bhowells

I have been to twenty theatres in the West End. Obviously most West End theatre buildings are very old, but I wonder how long can these buildings survive.
Sir Cameron has done an excellent job in refurbishing theatres such as the Prince Edward. However, The Lyric is very shabby, its in need of a good refurb, Sir Andrew I beleive was keen for the Lyric to be demolished at one time.

It would be a tragedy if we lost these great theatres, shabby some of them maybe but they all have character.

On the other hand it would be nice to see some new theatres being built in the West End.

I would be interested to hear comments from forum members who have visiited Broadway theatres, are some of their buidings in bad reapair as well.

CaptainWaggett

IMO very few of them are fit for purpose in their present state. Most have dreadful seating with not enough legroom and inadequate banking, not enough lavatories, and appalling provision for wheelchairs. Nice architecture but terrible places to see plays when you compare them to the excellent facilities to be found in the NT or the new Hampstead Theatre or plenty of new regional or refurbished regional theatres (such as the excellent Birmingham Hippodrome). As a theatregoer I wouldn't weep over many WE theatres - they certainly aren't where the best shows in London are to be found anyway. How many groundbreaking plays start out in WE theatres?

Gazza

I find the Broadway theatres totally devoid of character, you almost walk in straight from the street. IIRC, the Broadway theatres don't have the same planning restrictions on them as those in the West End.

Most of the London theatres are listed buildings and protected by English Heritage. They also sit in Westminster City Council's conservation area which has additional restrictions. This doesn't necessarily make it impossible to improve them but it does make it much more expensive. Lloyd Webber recently highlighted the fact that it would cost £15 million just to install air conditioning in Drury Lane because it's Grade I listed.

Some of the theatres are physically crumbling - the Palace and the Garrick are in a mess. Leg room is poor, disabled access is poor and some backstage areas are a joke. I was working at the Piccadilly (Grease) for a few days last year and you'd be astonished at the working conditions there. The wing space is so restricted, the Greased Lightning car is designed to fold up against the stage left wall when it's off.

There's a heady debate going on at the moment as to who should pay for all this. There's already a renovation charge added to tickets but it's a drop in the ocean. Public authorities say that public money shouldn't be spent on what is essentially a commercial operation. The theatre owners argue that they are the custodians of heritage buildings and that they are a national asset.

Seems like the only way for this to work is for a public-private partnership but no-one's offered to dig deep yet.

Gazza

You're absolutely right Captain, the only producer prepared to take a risk at the moment is Sonia Friedman - usually in the excellent Trafalgar Studios.

CaptainWaggett

Yes, the refurbishment of the old Whitehall was an excellent thing. There's a need for more small theatres like that and the Donmar and Venue that can take risks with new stuff. If only Cameron Mackintosh would get a move on with his promised Sondheim Theatre on Shaftesbury Avenue.

bhowells

I agree with you about the lavatories, I recently went to the Shaftsbury, there only appeared to be one lavotory,

narabdela

....and when I was last there it was blocked and overflowing.

A lot of these buildings are steeped in history and are of architectural interest, but they are no longer suitable for modern audiences or modern theatre companies. No amount of remodeling or refitting is going to render them "fit for purpose" either.

Windthrop

I think small theatres may be the answer for all but the most commercial of plays in the west end. The Arts Theatre is a good example. The west end really has become a side-show presenting fare calculated to embarrass all but the most naive of tourists. The genres of thriller and farce are largely absent and have been replaced by the musical. I was in London last week and got tickets for The Deep Blue Sea. A very acclaimed production on a strictly limited run at the Vaudeville with Greta Scacchi and they had already had to closed the upper circle and I got best seats in the dress circle for £17.50 each ! The stalls and circle were virtually deserted and it was friday evening. I actually went to the Arts for Haunted and found they had to close the circle there and relocated everyone to the stalls (which were still pretty sparse). I know it was a new play but it did have a TV name in it and an interesting sounding premise to the to it. If I was a playwrite with a new play I would consider avoiding the west end completely.

That's the joke that killed the Music Hall

dpgmel

Agree totally Gazza, it is a sad reflection that many theatres that only avery few years ago would of been home to plays now have to shoe musicals as this is what the "public/tourist" wants to see.

I'm thinking in particular of smallish venues such as : Duchess, Garrick, Queens, Ambassadors etc.

Very very sad.

orpheum

I have been to shows at Radio City Music Hall and it is the most marvellous building.Many Broadway theatres have been given big refurbishments in conjunction with sponsors such as Disney.So there are so marvellous buildings looking much the same as when they were built and very comfortable.

Welcome To Highbury The Home Of Football

CaptainWaggett

The economics of theatre production have changed enormously. I have no idea why, in the 1930s a show could run for 3 months and make money while now musicals can run for 2 years and still lose money but it seems to be the case. But I can't blame theatregoers for not wanting to pay full WE prices for new plays with unknown actors - I wouldn't myself and I go more or less every week (though rarely to the WE unless I can get a discount)