, one of the city’s best-known Irish language schools, was abandoned last year because of its dilapidated state and has since been handed over to the government as part of the child abuse redress scheme.
The Office of Public Works is understood to be buying up an adjoining building to make the site big enough for a new national theatre. A major international architectural competition will be organised to decide who designs it.
John O’Donoghue, the arts minister, is aiming to secure cabinet agreement on a new site for the Abbey before the end of its centenary year, which expires on December 28. Its current premises is inadequate, and it is too expensive to rebuild the theatre on site.
Colaiste Mhuire has been chosen from a shortlist of three city-centre locations, which included Hawkins House, a hideous office block near Trinity College. All three sites were in public ownership.
One of the factors that swayed it for Parnell Square is the number of cultural institutions in the area. The National Wax Museum, the Hugh Lane Gallery and the Irish Writers’ Centre are all neighbours, while the Garden of Remembrance is across the road and the Gate and the Ambassador theatres are at the opposite corner of Parnell Square.
The facade of the five Georgian buildings is listed, and planners expect that the new grand entrance to the theatre will be on Granby Row, beside the wax museum. There is already a 1960s theatre on the site.
A planning official said: “There is no design as yet, so there is no entrance or configuration for the building. They have a site which they own, and it has the capacity to take the Abbey, so they are simply saying ‘Let’s have this as the preferred site’. That’s not to say they won’t run into planning or practical difficulties — it isn’t going to be easy.
“Dublin city council has serious ambitions to upgrade Parnell Square and clearly a building of the stature of the national theatre would contribute greatly to that ambition.”
The interiors of the five Georgian buildings are listed, so knocking down internal walls or removing ceilings will not be allowed, setting a huge challenge for the architects. The new national theatre will need two auditoriums, a rehearsal space, a restaurant/bar, an education facility and an archive.
“The floor space is there, and an auditorium; it fits,” said the official. “Putting a national theatre there is not impossible, it can be done.”
The saga of the Abbey theatre’s new home has been tortuous. The current building suffers from serious defects, such as having no link between the Abbey stage and the Peacock, the experimental theatre in the basement. There are also acoustic problems.
In 2002, the cabinet decided to redevelop the Abbey on its present site, and turned down the offer of a space in Dublin’s docklands. The Abbey’s board had favoured a move down-river, and out of Bertie Ahern’s constituency.
An expert group later concluded that the existing site was not big enough to solve the theatre’s accommodation problems. Adjacent properties needed to be bought in order to allow the theatre to stay there.
A study by the OPW concluded that persuading 20 neighbouring property owners to sell to the state would take too long and be too expensive. Rebuilding the Abbey theatre on its current site would have cost €50m, O’Donoghue said recently.
Earlier this year his officials selected the Carlton cinema site on O’Connell Street as the best new location. Dublin city council was compulsorily purchasing the site, and the department hoped a court challenge from the owners would be speedily resolved. But judgment is still pending, and O’Donoghue’s officials decided to look at other options.
A further attraction of the Colaiste Mhuire site is that it is in the electoral constituency of Bertie Ahern, the taoiseach, who has made it clear he wants the national theatre to remain in Dublin’s north inner city.
One of the oldest Irish language schools in the country, Colaiste Mhuire is the alma mater of Brian Farrell, the broadcaster, and Alan Dukes, the former Fine Gael leader. The buildings were taken over by the Christian Brothers in the 1930s.
The new Abbey theatre will probably be built as a public- private partnership (PPP), although O’Donoghue recently indicated a measure of frustration with such projects. He described PPPs as a demanding, complex and time-consuming procedure.

I think it would be a great pity to go ahead with the Colaiste Mhuire site..particularly as the “grand enterance” to the theatre would probably be facing on to Granby Row. Parnell Square does have the potential to become a significant cultural axis but locating the Abbey in the Colaiste Mhuire building would do it a dis-service.

I also agree that the GPO would make a splendid location…it’s grossly under used as a post office! If logistics mean a theatre is’nt possible consideration should be given to locating a museum there.

While bearing other sites in mind, the cabinet should continue to look at the Carlton site. If the theatre’s uses were expanded developing the theatre there could give O’Connell Street a cultural anchor and increase footfall on the northern half of the street.

Well heres to the Parnell Square Move! It bodes good for the Square and the vicinity – it needs it!

As much as the Hawkins site is desirable, you can’t help but feel the Parnell site is equally so, as part of the ‘cultural quarter’ up there. It would certainly do wonders for the long-neglected square, but equally so for Hawkins – and certainly from an archetectural viewpoint the latter is far superior. It’s a toss-up really.

The site on Parnell Square is one of the most unique places in Georgian Dublin and I hope that the area won’t be ‘plazafied’ in any major way. Like no other place in the north Georgian city, you really appreciate up on that corner how the suburbs were just planted on top of a hill, over-looking the old town, and the vast expanse of roadway at this corner distinctly sweeping upwards and round to Palace Row is just wonderful – the place has barely been tamed. I’d hate to see a public plaza of clinical granite swallowing this up.
Likewise the stone doorcase set into one of two bow windows of the property is equally unique, and there’s even very few bows so publicly on display in Dublin too.
There’s just a lovely untouched feeling to this area, and sense of calm that would be terrible to lose – so whereas the buildings are protected in this scheme, one hopes the streetscape will be too.

The national theatre skulking in the back gardens of a terrace of pretty average houses? GUBU!

I also agree. I think it will do absolutely nothing to bring new audiences to the theatre. It’s all well and good talking about a cultural quarter but the existence of Hugh Lane, Dublin Writer’s Museum, the Gate and the Wax Museum have already failed to bring any great vitality to this area – why would the new Abbey change the trend of a generation? Some other use could easily be found for those fine buildings.
I feel that jamming cultural institutions into ill-suited spaces (IMMA, Collins Barracks, the forced changes to the National Gallery), has been a failure in many ways.
It would make more sense for the Dept of Health to move up to the Mhuire and take this opportunity to get rid of Hawkins House and get a genuine landmark building in its place.
Personally, I’d love to see the majority of buildings in that Hawkins St area, Apollo House, Hawkins House, the Screen cinema levelled to make way for a National Theatre, a rebuilt Screen cinema, and so on.
There is so much emphasis put on the rejuvenation of the Docklands and the Smithfield area that it’s forgotten that just a hundred yards from Westmoreland Street, there is an area literally dying on its feet, including at least a half-dozen derelict shops (along Tara Street) as well as the highest percentage of bad architecture (apart from Ballsbridge) in the city.

kefu, i don’t agree that the IMMA has been a failure in many ways, I have always found it a fine gallery and a good use for the building. i also like the forced change to the NGI, having the ballroom in the middle of the restaurant is such fun.

Don’t get me wrong – I like IMMA. But every time I visit, I find myself one of a handful of people in the place.
Visitor numbers there are around 300,000 a year – less than 850 people a day, free of charge, and including people who only go up for a cup of coffee.
As a for instance, here’s what IMMA’s own curator had to say about it in one interview in the Irish Times: “I knew that we could do with more money, obviously. But I like the building: the architecture is wonderful, though there are limitations. It has its peculiarities. The lack of a large room, for example. And the difficulty of moving things around – it’s not very high-tech from a practical point of view. But then the nature of the space allows us to keep several things going at once, and that is really what I wanted to do.”
If he’s saying that in public, imagine what he thinks in private. Imagine trying to fit a really large work by Claes Oldenburg or Alexander Calder in IMMA. It’s very limiting.
Collins Barracks suffers some low footfall as well but I hear things have picked up since the Luas line opened.

Well thought out, the Abbey could be very successful at Parnell Square. With such gravitas that the Abbey could bring to the square, more restaurants will inevitably open – the Gate does bring crowds, but not in sufficient numbers to make more quality restaurants viable. Given the structure of Cholaiste Mhuire, its protected rooms could be used as exhibition rooms, cafes, book-shops etc, rather than making the theatre a stand alone operation, this would make it more viable than at present. The building has some very fine features – the staircase at its side entrance is particularly fine.
I hope this will broaden the renaissance of the north city beyond O’Connell Street – more importantly, the ‘city’ is too small at present, and the main attractions should be spread out beyond a few streets. Moving to Parnell Square loosens the congested nature of Dublins main attractions – ie too many in too small an area.

Lots more detail in the rest of the article. Hawkins House – as we knew – and Infirmary Rd! which would be an appaling prospect were the other two short listed options.

O’Donoghue seems to have made no reference at all to O’Connell St.

He says he does not have the power to CPO no 1 Granby Row so he wants to see if the OPW could develop the site without the corner. Seems like the IT is facilitating negotiation by megaphone between the Minister and the vendors.

I wonder will the new theatre be fully designed by the OPW or will it be the subject of a competition once a site is eventually acquired?

@vinnyfitz wrote:

Lots more detail in the rest of the article. Hawkins House – as we knew – and Infirmary Rd! which would be an appaling prospect were the other two short listed options.

O’Donoghue seems to have made no reference at all to O’Connell St.

He says he does not have the power to CPO no 1 Granby Row so he wants to see if the OPW could develop the site without the corner. Seems like the IT is facilitating negotiation by megaphone between the Minister and the vendors.

I wonder will the new theatre be fully designed by the OPW or will it be the subject of a competition once a site is eventually acquired?

I read the article during the week and I have to say I was shocked by the value claimed by the vendors, my own estimate of value was 1.65m adopting a generous scenario.

I really think it should be back to the drawing board on this one as far as site selection goes, personally I favour Hawkins House or even an acquisition of College House and the Screen Cinema on Townsend St as it would give a much higher profile. The base line is the Minister was right to walk away from Granby Court but the City needs its National Theatre, I like the idea of Hawkins House going but it would suffer from exactly the same problem as the existing one does, it would have zero profile, where would you get a view from?

Finally some info on what seems to be happening with the Abbey saga.. I think the article’s conclusion that it would be better to await progress on the carlton site is the right one..if this is to be a signature building left to Dublin for many years after we should be sure we are making the right choices. The OPW concept of a tunnel entrance to the Cloaiste Mhuire site sounds bizzare to say the least..

The other interesting point the article raises is the future of Parnell Square. I think it has lots of potential but would like to see the current sculpture of the Children of Lir and poem incorporated somehow..

Interested to hear your thoughts!

What really matters is getting it right for the Abbey

The Government should not be rushed into relocating the Abbey Theatre at the north end of Parnell Square, writes Frank McDonald, Environment Editor.
The public may well owe a debt of gratitude to the two property owners who are holding out for a king’s ransom by the State to acquire their share of a building off Parnell Square. For this is almost certainly not the right location for a national theatre. The only reason it is being considered at all is that Coláiste Mhuire has fallen into the State’s hands. It happens to be one of a number of properties transferred to public ownership under the controversial 2002 agreement with religious orders to deal with compensation claims by survivors of abuse.

The former Irish-speaking Christian Brothers’ school consists of five Georgian houses, with more recent extensions to the rear, including a 1960s assembly hall (Amharclann Coláiste Mhuire). Though altered internally over the years, all five houses are protected structures, both inside and out.

So is No. 1 Granby Row, a three-storey, mid-19th-century building currently trading as Parnell Court, a business centre with five units. Last Wednesday, it was reported that negotiations on its acquisition by the State had broken down because some of its owners wanted too high a price.

The Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Mr O’Donoghue, regretfully conceded that he was therefore not in a position to announce a new location for the Abbey before the end of this, its centenary year – as he had repeatedly promised. Now, with 10 days to go, his self-imposed deadline will be missed.

But why the rush?

Sure, the Government pledged several years ago that the National Theatre would be redeveloped. That was before it became apparent that sufficient property could be acquired in and around Abbey Street to create the larger “footprint” which the theatre has really always needed.

The dream was to extend southwards to Eden Quay, to give the Abbey a new frontage on the River Liffey. But, in the absence of compulsory purchase powers for purely cultural projects, adjoining property owners could name their price and the State might have to pay much more than market value.

Then the Abbey made the mistake of flirting with the notion of relocating to the Grand Canal Docks, on the south side of the river just a stone’s throw from Dublin 4. The Taoiseach was reportedly furious, not least because the theatre would be evacuating his constituency, and the idea was quickly dropped.

The Carlton site on O’Connell Street offered a more tantalising prospect.

In December 2001, despairing that it would ever be developed by its current owners, Dublin City Council issued a compulsory purchase order for the former cinema and adjoining properties, one of which has been derelict for almost 25 years.

When this order was challenged by the Carlton Group, the case was heard on a priority basis last spring by the President of the High Court, Mr Justice Finnegan.

After a lengthy hearing, during the course of which one of the plaintiffs (Richard Quirke) withdrew, he reserved judgment on March 5th last.

Nine months later, Mr Justice Finnegan has yet to deliver his judgment on the continuing challenge by Paul Clinton, an architect and project manager for the Carlton Group, who claims that he is the beneficial owner of some of its properties. The latest news is that the judgment might be delivered next month.

As a result of this lengthy delay and the possibility of an appeal to the Supreme Court, the city council was unable to give Mr O’Donoghue an assurance that the matter would be resolved any time soon. So the Minister felt he had no option but to exclude the Carlton site from further consideration.

Attention then switched to the site of Hawkins House on Poolbeg Street, where the Theatre Royal once stood, and to Coláiste Mhuire. Another proposal to relocate the Abbey to a State-owned site at Infirmary Road was ruled out because it was seen – quite rightly – as being too remote from the city-centre.

Yet the Coláiste Mhuire site is fraught with difficulty, not least the fact that it is fronted entirely by protected structures – including No. 1 Granby Row. The school’s former buildings also perform an important role in flanking the Hugh Lane Gallery in Charlemont House, as does the Georgian terrace to the east.

How then can the site accommodate a “signature building”, which is what the Minister has said he wants, without demolishing or drastically altering the existing buildings?

Or would the Abbey be left lurking behind retained Georgian façades? Either way, it would be less than satisfactory.

It could be argued that relocating the theatre to Parnell Square would fit in with emerging plans to develop it as a “cultural cluster”. The €12 million Hugh Lane extension, due to open in early 2006, is the first phase of a much bolder plan which might even see the Central Library relocating to the Ambassador. Given that Parnell Square is partially built-up, the idea is to reconfigure it as “a square within a square” – along the lines of Front Square in Trinity.

The very dead Garden of Remembrance would be one of the casualties, which should prompt a debate about how the centenary of 1916 might best be marked.

One of the more bizarre elements of the Office of Public Works’ scheme for a new Abbey on the Coláiste Mhuire site is that it would be approached by a “pedestrian underpass” (a tunnel, in plain language) from within the reconfigured square.

That, in itself, also casts doubt on whether the site is really suitable.

Instead of rushing into the wrong outcome, Mr O’Donoghue should wait to see how the Carlton row is resolved. Or the Abbey might pursue a more modest plan to extend its backstage area to the site of two adjoining unlisted buildings and acquire and redevelop the nearby health studio as a new Peacock.

Much of which is reflected by Michael Ross this week:

The Sunday Times – January 2nd 2005

On the face of it, five Georgian houses, their interiors and exteriors listed for protection, constitute an unlikely place to install a national theatre. When the houses are on one of the more forbidding sides of Dublin’s Parnell Square, it might seem all the more unlikely.

Yet all that stood between the arts minister John O’Donoghue and the announcement of the Abbey theatre’s move to the Colaiste Mhuire site on Parnell Square was the intransigence of two owners of an adjoining property that the state wants to acquire for the theatre. Collaterally, they have done the public a service by stalling and possibly scuppering a peculiar and potentially disasterous move.

Colaiste Mhuire, formerly a Christian Brothers school, passed into state ownership two years ago as part of the compensation arrangement with religious orders in relation to abuse survivors. Although the former Carlton Cinema site nearby on O’Connell Street was preferred, its acquisition became mired in legal dispute. A site on Infirmary Road was rejected because of its distance from the city centre. For a minister in a rush to meet his self-imposed deadline to announce the new Abbey site by the end of the theatre’s centenary year, Colaiste Mhuire was a convenient option.

No projected costs were announced for the move, no architectural treatments were sketched out, no public debate about the suitability of the site was engaged in, much less a long overdue debate about the role of the national theatre. The plan dovetailed with plans to splurge $500 million on refurbishing O’Connell Street and Parnell Square: the Abbey promised to be a vital cultural anchor in what has stubbornly remained after dark, despite the nearby presence of the Gate theatre and the Hugh Lane gallery, one of the north inner city’s more menacing boonies.

Had it all come off as intended, thereby creating a critical cultural mass, the spending of tens of millions of euros on a private society without public debate might be less of an issue. However, as O’Donoghue beavered away to meet his arbitary deadline, potentially better alternatives were not even debated.

A move across the Liffey to the Hawkins House site is the no-brainer. The Department of Health building there is possibly the city’s worst; the landscape would be greatly enhanced by its removal, and would allow ample space for a national theatre. The civic-mindedness of The Irish Times might usefully be appealed to, in relation to the former Irish Press building on Burgh Quay, which it owns, the site of which would provide for a suitably magnificent waterfront home for the Abbey.

Even as the minister was working away to his wrong conclusion, other viable sites in the city centre came to the market, notably the Irish Independent building a few hundred metres up Abbey Street from the national theatre, which sold to Arnotts 13 months ago for a modest €26m. Some might think that the landmark industrial building, with its uninterrupted floors that once housed vast printing presses, might be more suitable for a national theatre than a Georgian warren. Evidently the minister knows better.

Copyright: The Sunday Times

@Graham Hickey wrote:

The civic-mindedness of The Irish Times might usefully be appealed to, in relation to the former Irish Press building on Burgh Quay, which it owns, the site of which would provide for a suitably magnificent waterfront home for the Abbey.
Copyright: The Sunday Times

Does this guy even live in Dublin – the former Irish Press building was redeveloped over 3 years ago and is now the Immegration Bureau! Jeez talk about press accuracy :confused:

@Rory W wrote:

Does this guy even live in Dublin – the former Irish Press building was redeveloped over 3 years ago and is now the Immegration Bureau! Jeez talk about press accuracy :confused:

I think where the confusion crept in is the former ‘Irish Times Magazine’ offices in the Corn Exchange Buildings beside the newer immigration Bureau, which has a fantastic facade, I never been in it but I think that it is only a facade retention. Where his accuracy is poor is that one of Dublins poorest apartment complexes ‘Corn Exchange Court’ is in the position that would have been ideal for developing a theatre.

The biggest inaccuracy I’ve seen in a while was the statement that the proposed tower on the Player Wills scheme would have been taller than the Spike, well corrected.

The Irish Times used to own the Irish Press building before it sold it on – I think the guy just doesn’t know what he’s on about.

The Corn Exchange would have made an impressive theatre alright but is just facade retention as you said and I’d doubt you’d be able to kick out the 100 or so different owners of the apartments behind!

O’Donoghue had abit more to say about all this in the Sunday Times at the weekend. Interestingly, he raised the prospect of the GPO as a possible home for the Abbey. Smacked of desperation…. isn’t the building too shallow?

Once his department finds a suitable site, that signature building will be erected and will house the Abbey, the minister says. But, bizarrely in a city that has an abundance of derelict sites and unused buildings, the task of finding a site has so far defied O’Donoghue.

His officials now have a shortlist of three — Colaiste Mhuire on Parnell Square, the hideous Hawkins House (which would be razed and rebuilt) and Infirmary Road. Colaiste Mhuire should have been declared the winner in time for the Abbey’s 100th birthday, but the party was ruined by the refusal of businessmen who own part of the Parnell Square site to sell to the state at a “reasonable” price.

“People have to realise that while the state will do everything it possibly can to be reasonable, we cannot be unreasonable to the taxpayers,” says O’Donoghue. “We don’t have unlimited resources and we are not in the business of enriching people who happen to own property which we might require.

“It is unfortunate that I do not have any powers of compulsory acquisition, because if I did, it would be open to me to tell the owners of 1 Granby Row that if you won’t give it to me at the market value, well then I will take it at the the market value.”

So what is the next act in the Abbey drama? “We have two sites in the melting pot — Infirmary Road and Hawkins House, headquarters of the Department of Health, where there have been many great performances over the years,” he quips. “The Office of Public Works will look at the possibility of accommodating the Abbey theatre at the Colaiste Mhuire site, but I told them I am not interested unless we can accommodate the brief that we have.

“What is important is to get a site at market value. I’ve a feeling that it may well be possible for us to put our theatre at Hawkins House. There are other possibilities which could be looked at — such as the GPO. I haven’t even investigated it, but it definitely has more than the square footage that might be required.”

Can anyone access the full text of the Times article re the council renewing their efforts to locate the Abbey in the Carlton? I would be interested to hear more.. The GPO is an interesting idea but I think I’ve heard it said before that it’s too shallow alright. In any case it’s definitely wasted as a post office!

Aerial photo of the GPO attached.
Could they dig a hole in the courtyard and put the theatre in there?

That’s an interesting pic in that the GPO Arcade is much further west that I thought it was. There seems to be enough space as a result. Presumably this is why other people were thinking about the depth being a problem – the GPO is a really huge building, most people are amazed when they see it the first time from the air.

The Public Office also takes up less room than I thought, which in itself could make for a grand foyer. The shed bit sticking out the back could be knocked (although admittedly this is quite a chunk of the public office, with attractive windows)
The cross-block could easily be knocked if necessary.

Overall there seems to be just enough room for it, though measurements other than those made with fingers on a computor monitor may prove otherwise 🙂
It does seem a bit unambitious though to use the shroud of the GPO to house the ‘new’ Abbey – then again it is easily the most prominent building in the country, on the capital’s central street…

I don’t think the GPO is wasted as a post office – it gives the people ownership of the country’s most famous building, but certainly the vast expanse of sorting offices etc to the rear is a terrible waste of prime city centre land.

I agree that the GPO is lost in its present use.

It would be much better suited to use as a civic museum, – where the existing and now closed facility is a deplorable comment on the Corporation / Council and people of Dublin. Having had the pleasure of a view from the late lamented Pillar, it does indeed amaze you how large the GPO site was – well it used to accomodate the GPO facilities, the Department of Posts and Telegraphs HQ and the RTE studios in the way back when.

If you think changing the trees in O’C St caused controversy, then putting a theatre in a Gandon building would be fun to observe.

A period facade is about as much a link to heritage as the project needs, lets not forget that it is theatre that we’re talking about they bring their own culture to the table.

Personal experience leads me to believe that most Abbey level actors would prefer a bold contemporary statement architecturally than to be constrained by a heritage building. I’m not suggesting that we should bring in Frank Ghery but really the Carlton and the GPO, are we taking too much influence from the sentimental ‘oirish’ plays that pander to visiting tourists?

Definitely the Screen Cinema/ College House as the best option in terms of flexibility and location.

I think ownership of the GPO by the people can be retained while putting the building to other uses. It does’nt have to be put to a mundane use for the man on the street to feel he has an engagement with it. While having the building as a post office certainly draws people into it I think it would be preferable to have people interested and involved in the place for a more rewarding experience than posting letters.

But part of the job of the Abbey should be to open plays and drama to as many people as possible. I wonder how much people really experience the GPO rushing in on lunch breaks etc to buy stamps anyway..Accepting ony the elite will use a theatre venue is a bit defeatist..the Gaeity has a constant buzz from people using its cafe and bar as well. Other theatres double as art venues and sell the pictures on their walls. I think the Abbey needs to become a bit more inventive in general. While everything the Gaeity does might not be suitable for the GPO settling for having people just use the GPO to buy stamps just seems a bit underwhelming..

What about building a new Abbey on the site of the Garden of Remembrance?
Close Parnell Square North to traffic and turn it into a new park/public space including whatever features considered worth retaining (the Children of Lir statue). It would turn it into a Square of Remembrance, facing on to Hugh Lane.
The Colaiste Mhuire site could then be sold for residential development with a stipulation that the ground floors would have to hold a restaurant/cafe/and pub etc.
That way, we would could address the serious failings of the Garden of Remembrance, not squeeze the Abbey into ill-fitting surrounds, regenerate Upper O’Connell Street/Parnell Square, and it wouldn’t cost much at all.
All of the sites concerned are in public ownership and the only road closure would involve a little used road, which with a ibt of imagination would not be missed. A chunk of the development could also be funded from the sale of Colaiste Mhuire.

it must be too small, no?

Certainly an idea if it fits – as to the impact on the square at large I don’t know. Could have a positive effect though considering how built up the square is now – it’s not quite a square, not quite three streets, just in between. A new building could acknowledge that the square formation is gone now, and reshape the northern end into a more acceptable form. As it stands there’s no decent views of Charlemont House and terrace anyway.

As for the GPO I think a post office is the most civic use applicable to any building – although yes, its architecture isn’t exactly commensurate to its use (would be in other countries). But this is part of its charm, that people swarm in and out of the building around the bases of its reassuringly huge columns all day long, most never paying any attention to it. It’s just always there, a big clunky comforting lump that everyone loves even for all its faults, and a place everyone has the opportunity to use. What I’ve always felt about it anyways…

customs house?

Four Courts?
Bank of Ireland?
College of Surgeons?
Trinity?
The Abbey site? – about to be vacated soon apparently 🙂

This is probably a stupid idea as I know nothing about the size of buidling required, but would the Bolands Mill site work (retain shell and place theatre inside)? With all the regen in that area…

That sounds like a very good idea burge-eye,
except that a developer paid 42m for the site or 46m including stamp duty & legal, so if O’Donaghue wouldn’t pay over the odds in Granby Row I’d say there is little chance of him forking out the say 60m the developer would require.

But if it were a competition to find the best site in Dublin that possibly could be it the views would be just amazing

I know I keep repeating myself on the Screen/College House option, but if the state were to acquire the site, they could then build a unified proposal of say five storeys on the Screen site of say two stories (one c/w double mezzanine height for the theatre space) of leisure and three offices to the front and allow a higher site coverage over say ten stories (that already exist) to the rear. It would cost but no-where near as much as most City Centre locations.

I also like the idea of the Abbey as a touring venue, with say the relocated NCH acting as its Dublin Home in Summer time possibly?

@burge_eye wrote:

This is probably a stupid idea as I know nothing about the size of buidling required, but would the Bolands Mill site work (retain shell and place theatre inside)? With all the regen in that area…

Considering the DDDA offered the Abbey a site in the Grand Canal Harbour development for free and it was turned down (Taoiseach doesn’t want it to leave the Northside) its anon runner I’m afraid.

Wonder what cultural element is going in its stead (that part of the site is designated cultural)?

Is that the Liebeskind theatre that was the Abbey’s replacement for down there or is that separate altogether?

@TLM wrote:

Is that the Liebeskind theatre that was the Abbey’s replacement for down there or is that separate altogether?

I think that’s it alright – is it a theatre or a concert venue or a art space?

I think it’s a theatre and concert venue for big shows like Cats, Miss Saigon and all that kind of stuff.. I saw a picture of it but it was pretty hard to visualise how it would look from the drawing. I think there is a 5 star hotel planned for the adjoining site..it’s sort of based on a mixture of the cliffs of moher and the giants causeway..looked like an interesting design.

Something I find interestimg and little commented on about this whole saga is that of the three buildings shortlisted to hold the theatre – Hawkins House, Collaiste Mhuire and Infirmary Road:
Hawkins House – subject to removal of Health Dept and now it seems to be swapped for land elsewhere
Infirmary Rd – I have just heard is AGREED as the site for the new Courts Service offices along with some of Dept Defences lands.
So when exactly were all these buildings in the running because it would seems their future was planned some time ago.

Also been some comment here about the inability of the Hawkins House site to make any statement, ie not having a river frontage. I think there is so much space available here that any architecture worth his salt could design a scheme which gave the building a real sense of presence. Why not face onto a piazza on Townsend St. In fact why not do away with this section of Townsend St completly.
Anyway it would that the Carlton site is being pushed very strongly and the wind may well be blowing in its favour. Court decision due this month.

@Irish Times courtesy of Designs soon to be invited for Abbey in Docklands
From:ireland.com
Monday, 5th September, 2005

This is entirely premature before the option of extending the Abbey onto Eden Quay has been exhausted. With all due respect to Dermot Desmond and his exceptional business acumen one must wonder at times; who is running this country

get it onto o’connell street. create a cafe, restaurant, book shop to bring people in (footfall) make it opena nd attarctive as opposed to a closed theatre during the day.

If the Docklands gets go ahead i hope it’s a democratic and welcoming addition to an area that feels like the preserve of people, who have more interest in golf and hard dough than Brecht or O’Casey. I wonder what Yeats would make of it?

I remember the security guard in the IFSC they used to call ‘robogaurd’ he was a complete psycho when Lower Mayor Street was under cranes he’d jump out in front of tipper trucks stopping them to scream at them there was a three ton limit on Georges Dock and if he ever saw them again……..

The Home of the Abbey is the Street the institution is named after. Until a full appraisal has been carried out including the buildings to the front on Eden Quay this option cannot be considered. It is entirely premature.

Because this proposal will have no residential element it falls outside the Section 25 regime; this move will directly undermine the rates base in Lower Abbey St, Marlborough St and Eden Quay. The deciding authority is Dublin City Council whose very rates base is being undermined. The proposed development location is a protected structure listed at entry 3206 in the Record of Protected Structures,

@Thomond Park wrote:

I remember the security guard in the IFSC they used to call ‘robogaurd’ he was a complete psycho when Lower Mayor Street was under cranes he’d jump out in front of tipper trucks stopping them to scream at them there was a three ton limit on Georges Dock and if he ever saw them again……..

Or the security guard in Meeting House Square who once told us not to move the benches with wheels? When we explained that the wheels were there to allow the beches to be moved, he told us to put the benches back in their original positions when we were finished… 🙂

(Apologies for off-topic reminiscence.)

Can someone please explain this to me the Government want to build the National Theatre in the middle of a lake that used to be a British Military base. Yeats would be turning in his grave; it could only be proposed by a Kerryman.

Will Dermot Desmond ask for his name somewhere. Honestly, this theatres needs to be in the city, not on a business campus. this is art, it is theatre. Its for Irish people. Put it in the city centre. This is about real life, not a vanity project for billionaires. And Bank CEO’s. And foolish old vain men in general. Give it back to the young and the vibrant. To the streets.

Really good overview of recent history in this article by Emer O’Kelly from last weekend’s Sunday Independent

Wherefore art thou Abbey Theatre?

THE Abbey Theatre is currently in a state of chassis, to take Sean O’Casey’s immortal words in vain. It’s closed, and the interior has been ripped out. When it opens again on April 10, three quarters of a million euro will have been spent on a new configuration for the auditorium. And there is very little doubt that the money will have been very well spent . . . in the short term.

Anyone who goes to the theatre in Ireland knows that the Abbey building is a theatrical disaster. Its stark modernist frontage was already out of date when it was built and opened in 1966. (It had been designed more than 10 years earlier, but as with most things cultural in Ireland, building it had been put on the long finger.)

But it’s the interior of the theatre which has always been the sticking point: a fan-shaped auditorium that prevents any intimacy between the audience and what is happening on stage, lousy acoustics with several spots where you hear almost nothing, a deadness at stage front which forces actors to strain to project their voices, frequently damaging them seriously. And woefully inadequate technical facilities and backstage accommodation.

So the promise of a new building for the centenary of the National Theatre Society in 2004 wasn’t an extravagant gift to the theatre-going population of Ireland; it was long overdue when the promise was made during the Millennium celebrations.

But we’re still waiting, seven years down the line. The promise was first made to us by the last Minister for Arts, Sile de Valera. She expressed a preference for building the new theatre on the site of the current building, which in turn replaced the theatre burned down in 1951.

The then Artistic Director of the Abbey, Patrick Mason, agreed with her. He was already on the record with a passionate plea for the continuation of tradition and history, as well as pointing out practical concerns like the central location and the impending arrival of one of the Luas lines.

Consultations began. Properties around the current building were available (and have been since). But the word was out, it seems, and the projected prices started to rise. The government couldn’t be held to ransom, we were told. Back to square one.

The Taoiseach was lobbied, and met the interested parties. He seemed to accept the necessity of keeping the theatre on the original site. Nothing happened. Then the new Artistic Director at the Abbey, Ben Barnes, stated that he was in favour of a greenfield site, a greenfield site having been made available “free of charge” in a development along the south bank of the Liffey basin. That was the terminology used: effectively, the proposal was to move the National Theatre out close to Ringsend.

The Taoiseach was annoyed that, having been lobbied, and having agreed in principle to the theatre remaining in Marlborough Street, his time had been taken up to no good purpose.

Back to minus square one, with costs rising all the time, and the centenary of the Old Lady of Marlborough Street approaching. Whispering got louder, of political jockeying: “Bertie” wasn’t going to see a major cultural institution moved out of his constituency; it was a matter of territory, even though he couldn’t care less about any kind of theatre. (I quote the gossips, not Mr Ahern himself.)

Well, there was another site, and it was in Mr Ahern’s constituency: the old Carlton cinema in O’Connell Street, together with the more or less derelict buildings behind it.

Not entirely unsuitable, was the verdict among those whose interest was theatre, rather than personal vendetta or empire-building. The political powers seemed to favour it, as did the City Council who saw such a positioning of a major institution as a much-needed boost for the tourist potential of the about-to-be-revamped O’Connell Street of the fast-food honky-tonks. Once again, other concerns were coming before the welfare and future of Irishtheatre.

But the freeholds were in a mess, it turned out, and the site would not become available in the foreseeable future. Back to minus square two.

There was a brief frisson about the Parnell Square site of Colaiste Mhuire. Not bad, mused the theatre-going public. Central, and the idea of the city’s two major theatres being close neighbours would be attractive, with the addition of the gracious cultural partner of the Hugh Lane Gallery creating a nice little cultural district, again a boost for the north city.

Aw, but there was a small property in private hands in the middle of the proposed site. Once again, official jaws were set; nobody was going to get rich on the backs of the Irish government. (The price reputed to be asked for the site would now buy two decent suburban houses, or would have provided a few lavatories in the newly gold-plated Croke Park.)

Then the property developer Dermot Desmond donned his pink taffeta frock with the green sash and decided to come to the ball. He offered a site at George’s Dock. The George’s Dock development is financial, glamorous, and glass-bound. But it’s anything but ideal. And perhaps significantly, Harvey Nichols, originally to move into the area, decided against siting a store there.

However, it has apparently been decided upon as the site for the new Abbey Theatre. It’s set in stone; the debate is over.

In its favour is the fact that the current Abbey Artistic Director, Fiach Mac Conghail, feels he (or his successor) can make it work, with three stage spaces and all facilities available on site. He has been assured by all parties involved, including Government and the Docklands Development Authority, that the new theatre will be up and running in five years. Privately, he is known to believe that this is distinctly optimistic.

And he has felt it necessary to spend three quarters of a million on reconfiguring the auditorium in the interim. He has already overseen a major modernisation and overhaul of the above-stage system known as the flies, so that lighting and sound equipment as well as complex sets, can be “flown” on and off stage. That refurbishment has already been seen to extraordinary advantage in the recent production of Julius Caesar which featured a splendid set by Jon Bausor. And with the international theatre design consultant Jan-Guy Lecat working with architect John Keogan on the new auditorium, things there will probably have improved spectacularly when audiences come back on April 10.

The money is not going down the drain; but it should be. It should be a total waste, because the new Abbey Theatre should be close to completion already. We were, remember, promised it for 2004. And the international design competition for the new building is not evenunder way.

Fiach Mac Conghail is doing an impressive job at the Abbey, and it’s part of his brief to be optimistic. I, on the other hand, am profoundly pessimistic. I don’t believe that the new Abbey Theatre will be completed in my lifetime, because once again we have talked ourselves hoarse and consulted ourselves to death because we’re such a “culturally aware” nation.

The only thing we’re not is a culturally active nation: as in building the damn thing.

http://www.dublinpeople.com/content/view/1094/57/

The widow of a Dublin architect is hoping to have her late husband’s wishes fulfilled by having a number of granite blocks he saved from the old Abbey Theatre incorporated into the new building.
In 1951 a huge fire eventually led to the famous theatre’s closure and ultimate demolition 10 years later.
Former Dublin city architect and theatre lover, Daithí Hanly, took it upon himself to save the original granite blocks from being dumped by the contractors who were demolishing the last remnants of the old building.
At his own expense, he had the entire facade removed stone by stone and transported in lorries to his home.