Demolition of the Abbey Theatre
- This topic has 16 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 11 months ago by Anonymous.
September 5, 2005 at 8:42 pm #708109
September 6, 2005 at 3:18 pm #761199dc3Participant
A good, if somewhat reverential, illustrated lecture, on Scott with the extra interest of persons who had known him in the relatively small audience.
His daughter, present for the lecture, is finishing a documentary on Michael Scott, likely to be shown on RTE next January so keep your eyes peeled for that.
September 6, 2005 at 10:35 pm #761200AnonymousInactive
The issue of the Abbey Theatre was some what side steped. The building recieved the RIAI medal, yet no one stoped it from being “basterised” in the words of Shane O’Toole in the 1980, nor is there a word of protest at sugestions to demolish it. I think this raises serious questions for the RIAI, in that fashion seemed to dictate the abbey winning an award.
September 6, 2005 at 10:48 pm #761201
The Abbey didn’t receive the RIAI Gold Medal – though it may have received a lesser award.
Interesting point though – if they leave, it will surely be up for demolition. What’s the reaction to the demolition of the current theatre?
September 6, 2005 at 11:39 pm #761202
If the Abbey Theatre moves to a new home in Dublin, the current site is likely to be redeveloped. How would you feel about the current building, completed in 1966, by Michael Scott and Partners (now Scott Tallon Walker) being demolished?
September 7, 2005 at 12:02 am #761203
All the options for the retention or relocation of the Abbey Theatre will be discussed at 830pm this Thursday at 830 at 15 St Stephens Green directly after the Frank McDonald and James Nix session at the Dubliner series.
Free tickets are available through:
I have a small number of tickets for the Abbey lecture should anyone wish to PM me.
September 7, 2005 at 1:36 pm #761204ctesiphonParticipant
Whether they stay or go, I’d be glad to see the back of it. Never been a fan, and I agree with Crestfield- looking back 20 or 30 years to seee what the RIAI thought worthy of awards (or just worthy of note) is very often an enlightening exercise. We’re a small country, and in some years or periods I just think we don’t necessarily produce buildings of sufficient quality (or sufficient buildings of quality) to justify the praise they receive. (Same goes for the AAI awards too, btw.)
One example I can think of is the 1980s telephone exchange building near the Stillorgan Park Hotel on the N11- don’t think it won an award, but I’ve seen it illustrated in more than one publication as an example of quality. Maybe because it has echoes of the Villa Savoye? :rolleyes:
September 7, 2005 at 6:32 pm #761205GrahamHParticipant
It seems that this ‘question’ has arisen because the building was designed by Michael Scott, and not because of the design of the structure itself.
If it was the hand of a less well known practice it would be bulldozed in the morning – and I’d be pulling the levers 🙂
It’s a terribly ugly structure now; what little austerity it had has been lost with the addition of the finiky yoke to the front, and even then it was still too much for a traditional city centre street.
If the Abbey was to be rebuilt on the site it would disappear anyway, so is it more the cultural associations, i.e. what has happened inside over the past 30 years that is making people think twice?
All the same it would be a shame to lose such a large public amenity to an office development and more retail.
I like the interior too.
September 7, 2005 at 6:36 pm #761206
It just occured to me to ask it as a poll – not keen on the exterior, more so since th excretion was added as a foyer, but quite like the auditorium interior.
September 8, 2005 at 3:24 am #761207
Personally I feel that preserving the location is much more important than preserving something done in the twilight years of Michael Scott’s career which in my analysis went seriously downhill after Busaras and the practice has not produced anything of note for a very long time.
A complete re-build is required utilising the air above Abbey St Old and the plots on Eden Quay.
15 Stephens Green 0830 pm
September 12, 2005 at 4:06 pm #761208
I have never been in the Peacock; if the theatre was saved as a venue and the silly portico removed, could the Peacock be cannabalized to give bar/box office/ circulation space?
September 12, 2005 at 5:18 pm #761209
There is a very substantial site which would allow the Peacock to survive a rebuild. I will scan the plots up later
September 12, 2005 at 5:28 pm #761210
what i was wondering was, if the abbey moved to georges dock, which it shouldn’t would it be possible to save the current abbey building as a theatre venue by using the space currently used by the peacock.
September 12, 2005 at 5:45 pm #761211
I’m sure it would end up as a Spar, Xtravision, Paddy Power and Uni-care with a few apartments tacked on for good measure.
September 12, 2005 at 9:21 pm #761212
September 12, 2005 at 9:34 pm #761213
September 12, 2005 at 11:18 pm #761214AnonymousInactive
@Paul Clerkin wrote:
not keen on the exterior, more so since the excretion was added as a foyer, but quite like the auditorium interior.
I would agree with the auditorium being worth while, yet I believe I’m in the minority as Shane O’Toole called the auditorium “unsuccessfull” and an RTE report a few months ago talked of how actors claim the Abbey is “synonomus” with having no atmoshere. The report gave no sources, in case it led to claims of bad acting rather then bad architecture presumibly 😀 But seriously, I cant concur with these claims, in my opinioin the Gaiety and Olympia may have character but as regards comfort and being able to see the stage the Abbey is the best auditorium in the city. As a frequent patrone of the theatre I cant say that there is no atmosphere either.
Why cant our national theatre have three stages and not just two?, or rent one to off set some costs. Maybe considering we have a city council funded library and art gallery we could have city theatre?
The building as it is is nothing great, actually its awful. I’m to young to have seen seen the original design but photographs make it appear quite exciting and radical, although most photos arnt taken in context, rather just of the building.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.